Thursday, 19 July 2012

Leo Mckinstry - Tories fail to solve immigration crisis that blights Britain

This is a republication of an opinion piece by Leo McKinstry in the Daily Express this week. Some of you will have already seen it, but I am adding it here all the same, because I think it is worthy of being pulled out from the daily "churnalism" and copied elsewhere before it gets washed away with all the rest.

I do not make a habit of republishing articles from newspapers on this site, but in this case I will make an exception. I have always tended to like Leo's opinion pieces on the matters of our national identity and on matters such as the creeping state interference in all our lives, and this one is rather good - and probably as close as you could expect a 'mainstream' newspaper to get away with publishing in these shrieking times we live in. 

Some may well say that it is just another case of media manipulation and that it is all designed this way - but even if all that is the case and it is some kind of safety valve, I still think it is quite good and would have been generally useful for regular Express readers to mull over. 

If it is taken on face value as a genuine and honest piece, I think Leo is quite brave and worthy of some thanks and respect for sticking to his viewpoints and telling it like it is. Although it could always go further, we have to remember that it is a journalist in all the modern trappings of the mainstream media. 

It makes a point, is in the public domain on newspaper stands, and is generally well written. So without further ado, here it is:

Tories fail to solve immigration crisis that blights Britain

By Leo McKinstry
July 16,2012

NO greater bunch of treacherous charlatans ever held office than the last Labour Government.

Without any consent from the British people, this gang of traitors enacted an unparalleled social revolution in our country by promoting by mass immigration on an epic scale.

Our national identity was shattered, our mutual sense of belonging obliterated and our civic infrastructure put under intolerable strain.

Tragically, the Tory-led Coalition has dismally failed to reverse this disastrous trend.

From Ministers, we have had nothing but hollow words. The colonisation of Britain by foreigners continues to accelerate.

A limited insight into the impact of Labour’s open door policy will be provided today by the release of the first results from the 2011 Census, which was conducted last March at a cost to the taxpayer of £480 million.

The findings are expected to show that during the last decade the British population increased by more than 3 million people, up from 58.8 million in 2001 to over 62 million last year, with at least 7 million of them foreign nationals.

Yet, for all the shock that these figures might generate, they are likely to be a gross underestimate of the real effect of mass immigration.
The true size of British population may actually be much bigger than today’s survey indicates, for there are a number of serious flaws with the current Census.

One is the simple fact that the information has already become hopelessly out of date, thanks to the unprecedented and growing waves of immigration.

In 2011, an incredible 593,000 foreigners, mostly from Asia and Africa, came to settle in Britain, an increase on 2010 when 582,000 immigrants arrived here.

Moreover, migrant families tend to have far more children than the indigenous population, further speeding up the rate of change. Indeed more than a quarter of babies now born in Britain have foreign mothers, while in London the figure rises to almost 60 per cent.

At that level of demographic upheaval, a single snapshot taken once a decade is almost useless.

Furthermore, the methodology used by the Census is dangerously unreliable in an age of flux.

Dating back to pre-Victorian times, it relies on householders filling in the long-winded forms, backed up by threats of fines for those who refuse. But it is not difficult to evade, given the serial incompetence of the state’s bureaucracy.

Nor does the threat of prosecution carry much weight in a justice system that refuses to jail serious offenders or deport foreign criminals.

The 2001 Census was a byword for inaccuracy, with huge gaps that had to be filled in by guesswork. Slough Council, for instance, said that no fewer 30,000 people in the borough were missed.

It is unlikely that the 2011 version will be any better.

Crucially, the Government machine has a vested interest in downplaying the number of immigrants living here.

For if the true picture were presented, most of the British public would be outraged. Yet through the fog of official manipulation and propaganda, the alarming reality can sometimes be glimpsed.

According to the Conservative MP Greg Hands, a leading figure at the TESCO supermarket chain said in 2008 that “they estimate the population of the UK to be closer to 80 million, based on the volume of certain staples that they sell.”

This is backed up a major, non-commercial agricultural institution which reckoned that there are 77 million people currently in the UK, this figure again based on how much we eat.

Such estimates make sense.

Our border controls are notoriously inadequate, while the Home Office admits that it “hasn’t a clue” how many illegal immigrants are living in this country.

Moreover, the total of National Insurance numbers dished out by the Government is far higher than the official level of immigration. Between 2004 and 2007, 270,000 work permits were issued by the Government to non-European nationals, yet over 900,000 National Insurance numbers were issued.

As a graphic illustration of this farce, just 1455 Nigerians were given leave to enter Britain in this period, yet 35,900 Nigerians got NI numbers.

We can see with our own eyes how immigration is transforming Britain far more radically than officialdom ever admits.

All around us are over-stretched public services and overcrowded roads. Vast swathes of our urban landscape, dominated by the babble of foreign tongues, squalid markets or ethnic gangs, no longer resemble Britain any more.

The great lie perpetrated by the Labour Government was that the mass immigration was a means of improving our country. The tidal wave of foreigners would not only raise our prosperity but also enrich our culture, claimed the Labour politicians.

But the opposite has been true. Immigration has been a vehicle for economic destruction and social disintegration.

With 90 per cent of new jobs going to foreigners, millions of Britons have been thrown on the economic scrapheap, while the taxpayer has had to cope with the mammoth costs of providing healthcare, schooling, welfare and social housing to much of the migrant population.

And far from enriching Britain, mass immigration has led to the import of crime, terrorism, misogyny, superstition, and barbarity from the developing world.

We were once one of the most gentle, well-ordered places on earth.

Now we are plagued by female circumcision and honour killings, forced marriages and Sharia law. Similarly our democratic system, which relied on trust, is now awash with mass voter fraud, most of it arising in Asian {communities?}. 



  1. Although it's a decent article, the one massive snag with McKinstry and others of his type is that they never advocate voting for a party other than the big three (well, perhaps the odd journalist here and there may on a rare occasion make vaguely favourable noises about UKIP). Basically, they grumble and gripe whilst offering nothing constructive, and if any party genuinely did offer to tackle the specific issues that they repeatedly highlight, the NUJ reflex would kick in and the headlines would be screaming "xenophobic far-right on the rise" before you had a chance to draw breath.

  2. I have to agree with what you say about how this tends to work. I think we are all familiar with the Hitchens, Phillips, Littlejohn kind of thing, where they dabble around the edges but could never bring themselves to go the full distance, either through choice or through pressure not to do.

    Some say that these media outlets do it on purpose to nullify and normalise what is taking place, and to herd people into nowhere via a safety valve effect. There may be an element of that, especially with LitteJohn and John Gaunt types - who tend to get on my nerves for quite a lot of reasons.

    However, I much more time for Leo. I think he is much more the real ticket and that he is probably pushing as far as he dare go. I suspect the usual suspects like Yasmin Brown will be choking on their muesli in outrage over Leo's work.

    I am not sure if it is the role of journalists like Leo to spell out who to vote for anyway though. It provides opinion and a point of view which could gain traction and keep some pressure up out there in society that they are not alone.

    If it does this job, then I see it as leaving the door open for people to vote with who they think will sort it out the best.

    As long as Leo, Peter, Melanie, etc are "cul-de-sac" journalists with no real home to pin their pieces to a mast of, they will tend to drive people into making their own choices of who to get behind, even if there is an obligatory swipe made from time to time -most often by Hitchens, Phillips and LittleJohn, not Leo, as it happens.

    People are perhaps not quite so foolish as to listen to what is in effect 'nationalist' viewpoints and then let a wafer thin paragraph about 'thugs' or 'distasteful entities' etc get in the way of what they ultimately look into or vote for. The main parties are clearly not dealing with these issues.

    So, although Leo might not advocate 'nationalism', might not share the exact same convictions, and never state he would want people to vote for a particular party - there is an unsaid gap which is what a nationalist party has to fill and scoop people up from to fill.

  3. I read that article in the Express and I thought it was excellent. As you say, I think Leo is much more the 'true article' as he hasn't specifically attacked the BNP or other genuine nationalists as far as I know like Melanie Phillips and Richard Littlejohn have done. The latter two journalists are notorious for often saying the right thing and then attacking the only parties willing to deal with the problems they describe.