In a Guardian column on 25 Feb 19 Aditya Chakrabortty wrote an article about how Brexit was a plutocrats’ plot to enrich themselves even further. I realise that it’s the Guardian, but even by their standards this is nonsense on a motor scooter. My response grew too long for the comments so I’ve put it here:
Aditya, you write:
“Brexit was always a project driven by the right to enrich the right.”
This is utterly and completely wrong. It may be that the policy of remaining in the EU was stumbled on by accident – we are, after all, talking of the Tory Party here – why are those in the driving seat of the party embracing Bremain with enthusiasm? Why are big landowners and predatory developers so keen on remaining inside the EU project when it is demonstrably bad for the majority, for those of us not buffered by immense wealth?
I doubt that Brexit will enrich the Right but I’m certain that the status quo is making a lot of people exceedingly rich indeed.
When she was Home Secretary Mrs May promised to reduce immigration to a net tens of thousands per year. She didn’t just fail, she didn’t try. Cameron (you know, used to be PM, surely you haven’t forgotten him already) promised the same and failed. The current Home Secretary, anxious to attract donors and backing for his upcoming coup, has admitted that the target is to be abandoned. The UK population is growing by nearly a million every four years. All those people have to live somewhere.
A housing boom, a development boom, what could possibly go wrong?
A population explosion of this magnitude could only be contained within the present infrastructure for so long, but now the pressure is too great, with the cities, particularly that immigration magnet London, rammed as full as a suburban commuter train. A ruling by the ECHR dictates that a homeless person cannot be moved more than one and a half hour’s travel from his or her roots, so there is a restriction on which counties can be the destination of those to be shunted away. The other restriction is the availability and price of development land. So where are they to go?
As an example, look no further than Norfolk and Suffolk.
A hectare of agricultural land is worth a few thousand pounds. A hectare of building land… Hundreds of thousands, even a few millions. That would be worth a sizeable donation to influence policy, but obviously such considerations or donations would never have influenced the government’s decision to force Norfolk and Suffolk to plan for an extra 250,000 dwellings in the next ten to twelve years. Thank goodness our politicians are above such partisan and borderline corrupt practices, and make these unfortunate decisions without fear or favour, or apparently without engaging in any critical thought at all. Thank goodness the Labour Party would not think that an influx of homeless people, many from backgrounds that might be expected to vote Labour, would transform their electoral chances.
Stuart Hall, a violently left-wing academic quoted in the original article, claimed he saw how Thatcherism would win mass support: “Its success and effectivity does not lie in its capacity to dupe unsuspecting folk but in the way it addresses real problems, real and lived experiences, real contradictions…”
Mrs Thatcher is dead, and with her the idea that a political party should work for the good of the UK, for British subjects, for us, the idea that our masters should, God forbid! address real problems. We in UKIP are unable to counter the biased media, the hostility of the BBC, the carping from the major parties who have no solutions and are closing their eyes to the problems to come. By over-emphasising the problems of Islam – undoubtedly real but manageable if we take control of our own borders – UKIP is in danger of moving itself to a marginal position. We have not lost yet. Not yet. Close the borders, stop the influx and things will settle down.
What political philosophy will emerge to address the problems of mass and uncontrolled immigration and its concomitant over-development of our already crowded island, what ‘ism’ will emerge if UKIP, that safety valve for those not considered and not cared for by the Westminster political class, falters?
Be afraid.
Sincerely, Julian Flood
“Brexit was always a project driven by the right to enrich the right.” Hmm. I never realised that Bob Crow, Arthur Scargill, Tony Benn et al were right-wingers. Siily me.
And, I recall when Peter Shore’s son-in-law stood as a UKIP candidate, he campaigned for him… ?
Mr Floods final line and para. are interesting.
It is i think now truethat What used to be called the centre is now the far right. The implications are extraordinary in their absurdity, And so dangerous. “.500 volts will kill ” is now a far right statement. As is ” more immigrants mean higher we need more houses. ” is already far right.
Does that mean that arithmatic is far right. Gravity doesn’t count. This is self destructive.. So, if we stop UKIP. and stop ourselves being political, , then we just become essential as being the people giving out facts and consequences but not being a threat to power.
This being almost the contra to Battens policy.
People who tell the truth will either become venerated or killed
‘Far right’ again. My opinion is that things are coming down to ‘Fascism’ and ‘not Fascism’ with not much in between, for what aspect is there in fascism that can be termed centre?
Fascism is of course Far Left in it’s origin, and descriptions of it being Far Right are just smears to disguise the numerous and extensive failures of all the Left ‘experiments’, national socialism, communism and fascism.
I have not come across a convincing definition of Far Right and regard now as just being a bogie-man myth.
Islamic immigration is part of a bigger problem, that problem being the relentless war being waged by our marxist rulers on the people. . Of course Islam is a huge problem, but If UKIP looks as if it just exists to tackle Islam then we are playing the game the Establishment wants; divide and rule. The package of abominations the politicians are inflicting on us incude, besides mass unintegrated immigration , brainwashing abusing and deracinating very young children , ensuring (common purpose) that nothing works properly eg the NHS and education at all levels and (I think) deliberate financial mismanagement. Plus the law , more on the side of criminals than viictims. Watch Yuri Bezhemov on youtube re how marxists bring down a civilisation through demoralisation, destabilisation, crisis and collapse; then our enemies take over. None of this is conspiracy theory, it’s happening now. And they want rid of Western culture, Christianity and Westerners themselves . as we get in the way of their evil agenda. The target for our rage should be the politicians first last and in between. Falling into the trap of divide and rule keeps the politicians safe. I’m not saying UKIP is falling into that trap, I’m just saying it should be careful not to fall into it .
Absolutely agree when you say who should be the target of our rage. Brexit betrayal is clarifying an unspoken agenda. Not just brexit. Our MPs will not act on mass immigration, Law and order, foreign aid, public service standards, electoral fraud, or even bother to defend free speech. Britain is the only country in world history I can think of where the government has no interest in its economic success and will not support its own industries. What we do have is a the best democracy in the world money can buy.
We DID have the best democracy in the world. . Money perhaps did buy it , which is why we do not have it anymore? !!!!!!!!!!!
The Left like to refer to the dark history of colonialism and by extension post colonial guilt.
The reality was that the overwhelming majority of our ancestors had no say in the British Empire so neither they nor us bear any legitimate guilt for what took place in the past.
It was always a tiny elite who benefitted from empire and its economic inheritors, referring to the city of London money people particularly, perhaps motivated by their collective desperation to retain global influence post empire, were happy to abandon British industry and accept mass immigration in exchange for stock market big bang and endless housing boom respectively.
Bang and Boom … Explosive and destructive words that speak a deeper truth, whether by accident or design
We only have to look at Germany’s economic mix, or China or USA or Japan etc etc toto expo the drivel that “we live in a post industrial age”.
The fact that successive “govermnents” have failed to deliver on either economic or social polocy simply shows that real political power in the sense of national sovereignty was sold out progressively from 1972 onwards.
This is why leave EU we must and leave we shall.
Mary,
You are right to point out that the dangers we face are multifaceted hence focusing solely on Islam is folly, however please don”t then fall into the same trap as regards laying all the blame at politicians.
MPs have always had the most tenuous of jobs, sackable without employment law protection at each and every election.
It’s their civil servants who warrant much more close attention with their tenured employment (such an anachronism in these days of zero hours contracts for the many!)
Since Parliament progressively surrendered sovereignty since 1972, power has transferred to the bureaucrats to do Brussels bidding and within that milieu the ones to really take to task are those who seek to “leader beyond authority” the so-called graduated of Common Purpose.
Noted and agreed. If we do get back control of our country, these people will need attending to first !
No doubt we could see a significant reduction in the number of civil servants too. It would be interesting to compare their numbers today with those, say, in 1972.
Jack, it is devilish difficult to find the statistics that can be effectively correlated to answer your question one way or the other… so many public bodies becoming classified as private eg housing associations.
There is a significant coincidence between the Fulton Report in Civil Service reform, published in 1968 and the rot that set in once the 1972 Common Market Accession Act was passed just 4 years later.
The thrust of Fulton was to establish a “professional” managerial class of civil servants to replace the supposedly incompetent amateurs and to do this by introducing a wholesale re-education process including the Civil Service College.
Taken from https://civilservant.org.uk/library/1968_fulton_report.html
“Following the year 1968-69, the Civil Service Department announced that central management training in the Civil Service had been increased by nearly 80 per cent. This included twice as much training for all classes at Principal level. In total, about 8,000 Civil Servants attended courses at the College in that year. In addition, considerably more use was being made of external courses, held, for example, at universities and business schools. By 1969-70, well over 200,000 Civil Servants were receiving formal training in their departments and in the same year 25,000 Civil Servants attended external training courses ranging from first degree courses to short seminars of two or three days’ duration.”
One wonders about the content and thrust of the mass re-education exercise described above, particularly in the context of the final negotiations then ongoing for Common Market entry…
Yes agree also Mary. It is an important exercise to keep stepping back until one sees the full picture. Only then can things be put into perspective. Thank you. We must not underestimate the young in eventually understanding what is happening.
“By over-emphasising the problems of Islam – undoubtedly real but manageable if we take control of our own borders”
I agree that GB made a great error in allying himself with TR at the present time; that is what has disallowed the voice of UKIP in the public domain. The management of Islamic immigration must start with control of our borders but that is far from enough. If those already here are allowed to practise their evil religion and continue to breed like the proverbial rabbits whilst making a probably heavily negative financial contribution, our country will still be lost.
Brexit is the necessary prerequisite to independent rule of our country but is of no use in the longer term if we allow takeover by that invader. Difficult times lie ahead but we have a collective responsibility to deal with the issue and preserve our country for our descendants.