Immigration and the English Left

One of the predictable consequences of UKIP’s advance in the polls is the increased volume of denigration of the British people, more specifically the English, by the self-loathing Left.

Goodness knows there is no nation on earth which has unhappily bred more anti-national media, writers and talkers than the English. As George Orwell, who was not an uncritical lover of England put it with the Second World War approaching, “The typical English intellectual would rather be caught robbing the Poor Box in church than standing up for the national anthem”.

It is now dawning on the Lift that Britain is very probably going to leave the European Union sometime before 2020. Many of those who, like this writer, have been campaigning against British membership of the EU since before the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, see this epoch-making move as a necessary, but not sufficient step to regaining our independence.

Leaving the EU will not only free us from foreign interference in our traditional laws and customs, but will start to free us from the all-pervading egalo-liberal ideology, which has brought us to the brink of economic disaster and treats every individual, whether law-abiding or criminal, who happens to be in Britain, as having equal rights with actual British citizens.

Hopefully, in a new spirit of nationism, licensed lefties like Mary Riddell writing in the Daily Telegraph (October 22nd) will find that the media will no longer pay her to describe the tougher prison regimes for instance being planned by the Coalition government as a “symptom of a climate of venom and vengeance” in a Britain that is becoming a “nasty” country.


One of the Left’s most potent weapons, which it has deployed against the native British people, has been to encourage mass immigration from Asia, Africa and Eastern Europe[1]. José Barroso, retiring President of the European Commission, like the British political class generally, affects to believe (Daily Telegraph 21st October) that the rise of UKIP and other “populist” parties in Europe is “to do with globalisation” and a “negative force of labour market protectionism” which it would be a mistake to give into.  “Populist” by the way, is the egalo-liberal word for “democratic” whenever it looks as if “demos”, i.e. the people, ae turning away from egalo-liberal ideology.

Actually on the evidence of this writer’s own political campaigning, what most of the British people want is to “get their country back” which, above all, means to determine who shall get the right to settle here and in what numbers. The British people note that their kith and kin in the old British Empire nations – Canada, Australia and New Zealand do exactly this, without Mr Barroso or anyone else upbraiding them for being “protectionist”.  Australia, for instance, whilst being a country of only 23 million, exerts a great deal of clout in the Asia-Pacific region, including the enforcement of strict rules on immigration from countries in that region, as well as from Britain itself.

Britain’s Media

However, while Mr Barroso expressed himself courteously from the standpoint of someone whose job it is to defend the European Union’s basic principle of free movement between EU countries, Britain’s home-grown media lefties are a different matter.

Immigration and Culture

Bill Oddie (Pembroke College Cambridge 2nd class degree in English, a licensed media clown, gave thoughtful expression from a lifetime’s observation of birds on the BBC’s “Sunday Morning Live” show (October 19th) as follows.  As reported (Daily Telegraph 20th October) he was “ashamed to be British” and said, “We have built up this ridiculous idea that this is our island and we don’t want anyone else in it.  We are a terrible race – all the hooliganism and God knows what”.  During his lifetime Oddie believes from his comfortable Hampstead vantage point, the whole of British culture has “absolutely burgeoned because of immigrants . . . Romanian builders who don’t play the radio loudly . . . Indian shopkeepers”.

Oddie could have added to his list of multicultural benefits: ritual slaughter, female genital mutilation, NHS maternity services overwhelmed by foreign mothers (one quarter of all babies in England – about 200,000 – were born to foreign-born mothers in 2013), some primary schools in towns like Boston in Lincolnshire being so overcrowded with Polish children that our own English children have in effect been compulsorily enveloped by a foreign culture. In the East End of London, and in other Asian areas of England, English children have been effectively disregarded in these areas by an obsessive attention to the supposed needs of ethnic minority children.

Immigration and Population Numbers

In fact for many British people, East and Central London is already a foreign city and the population figures bear this out. The 2011 census shows that around two million of the 5.5 million electors (36%) are actual foreigners – EU and Afro-Asian Commonwealth overwhelmingly – which fact is the number one reason why UKIP’s vote in May’s Euro-elections was only 16%, to be compared with an average of 28% in the rest of Britain.

England’s population of 54 million in mid-2013[2], in an area of 50,329 square miles, means that at 1,072 people per square mile (414 per square kilometre) England is the second most densely populated industrialized country in the world, exceeding Japan (336 per square kilometre) and even the Netherlands and Belgium (406 and 363 per square kilometre respectively) which are much smaller countries. Only Korea (570 per square kilometre) is greater.  In the whole world only Bangladesh and Taiwan exceed these densities.  England’s population in 2013 exceeded that of the whole United Kingdom in 1963 – 50 years ago – having recorded in 2011 the highest percentage decennial increase since 1911.  Well over half of the 12 million increase since 1963 is due to foreign immigration and their children, when allowance is made for the emigration of native British people.

With new dwellings being guilt at 16 per acre, population pressure is acute and is mainly responsible, along with irresponsible mortgage lending, for house price rises of an average of about 20 times since 1963.

It is also the primary reason, under the Coalition government’s “National Planning Policy Framework”, why cathedral cities like Ely, Durham, Litchfield and Salisbury are being pressured to accept unsuitable housing developments on a huge scale. The three million immigrants allowed to settle during Labour’s 13 year term of office is equivalent to one and a quarter million new dwellings, pretty much exactly the same number as were built in England during the same period.

Oddie’s proposal for dealing with over-population is not curbing immigration but restricting the size of British families. With an average fertility among native British women of 1.6, and 2.2 births for females among ethnic minorities (Bangladeshis 5.5), would the innumerate Lefties like Oddie attempt to impose the “one child only solution” tried in Communist China?

End Notes

[1] Andrew Neather, former Labour Party senior advisor to Tony Blair and Jack Straw, Labour Home Secretary, reported this in the Daily Express, 27th January 2010.

[2] UK Office for National Statistics 2013: mid-year population estimates.

Top| Home

One Response to “Immigration and the English Left”

  1. Ageing Albion says:

    Ms Riddell should read Dominic Lawson in yesterday’s Sunday Times for a painful expression of the brutal consequences of idealism over realism in the prison service (a family member of Mr Lawson was killed by someone released early from a sentence for a violent crime, and to no-one’s surprise resumed his ways on release).

    I once attended a speech by a Western-educated African judge who was visiting London. He was asked by one expectant audience member, who was wearing traditional Muslim clothing, if his country would recognise marriages under Sharia law. The African judge gave a swift and blunt answer: no, it would be one law for all, and that meant the new secular constitution modeled on the common law. The audience (mostly white British) was stunned into silence, as the expected multicultural response had not been forthcoming and they were left trying to cope with the uncomfortable idea that two multicultural paragons were disagreeing with each other.

    I on the other hand wondered why it took a visiting African judge to tell the politically correct some home truths and to apply fundamental English principles that the English themselves seem incapable of doing anymore. I found that deeply shaming for the British legal community, which as mentioned was too busy writhing in its own self-contradictions to notice anything else.

    Top| Home

Leave a Reply

Top| Home