2012: The Year of the Slug (as predicted here!)

Getting back into a normal routine after a long break can sometimes be a little tricky owing to (please pardon the pun) a little sluggish inertia, particularly after the extended period of festive overindulgence. At the beginning of last July I wrote a brief piece on Britain’s perennial favourite topic – the weather – and in it opined that whereas I thought that September was likely to offer us the best prospect of a dry warm spell it could well turn out that the resident Chinese population might “change the designation of 2012 from ‘Year of the Dragon’ to ‘Year of the Slug’.” Unfortunately, my facetious weather ‘forecast’ for the remainder of 2012, with the exception of October, turned out to be reasonably accurate, discerning as it did much more wet weather to come. Indeed, by the end of December The Daily Mail used my very own designation for the year in its headline ‘Year of the slug: 2012 was a washout for gardeners but perfect for pests’.

The past year was, in domestic meteorological terms, the most miserable that I can recall, and few can be hoping for a repeat of the seemingly interminable deluges that have of late bedevilled us. Farmland, homes and businesses were flooded, holidays were ruined and little prospered other than the seemingly ubiquitous and quietly triumphant hordes of slugs, accompanied on occasion by squadrons of malicious mosquitoes. This week we learn that the poor weather has had a negative impact upon the nutritional content not only of our food crops, but also of the grass upon which our livestock have fed when our pastures have not lain inaccessible beneath water. As if this situation in itself was not bad enough, a story in today’s Daily Telegraph draws our attention to an unwelcome new resident that is finding our green and sodden land a highly appealing home: a five-inch long monster slug from Spain revelling in the Latin name of Arion vulgaris. This nasty pest apparently possesses a hefty appetite for carrion, and in Scandinavia, where it has also managed to establish itself of late, it is reported as having become a hazard to motorists owing to the prodigious quantities of slime that the slugs leave on the road when feasting upon roadkill.

Arion vulgaris thus joins the harlequin ladybird, the New Zealand flatworm and of course the grey squirrel as but the latest in a line of invasive species that have been displacing and replacing the native fauna (although admittedly few would own to feeling any particular affection for our domestic slugs). What with sudden oak death and ash dieback, the contemporary analogues of the Dutch elm disease of the 1970s, our natural environment, rather like our social one, is suffering from the ill consequences wrought by the mighty forces of globalisation, with genuine diversity being replaced by transnational homogenisation.

Will 2013 become a second ‘year of the slug’, or will we finally enjoy a respite from the rain? Given the saturated state of the country, it may perhaps become the year of the mosquito. Whatever the case, thus far we seem to have been experiencing a stereotypical British winter: miserably grey, damp and mild. A taste of chilly winter weather lies in the offing later this week, and possibly lasting for much of January, but will it really deliver upon its promise? The Met Office, as is oft its wont, is being equivocal, and Piers Corbyn won’t tell us that his predictions about the winter were ‘right’ until some time after the event when he can find some weather that tallies with a forecast that he had sold to his exclusive set of subscribers. Surely, 2013 must be better than 2012 meteorologically? We have not had a decent summer in over half a decade, so would it be too much to expect some fine weather for the summer of 2013?

Update
True to form, the day after this article was posted Piers Corbyn popped up in The Daily Express to warn about the coming cold spell: "WeatherAction expects snow amounts to be as bad or worse than the record-breaking December 2010." Renowned for its exuberant exaggeration of all portents of snow and chill and its cavalier disregard for facts, the Express also added:

It's the same weather pattern responsible for the bitter 2009-2010 winter, the coldest for 31 years when transport networks were crippled and planes grounded. Icy easterly winds will sweep across Britain with everywhere at risk of wintry showers from the weekend and "significant snowfall" over high ground in Wales and the North.

The statement above is simply incorrect. Glaringly so. One of the notable features of the exceptionally low temperatures in the first month of the remarkable winter of 2009-2010 was the fact that the month of extreme chill with which it began was ushered in by a front issuing from the Arctic North, not from the East. It was bitter northerlies which prevailed during the coldest first four to five weeks of that winter that began with a surge of Arctic air during the last week of November. This is why the eastern counties of Britain and areas such as the North York Moors were particularly badly hit by snow. Facts? Now, why would journalists wish to bother with such irksome details as facts? I await the Express's first heatwave headlines with bated breath (sometime in March or early April perhaps?). 

Arion Vulgaris: Spain's sluggish contribution to Britain's globalising fauna

Nick Boles reveals meaning of Cameron’s ‘war on red tape’: farewell England!

Coming a little over a week after David Cameron delivered a speech to the CBI in which he declared his intent to wage ‘war on red tape’, Planning Minister Nick Boles has fleshed out in a Newsnight interview what this will mean in practical terms for vast swathes of English countryside: farewell! For Boles has declared that he would like to see the percentage of land built upon in England increase from 9% to 12%, some 1,500 square miles lost beneath concrete and tarmac. This, quite plainly, is the ineluctable consequence of our de facto open borders policy, and illustrates in the most stark terms why mass immigration is intensely damaging, not only to the fabric and character of our landscape, but to our flora and fauna.

A ‘war on red tape’ may well be a phrase that plays well to the ears of members of the general public who find complex aspects of Whitehall regulations a bane in many respects, but bundled up within Cameron’s declaration were clear and worrying implications for our countryside. However, a week ago the press largely ignored this aspect of his speech, with for example, the stridently self-declared advocate of environmental issues, The Guardian, becoming irate not about this threat to our countryside, but choosing to focus instead upon Cameron’s pledge to axe ‘equality impact assessments’. For The Guardian, it would matter not one whit if the entirety of England were to be concreted over and transformed into a global megacity, providing that it was of course carbon neutral, thereby being in its opinion genuinely ‘Green’.

What then, in practical terms, can be done to prevent this ‘development’ which in reality would better be described as the destruction of our national natural environment? Will the Campaign to Protect Rural England step in to champion opposition? What of the Woodland Trust? As can be seen from the picture below, it does seem a touch odd that Nick Boles (centre) should choose to have himself pictured with members of the Woodland Trust, when quite clearly he would happily see such woodland uprooted and flattened by the bulldozer, to make way for homes needed because of a population boom that has been almost exclusively fuelled by mass immigration and the higher birth-rates of the immigrant and immigrant-descended population.

The answer to the housing crisis lies not in covering another 1,500 square miles of English countryside with ‘development’, but rather with a combination of strict controls on immigration, and the redevelopment of genuinely brownfield sites in urban areas. Mass immigration is the root cause of this problem, and ending mass immigration will be its only solution. Migration Watch has drawn public attention to this issue for many years, and will hopefully be able to generate greater public awareness of this problem, as well as support for its position, in light of Boles's statement.

Nick Boles (centre) with members of the Woodland Trust

Nicholas Soames: more chaff for Tory voters

As perennial as the weeds that blight our gardens is the news story about the latest Tory MP to make concerned noises about mass immigration, whilst not actually intending, or proposing, to do anything about it. Today, it was the turn of Nicholas Soames to riff upon this familiar theme, with The Daily Mail honouring him with a piece entitled 'Heads must come out of the sand': Tory MP warns about scale of immigration as he predicts population will hit 70 million by 2027. Unfortunately, the heads in question would appear to be firmly wedged elsewhere, into something far less pleasant than sand, although seemingly perversely agreeable to the head wedgers.

Citing last year's petition against mass immigration initiated by Migration Watch, the Mail quoted Soames as stating:

This is a clear indicator of the very great public concern about the scale of immigration to this country.

Yes, indeed it is; but just what does he propose to do about it? Having made this attention grabbing soundbite, what said he next? As in any statement about this depressingly familiar problem, Soames immediately followed this up with the rider that immigration constituted a 'natural and essential part of an open economy', thereby rendering his initial words about this theme largely irrelevant. Does he, or do any of his Westminster colleagues, believe that members of the public any longer believe in this elaborate charade of mock concern over this issue? Perhaps so, for the Mail is certainly complicit in revving up the public mood into an impotent fury over such matters.

It is time that voters realised, that people such as Soames, or any of the other Westminster MPs, with perhaps a handful of exceptions, are not willing to do anything concrete to genuinely limit mass immigration; moreover, none of them are advocating the sustainable demographic policy that our country so desperately needs. We require a party that will put in place realistic, workable and firm measures that will bring the demographic situation under control. This is what most members of the public desire; it is what we need, and what, ultimately, we must have.

Do you recall Cameron's Munich speech about multiculturalism, and how it was made out that he was against it? How, since then, have his actions tallied with his words? Has there not been a glaring discrepancy between what was said, and that which has subsequently been done? Treat Soames's words on immigration with the same scepticism, for it is not a question of needing to remove heads from the sand, but of advocating, implementing, resourcing and maintaining the policies that will stop mass immigration permanently, and ensure that our population is eventually brought down to a sustainable level. This will ensure a better future for all of us, and for our countryside. Cameron may consider that it is worth sacrificing our greenbelt for the sake of millions of unbidden incomers by removing planning regulations which inhibit its destruction, but it is not the so-called "dithering" over housing that should be a matter for concern, but his "dithering" over mass immigration. Do not be fooled. Do not vote Conservative. 

Census indicates surge in Muslim population

Today saw the release of the first data sets from the 2011 census by the Office for National Statistics, and whereas early indications were that the population of England and Wales would have surged by more than three million, the actual figure turned out to be higher than officially expected: an increase of 3.7 million. This was the fastest rate of population increase measured since the first census was taken in 1801, and takes the average population density for England to 407 people per square kilometre. If we exclude the essentially urban microstates of Monaco, the Vatican and Malta, England is now the most densely populated country in Europe, closely followed by the Netherlands at 404 per square kilometre. This increase is alarming, and all three of the parties of government that have presided over this increase must acknowledge responsibility for this unacceptable de facto open borders policy (see a statement by David Willetts in December last year advocating an influx of labour).

The data thus far released deal only with "age and sex, and occupied households estimates for England and for Wales". The more interesting data on ethnicity and religion it would seem will not be forthcoming for quite some time. What is clear though is that the vast proportion of the population increase will have been driven by immigration and higher fertility amongst sections of the immigrant-descended population. An alarming indication of what to expect is provided by the identities of the two local authorities with the fastest population growth rates in England: Tower Hamlets and Newham. In 2001, Newham had the second highest proportion of Muslims in the UK at 24.3% of the total, whereas Tower Hamlets, according to 2010 estimates, was 36.4% Muslim. Likewise, Bradford has displayed an increase significantly higher than the national norm. What clearer illustration of demographic Islamisation could be provided?

The census has demonstrated that England has suffered disproportionately from mass immigration, with the increase in its population accounting for 3.56 million of the 3.72 million total. This is not only undesirable, but completely unsustainable and reckless. The natural dynamics of our native population can be seen in the ONS graph below, for if we look at the figures for 1971 to 1981, we see a slight decline. This is the population trajectory towards which we should be aiming, considering the gross overpopulation of our country. Irrespective of the figures contained in the census, there is one overriding certainty: they represent a significant underestimate of the true figure. Many will not have bothered to complete the census return, including obviously those who have arrived here illegally. What their numbers are, we cannot hazard to say with any degree of accuracy, but at a minimum we should reckon upon a million illegal immigrants. According to one report that appeared in The Independent in 2007, senior and reliable sources claimed that the UK population was already between 77 and 80 million. The latter figure certainly tallied with the reckoning of one of the country's large supermarket chains.

Mass immigration has contributed towards an absurd situation in which we are told repeatedly that even at a time of extensive flooding we need to cut down on our domestic water consumption, and that compulsory metering is the answer. Then there is the pressure on our housing stock, for even in Wales for example, a story ran on the BBC website two days ago revealing that planners project that Cardiff's population will rise by a quarter by 2026 and have thus allocated land for the construction of 45,000 new homes. If that is to happen in Wales, what will happen in England? Our countryside, with its distinctive landscape, its farms and wildlife are under threat from our leaders' addiction to population growth. What of the permanent phenomenon of mass unemployment that bedevils our country, and of the underemployment of many graduates? Are these concerns to be ignored as irrelevant and "unscientific", swept aside by an oligrarchic elite that cares not about the welfare of the people it claims to represent? Probably.

England, of course, is not the only country to be buckling under the weight of immigration originating predominantly from outside of Europe, for the arrival of a vast number of illegal immigrants from countries such as Afghanistan, Pakistan and Somalia, is in Greece placing an intense strain upon a state and people already in grave crisis.

As to the reporting of these initial census results, the BBC, as is its wont, is not referring to "immigration", but to "migration"; this difference in linguistic usage being quite intentional, "migration" being employed with a view to making this unprecedented phenomenon appear to be in the natural order of things, and to be legitimate. It is in fact, neither. The most objective reporting of these results by a well-known body is likely to be forthcoming from Migration Watch.The Balkanisation of our country continues apace.

UPDATE: For the 2011 Census results relating to the Muslim population, click here.

England's high-density housing: we deserve better

Skylarks or Somalis: The Real Housing Crisis

The song of the skylark shall be stilled, and the land once farmed will lie untilled; the pipistrelles no longer flit through the dusk, for Cameron has decreed it thus. A new city is to rise upon what was once countryside, between Coventry and Birmingham. Some 100,000 new homes will be built as part of a plan to resolve an avoidable crisis, brought about by this government and its predecessors: a crisis of overpopulation and consequent housing shortage.

This proposal however, relates to but a fraction of the building deemed necessary to address the needs of a population explosion engendered by what is effectively an open borders policy. If, it is claimed, these ‘needs’ are to be met, then two million homes will have to be built between now and 2020. Two million homes in a mere 8 years: 250,000 homes per year. Is this not insanity, when we have recourse to the straightforward and logical alternative of zero net migration?

The population of England in this short period is projected to rise by 4.4 million. Whence comes this unprecedented increase? According to The Daily Telegraph:

Most of the population growth will come through an excess of births over deaths — including a rise in longevity — rather than through direct immigration. Many of the fastest-growing areas are those that have seen an influx of migrants in recent years, and are now seeing higher birth rates.

This is disingenuous, for the rate of immigration remains at near record levels, and is changing the character of our country far more than superficially suggested by the raw net figures, for there are also hundreds of thousands of indigenous people who leave our country every year. Moreover, as the Telegraph notes, the birth rates are highest amongst immigrant groups. Amongst the English, the birth rate is at sub-replacement levels. Why then should we cover our precious countryside in concrete and tarmac for the sake of a governmental obsession with the global free movement of labour, and a denial of our indigenous birthright to determine our own fate, and who may and who may not reside in our own land? This crisis is not of our making, but has been brought about by the globalists of the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democratic parties, and the advocates of globalism in both big business and the trade union movement.

We do not have a housing crisis - we have a population crisis; rather than requiring more homes, we require fewer people. Will the Conservative Party acknowledge let alone address this problem? No. Why not write to your MP and let them know that we have a population crisis and not a housing crisis. Does the destruction of our countryside for no real reason add to the quality of our lives, or detract from it? The answer seems clear enough to me. What is it to be: skylarks or Somalis?