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

Increase in non-EU university applications

Although the figures released by UCAS today show a significant decline in the number of individuals applying to university in the UK this year (in England in particular), one figure that has bucked this trend has been largely ignored: an increase in applicants to UK universities from non-EU residents. It is of course quite right that the natural focus should be upon the choices made by our young people, but the fact that there has been a notable drop in applications from other EU countries – a decline of 12.9% from 47,675 to 41,543 – whereas there has been an increase of 8.5% from outside of the EU from 56,279 to 61,041 is worthy of comment.

In recent years UK universities have been investing an increasing amount of resources in attracting non-EU students because of the higher fees that they can be charged, and over the past 12-18 months in particular, there appears to have been a surge of recruitment to positions directed towards appealing to the international market and attracting overseas students to the UK. Whilst many of the students recruited in this fashion are certainly genuine and bring benefits to their receiving institutions and to their countries when they return home, a certain proportion are not, and use a university place to secure residency in the UK. This is the disreputable downside of the business, and one that has to a certain extent been encouraged by successive governments keen to attract ‘international talent’. It is this putative desire, linked to the embrace of globalisation and the orientation of many contemporary university vice-chancellors towards business plans focusing more upon maximising revenue rather than academic excellence, that has given birth to a powerful lobby group arguing in favour of increasing the ingress of international students and their exemption from immigration statistics.

Last month, Migration Watch drew attention to a letter signed by 70 university chancellors arguing for international students not to be included in immigration statistics. The think-tank quite rightly objected by drawing attention to the fact that circa 20% of all such students ‘stay on legally’ when they complete their studies, and that an unknown number remain illegally afterwards, particularly those from poorer countries. With some two million non-EU students having come to Britain for a year or longer over the past decade, it would therefore be folly not to include them in such statistics. Worryingly, the government does not even possess a mechanism for ascertaining how many students have returned home, as such checks are not made. Quite clearly, the system of higher education admissions for non-EU students needs to be overhauled, with universities being made legally accountable for any non-EU students who do not return to their countries of origin upon the completion of their courses. If universities wish to receive the financial benefits of recruiting such students, then they should also assume the costs to the wider society if those students then subsequently disappear into the ether so to speak. Introducing and enforcing such sanctions would be the only effective means of ensuring that acquiring a university education in the UK is not used as a backdoor to settlement in the country and the acquisition of citizenship.

Although most of the abuse of ‘student’ status by backdoor immigrants has occurred outside of the higher education system in private schools and colleges, the University of Wales has proven to be the most high-profile casualty of a visa scam, leading to its abolition and merger with a number of other institutions. Indeed, Migration Watch has also published a paper detailing the legal ‘Post Study Route for non-EU students’ which has allowed an increasing number to remain in the UK, outlining a dramatic growth in numbers from only 870 in 2004, to 15,000 in 2007 and 40,000 in 2011. It is therefore legal for such individuals to arrive here as students, and to subsequently easily acquire rights to residence and employment, competing directly with our large pool of unemployed young people and underemployed graduates. With the latter having made such a significant investment of time and money in their studies, why should they then be denied the opportunity to a decent career? The ‘Post Study Route for non-EU students’ will be singled out for abolition as part of the new party’s education policy, in line with our commitment to a sustainable approach to population which embodies our desire to improve living conditions for all in our country. This will be but one measure that contributes towards the realisation of this goal.

“We are a big open economy. People have to be able to move in and out.” (David Willetts).

Does this statement square with the Conservative Party’s pledge at the last General Election to bring down net immigration to the “tens of thousands” annually? Does the recent announcement that George Osborne supports the Office for Budget Responsibility’s goal of allowing average net immigration of 140,000 each year between now and 2016 tally with this promise? Does the fact that in the past twelve months we have witnessed the highest ever level of net immigration, gaining some 252,000 people, illustrate any intent let alone move, to put a break on the mass settlement of our country by outsiders? Of course not! 

Does it surprise you? If so, why? Did you genuinely think that the Conservative Party seeks to represent the interests of the people of this country? Were you really gulled by the cod patriotism of this party of privilege? When it talks of “repatriating powers from Brussels” it has no real intention of bringing about a meaningful repatriation of sovereignty, or giving people a greater say in the governance of their country, for the only aspects of the EU that it truly dislikes are those pieces of legislation that afford protection to the wages and working conditions of the lowest paid and those in the least secure employment. It truly does believe in the concept of ‘UK PLC’, but unfortunately, it happens to be a party of asset strippers who care nothing for the ‘company’ that they run, thus its long-term viability and health are not their concern. It favours cheap, fragmented malleable labour, which is why it is intent upon facilitating mass immigration at a time of mass unemployment. The Conservative Party is just one of many self-interested entities promoting globalism to the detriment of the national interest.

Owing to immigration we have in the past year seen our population increase by the equivalent of more than a city the size of either Nottingham or Wolverhampton, and yet for each of the next five years, Osborne wishes to see it increase by the equivalent of another Bolton. Where are these people to live? We have a housing crisis, and England is according to Migration Watch the sixth most densely populated country on the planet. The Office for National Statistics reported that in the year to September 2011 the number of housing completions stood at 106,000. The rate at which we are building new homes is inadequate to meet the needs of the existing population, and the majority of these new houses and flats are of inferior dimensions compared to those that were built in the pre-Thatcher era.

Moreover, we cannot grow enough food or generate enough power to sustain ourselves at a time when a booming global population is placing increasing pressure on these resources and generating underlying structural inflation; our security is thereby jeopardised. Our transport infrastructure is groaning under sheer weight of numbers. We have permanent and rising mass unemployment, together with increasing social fragmentation and alienation. In many of our cities and an increasing number of towns, there is no sense of community, just a plurality of random ethnic groups from around the globe who happen to live next to each other. In such places there is no trust, and thus no glue to hold society together; there no longer is a society.

Why would anyone in full possession of their rational faculties therefore choose to exacerbate all of these problems still further for the sake of a nominal and highly marginal improvement in aggregate GDP? It is per capita GDP, not aggregate GDP that matters, for the former can increase at the same time as the latter falls, resulting in a decline in personal wealth and living standards. This is what we are witnessing. We are told that our economy is enjoying ‘growth’, but if this growth is said to have been 0.5% over the last quarter, up from 0.1% during the preceding period, is this actually growth when CPI and RPI are raging away at 5% and above? Does this not actually represent an aggregate contraction in our national wealth, rather than growth? 

Alas, we will not be hearing these questions raised by the BBC, for this mouthpiece of the dominant political interest in the UK is no more objective than Pravda during the Soviet era. The ideological ties that bind its editorial staff and leading journalists with those of the political elite (I prefer the term oligarchy) are strong, for they form a tightly knit social clique. For example, it is well known that many of them studied at the same elite institutions and took the same subjects; thus, this morning we witnessed David Willetts (Politics, Philosophy and Economics, University of Oxford) being interviewed by Evan Davis (Politics, Philosophy and Economics, University of Oxford) both concurring upon the desirability of mass immigration as exemplified by Willetts's quote which heads this article. To study this combination of subjects is no bad thing, but what is not so good is the fact that so many key figures within the public life of the UK took this subject at this venerable institution, which is to say, that it has produced the most powerful old boy (granted, there are also women within it) network in the country. For example, in the world of politics David Cameron and William Hague happen to have studied PPE at Oxford, as have the brothers Miliband, Ed Balls and James Purnell. In the BBC its alumni include David Dimbleby, Nick Robinson and Stephanie Flanders, and a frequent guest on Question Time – Islamist and New Statesman Senior Editor (Politics) Mehdi Hasan – is also included amongst their number.

Precisely what is on the PPE curriculum I do not know, for I have not studied any of these subjects at Oxford, and I am not personally acquainted with anyone who has done so; yet I suspect, given the consensus amongst PPE alumni with respect to the promotion of globalism, mass immigration and multiculturalism, that all of these are espoused by their tutors as being a ‘good thing’, and that the topics which they are asked to consider, and the authors and sources which they are recommended, tend towards the creation of a mental outlook supportive of all three. It is against this backdrop that Evan Davis’s seemingly naïve incomprehension at why a newly published Ipsos Mori poll revealed a “generally negative perception” of mass immigration must be understood. On last Friday's Today Programme he purported to find it odd that both Scotland and London had significantly “less cold” attitudes towards immigration than elsewhere in Britain, whereas the reasons suggest themselves readily enough to anyone not wearing PC blinkers: the Scots have not suffered mass immigration to anything like the extent witnessed in England, and a huge proportion of the poll’s sample from London will either have been made up of immigrants themselves or the recent descendants of immigrants. Evan Davis is it would seem, a bright chap, but not a very sharp one. Perhaps we ought to import some new journalists?

 

Gordon Brown Lies about Immigration (again)

Gordon Brown cynically attempted to pull the wool over voters’ eyes today by pretending that he was doing something to regulate mass immigration. However, he is fully aware of the fact that he and his party have deliberately engineered mass immigration and that they remain totally ideologically convinced of its merits. The measures that Brown announced today were, as  Sir Andrew Green of Migration Watch noted, “trivial”. They will do nothing whatsoever to stem the rise in our skyrocketing population, and in reality they are not intended to do so.

Brown, and dishonest fellow Labour Party member Alan Johnson, are pretending to listen to ordinary Britons’ concerns about immigration and making soothing noises about this matter purely because they know that people utterly disagree with their policy and are considering voting for the BNP. This is the sole reason that Labour has even bothered to introduce meaningless and completely ineffective ‘controls’ on immigration. The Labour Party remains committed to the very core of its being to the destruction of our national fabric.

Nobody should be gulled into thinking that Labour is for one moment sounding a genuine note of contrition vis-à-vis the immigration scandal. It is a party of globalist internationalists. They lied about the Lisbon Treaty and they have presided over our national absorption into the emergent EU totalitarian super-state. Miliband and many others now wish to swiftly facilitate Turkey’s entry to the EU, which will hasten the Islamisation of Europe and our country. They prostrate themselves before Islam, and use the pretext of the “war on terror” to gag and monitor us all. They hate England and the English with a particular vehemence, and thus give it and its people no recognition either institutionally (in the form of an English parliament), or even on the census form. Frank Field should leave the Labour Party, for he does himself no favours by remaining part of this morally, intellectually and literally bankrupt entity.

Gordon Brown. We have heard what you said today and we know you for a liar. Your time is coming to a close, and someday I hope that you are brought to account for your deliberate destructive assault upon my nation.

Reference: "PM to 'tighten' migration rules', BBC, 12 November 2009, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8356226.stm