A New Place Of Exile

Richard Hutton

Category: Uncategorized

Prospects during the General Election (2017).

People may have noticed that the fairly despondent recent post about the General Election was removed – it was written mainly off the back of emotion, rather than reason; and after a short period of reflection, didn’t seem especially constructive.

Looking at the matter more objectively, what I expect to happen as a consequence of this election is not greater cause for optimism, unfortunately; but I think it’s important to be honest.

Labour will probably suffer heavy losses. Voter-intention is one issue, but turnout is another. This is not about Corbyn, or Labour themselves, however; it’s a consequence of Brexit. Labour were left in a uniquely difficult position by the EU referendum – whether they accepted or repudiated the outcome, they stood to alienate many of their supporters, either way.

The factor at issue is ‘depressed voter syndrome’ – namely dejection among many of its supporters about the prospect of overseeing Brexit. I don’t personally want them to win this election if it means presiding over the upcoming economic disaster that Brexit will almost certainly induce. This purview is liable to be shared by many people; and result in a desultory showing of votes. By contrast, enthusiasm for Brexit among its supporters remains high; and evidently favours the government.

Labour will be the first casualty of Brexit. They will not be its last, however; and hopefully, they will be the first to recover.

George Osborne resigned as an MP, heading into a general election which his party are expected to win comfortably. This specific circumstance seems to be unprecedented. There are two primary reasons why MPs resign from Parliament – one, a personal scandal is set to become public; two, their parties are in serious trouble. Osborne is not that interesting. So, the second of these is the more plausible motive.

If the Conservatives are in government until 2022, then they will preside over the full period that Britain is outside the single European market; which is expected to prove economically calamitous. If this does occur, then there will probably be a vote of no confidence in the government before 2022.

However, a strong majority for the Conservatives in Parliament will mean two years with weak opposition – and thereby free-reign over policy; until the reality of Brexit hits home in 2019. Two years can be a long time in politics for those on the receiving end; but it can also be a short time when a dreadful prospect looms.

A strong Tory majority precludes independence for Scotland any time soon. The SNP can present a bill requesting a second independence referendum; but it would simply be voted down.

There will almost certainly not be a vaunted ‘lifetime of Tory government’, no matter what the current prospects may indicate – if the Conservatives themselves believed otherwise, then we would not be having a general election now, instead of in 2020; when they would have benefited from the boundary review changes.

Labour’s members evidently remain committed to the party’s future – even with a bleak immediate outlook. After the election is over, they will have to decide whether they want to continue the good work that was done prior to the EU referendum, as there will be strong calls for a lurch to the hard-right, especially on the issue of free-movement/migration. Public opinion and political expedience will probably undergo a marked change from 2019 onwards, however.

The left is not forgiven its failures the way the right is. Corbyn is liable to lead Labour to dire results – it is obvious that he will be blamed personally; as he was for the outcome of the EU referendum, despite campaigning against it. This will not be valid.

Corbyn kept Labour intact and functioning during the coup which followed the EU referendum. He also steered it through Article 50 – both of these issues could have caused the party to implode. All of the other leadership candidates he faced stated after the referendum that they would end free-movement, which would have committed Labour to support for ‘hard’ Brexit. This would probably have seen the party decimated during the upcoming election; as even many supporters of Brexit do not want the worst version possible to apply.

As it stands, Labour are still liable to suffer heavy losses as a consequence of the EU referendum’s outcome; but hopefully, it will not prove as devastating as it would have done under any other leader. There is at least the possibility that Labour will have a future once the damage of this election has been overcome. Political parties can recover surprisingly quickly from heavy defeats; particularly given a change of circumstance.

This general election represents a lose-lose scenario for Labour – either suffer heavy losses; or enter government, and be responsible for overseeing the disaster of Brexit. One of these outcomes is recoverable. While Labour will suffer the consequences of Brexit this election, the Conservatives will suffer it the next.

Brexit cannot be made to work in actuality. The outcome of this election will primarily reflect public opinion on the issue; which is currently devoid of basis in reason. Reality will intrude at some point down the line, and sanity will eventually be restored; but until then, there is cause for severe pessimism about the future.

The upcoming years will be difficult ones for our country and its people.

The Right-Minded Review – Nigel Farage’s ‘The Purple Revolution: The Year That Changed Everything’ (4th anniversary edition)


I was given this trenchant tome as a gift, by somebody who had purchased it in error; and it did not disappoint.

Throughout its pages, Farage addresses important questions such as:

‘Why do young people these days lack the moral fibre of the previous generation?’ (a good war would stiffen their resolve, in Farage’s purview).
‘Why are 97% of scientists wrong about Global Warming?’ (Farage has an interesting explanation).
‘How many of the world’s problems are simply the result of the British no longer being in charge?’ (most – if not all – is the short answer).
And ‘were all of Hitler’s ideas bad?’ (the answer may surprise you).

Throughout its opening pages, Farage’s autobiography addresses the pressing political issues of the day. For example, whether it’s time to close the English channel, and how this might be achieved; and the probable reasons why crime is no longer illegal. This section of the book confirmed to me that most of my opinions were already correct.

Arguably of more interest to the casual reader, however, is the author’s – at times, inspiring – life story. Unlike liberal elites, educated at exclusive comprehensive schools – or prestigious secondary moderns – Farage set out in life at the humble confines of Dulwich prepper; before working hard, and earning a seat on the ladder of prosperity. He then went from being a successful City trader, to become the most successfully unelected Parliamentarian in British history. On a more poignant note, however, Farage documents his personal health battles with a characteristic candour – such as the anxiety disorder which overcomes him whenever he sees two people of the same sex holding hands; or when any woman in his vicinity is engaged in breastfeeding.

Anyone who wants to know what the European Union is, or where it is located, will learn a great deal from this book. With regard to affairs of the European Parliament, future historians may focus on the author’s imperious record of non-attendance; but I suspect that members of the public will favour the more light-hearted anecdotes – such as the misunderstanding which arose between several senior Ukip MEPs in one of Brussels’ many gentlemens’ saunas (it all ended humorously; with minds duly broadened).

Closer to home, Farage reflects on the political earthquake he generated – which simply defied the richter scale: namely, the general election of May 2015; which resulted in Ukip ending the day with no fewer than one Member of Parliament (I am not an expert, thankfully; but why 4 million votes for Ukip didn’t translate into 4 million MPs is beyond me).

The special fourth anniversary edition also comes with an audio CD, read by Farage himself; which narrates the legendary fight between two Ukip politicians in the European Parliament, during October 2016. I was very impressed. Step by step, Farage walks listeners through the weeks and days leading up to the affray. The tension builds as the two politicians approach each other, and battle commences. The action is graphically narrated – and may be unsuitable for younger listeners in parts; but it allows the attentive listener to visualise the action, and understand the key moments of the melee.

In sum, this is a book which is frank and surprising in equal measure. I give it the four stars, rather than the full five, as it would have benefited from a glossary of words which you can no longer say in public, due to political correctness.

The Right-Minded View: The Prime Minister’s vision of a Shared Society.

Now when Prime Minister May saw the crowds of journalists, she went up on a podium and she began to teach them:

“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is a redefined definition of poverty.

Blessed are those who hunger, for they shall be satisfied by the local foodbank.

Blessed are the meek, for those who know their place, and play by the rules, shall benefit from a cut to inheritance tax.

Blessed are you when you make handsome, if discreet, donations; rejoice and be glad, for your reward is great in the House of Lords.

Blessed are the hedge fund managers, for they shall reap what others sow.

Blessed are the healers, who are willing to work seven days a week, for five-days’ worth salary.

You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I say to you, this only breeds dependency. It’s high-time that your neighbours learned to stand on their own two legs, and pulled themselves up by the bootstraps.

Ask for a handout, and it will no longer be given. Which one of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? All of you should, if you want to impart a valuable life-lesson in self-sufficiency.

Ensure that you practice your righteousness before other people in order to be seen by them, for then you will have a reward from your admirers in the press.

Do not think that I have come to uphold the Laws; I have not come to fulfill, but to abolish them. Specifically those concerning human rights.

You have heard that it was said to those of old, ‘You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform to the Lord what you have sworn.’ But I say to you, sometimes it’s expedient to be creative with the truth. Let what you say be simply ‘it means what it means’, or ‘I do not accept that'”.

And when the Prime Minister finished these sayings, the journalists were astonished, for she was teaching them as one who had a teleprompter, and had not just replicated her predecessor’s pabulum on the same theme. Then the sick and the lame were brought to her, and put through a work capability assessment; consequently they were declared fit and healthy once more.

Afterwards, the Prime Minister entered a temple, and congratulated the wealth-creators within for their free enterprise – praising their aspirations. The high rates of usury, and the absence of red-tape – which the Prime Minister had guaranteed – ensured that they would not take their business elsewhere.

They’re Not Like Us (A Reverse Poem)

They’re not like us
So do not be naive enough to think that
We will find them to be like us
With only a bit of thought and friendship
They’re so unwilling to adopt our way of life
Is it any wonder
If people are distrustful and unwelcoming
It makes everyone afraid
Knowing strangers might hate you and hurt you
They’re not like us
Is it fair to say
Our behaviour might be the problem
When we find their customs and ways so strange
They keep to their own
So is it unreasonable that
We keep to our own
Why do people think they’re not like us
It’s not difficult to answer the question
Hearing a strange language seeing strange clothes
In the middle of a crowd with strange faces
How can you expect to feel at home
When you’re no longer surrounded by people you know
It hardly fills you with confidence
Complaining all the time about our country
Hearing people
Who don’t fit in
Always moaning about those
Ordinary British things like tea and chips or
All the things that make Britain what it is
When you think of
People coming here and changing our culture
The British way of life has always been about
What is unique to us
What is normal and ordinary
But when you think about it
They’re not like us
There’s nothing wrong with saying
How they are
It’s not too much to ask them
To fit in with us
Ordinary Britons
Who see little but resentment from
These people
How can we expect
To feel at home in our country anymore
And no-one ever asks them
To move half way around the world
They’ve managed
To take jobs and houses too
People around them would have needed
That can’t be right
If they don’t like our ways at all
Why do they move to our country
These people are so strange
So do not tell me
It isn’t fair to assume the worst
It isn’t right to be called names
You’re only judging by what you see
Which is so out of the ordinary
What do foreigners bring with them into Britain
If you think about it
All sorts of things which seem peculiar
Sometimes people fear
These things are not so simple but
Please think on
Do not be too quick to judge
When somebody says they’re not like us

[Now read from bottom to top]

A Pledge of Allegiance To British Values



I pledge allegiance to Britain and its resplendent jams (and magnificent biscuits),
Salute the Royal Yacht,
Support Brexit,
Oppose casual littering,
Believe strongly that you should be able to hear the lyrics in modern music
(too often you can’t, I say),
And object to the general absence of moral fibre in the young these days.
Also, you get far too many leaflets posted through your front door.
As far as I’m concerned it really is not on –
The council ought to crackdown on this racket, as a matter of urgency.
Bring back national service.
Lest we forget.

The Right-Minded View: The Richmond Byelection – Farewell, Zac Goldsmith


I am not a supporter of the Conservative Party, myself – though I do invariably vote for them in elections; I merely believe in fairness, and giving people their due. On that tack, I say it is only right to extol the many virtues of Mr Zac Goldsmith.

As a man of conviction, Mr Goldsmith took a principled approach to the London mayoralty contest, by noting the distinct similarity between the surnames of the Labour candidate, Sadiq Khan, and famed Mongol Horde chieftain: the warlord Mr Genghis Khan.

As a point of order, Mr Goldsmith bravely demanded that the one Mr Khan clarify any possible links to the other Mr Khan; and confirm that he had no plans to lay waste to Central Asia in like manner. I, for one, do not doubt for a moment that this was a genuine point of concern for Mr Goldsmith’s part.

It was perhaps this peerless repository of personal integrity which saw Goldsmith romp home to an impressive second-place finish, overall. Indeed, had the London Mayoralty contest been an Olympic event, this would have garnered a silver medal, no less. Something to bear in mind for future contests.

On much the same tack of, well, thing, (about fairness and dues etc), the Liberal Democrats warrant a fittingly fulsome encomium; as is only proper.

As their formidable leader, Mr Tim Farron, has noted, there is little to no discernible difference between Zac Goldsmith on the one hand, and Mr Jeremy Corbyn on the other. Whereas Goldsmith engaged in populism (sometimes mis-spelled these days as ‘racism’) for personal gain; Mr Corbyn has never done or said anything derogatory about anyone. You simply cannot tell the two men apart, in my view.

What’s more, unlike sundry latte-sipping Leftists, who live in out of touch parts of the country like Islington, Richmond represents the pulse beating at the very heart of the nation’s corpse.

While Richmond may be more affluent than Islington, and more exclusive, and less socio-economically diverse, with a much less varied array of ethnicity and nationalities among its inhabitants – and for that matter, geographically indistinct – it clearly represents something or another; which proves that whatever political interpretation is attached to this byelection result is not merely of national significance, but is also indisputably correct. And you can’t say better than that, now, can you?

Farewell then Zac Goldsmith – a true gentleman and scholar of British politics. Welcome, in turn, a ninth Parliamentary member for the propitious Liberal Democrats – easing themselves into position as a sort of political suppository for the softening of Brexit.

The Right-Minded View: Ukip’s New Leader, Paul Nuttall


I, for one, welcome the new leader of the UK’s foremost independence party.

You only need to know one thing about UKIP’s new leader, Paul Nuttall: he has neither confirmed, nor denied, having sex with a dead pig. That is the kind of caliber honest British patriots expect – no, demand – from their political representatives in this day and age.

It should not be taken as a potential flaw in the man’s character. After all, much the same could be said about David Cameron himself – and it didn’t prevent him rising to the ranks of Prime Minister, no less; without ever once accounting for such matters, publicly.

On a related note, Mr Nuttall is one of the few Liverpudlians who are not too proud to read The Sun newspaper. I say that both of these facets put him squarely in tune with the hopes and aspirations of ordinary voters.

What truly motivates Mr Nuttall can be summed-up quite simply, however: Britain. Indeed, Mr Nuttall works tirelessly for our country’s benefit – so much so that he placed a respectable 736th out of 756 Members of the European Parliament, in terms of parliamentary attendance. What’s more, he once finished a credible second – as the Conservative candidate – during the Sefton council election. Several years later, he improved on this – standing as a Ukip candidate in Bootle: successfully finishing fourth. Four is a higher number than two, as I’m sure we can all agree.

Mr Nuttall is by no means parochial, however. On the contrary, he takes bold inspiration from the continent: favouring the kind of robust immigration policies endorsed by successive German Chancellors, between the years 1932 and 1945.

It is in fact this very topic which forms the nexus of Mr Nuttall’s political philosophy. Nothing could be dearer to Ukip than the well-being of ordinary Britons. To that end, it is high-time to restore proper order to things, and enforce strict controls on immigration.

The influx of migration to British shores is not a recent phenomenon, by any means. On the contrary, the absence of border controls is a problem which has bedeviled Britain since the beginning of time – right back when foreign fish first left the ocean, and began walking on our land.

Many ordinary working-class trees and shrubs had very real concerns about these walking fish invading our shores. If you ask Mr Nuttall, he would rightly – no, proudly – aver that migrating fish should have stayed in their own prehistoric seas. This is not due to prejudice, for his part – but concern, for the past aquatic prosperity of foreign oceans.

Britain may not have had any walking fish of our own; but it was overcrowded with grains of sand, innumerable blades of grass, and far too many leaves to mention in one sitting. Allowing any old fish to walk straight into Britain was simply not cricket. Native species of plants sensed what was coming – their jobs, as organic features of the landscape, would be taken from them by the marauding shoals of amphibious creatures. Many millions of years later, this prospect remains no more or less plausible. 

And when you think about it, what possible benefits has migration ever had for Britain? Take Jewish Russians fleeing persecution back in the 19th century, for instance; who found a safe-haven in Britain, and set themselves up as tailors or shoe-makers, before creating trade unions. It’s not like any true-born Briton has ever had need of footwear, clothing, or employment protections, now, is it?

During the 18th century – right around the time when most of Mr Nuttall’s opinions had their genesis, as it should happen – numerous African migrants moved to Britain; with free transport on British-owned ships. Not a passport in sight. As Ukip would rightly have complained, had they been contemporary witnesses, migratory Africans subsequently undercut British wages, through working without pay.

Back in the 17th century there were the Huguenots – what with their silk-weaving, and copper-engraving, and Bank-of-England-founding, and all that. Well, what was wrong with the time-tested practice of simply burying money in your garden; and waiting for the coins to sprout into money-trees? Nothing, that’s what.

In fact, the list of detrimental impacts migrants have had upon Britain is almost endless. From Germanic tribes coming over here, and forcing us to speak their language – English; through Vikings, creating the entities of England and Scotland; all the way up to Normans, and their ‘judicial system’. When was the last time anyone had use for a judiciary, I ask you. Not in a month of Sundays.

And don’t get me started on the Romans. They should have stayed in their own country, instead of coming here, and introducing roads, and coins; towns and cities; words, and phrases. What was wrong with simply pointing and gesturing? A good, earthy grunt never let anyone down. Nothing wrong with living in a cave, either, if you ask me. As for money and transportation routes – when has the like ever been needed? Pish posh, I say.

Even the ice age wasn’t free from political correctness – nobody was allowed to mutter a word in anger against hunter-gatherers coming to Britain after the ice began to melt; let alone the first farmers refusing to integrate into the British hunter-gathering way of life, and sticking to their own agricultural ways instead. Admittedly, nobody else lived here at the time to make a complaint; but that is beside the point. Had anyone been present, you can rest assured no letters to the Daily Telegraph would have been allowed.

Indeed, for many centuries now, migrants have been pouring into Britain and influencing our nation’s language, cuisine, and economy. Well, it’s not on; and Mr Nuttall will ensure that the betterment of British life stops here.

There is simply no need for the foreign influence. None at all. Take Indians, for instance; coming to our country, and making us jalfrezis, and such like – what was wrong with an honest bowl of tepid water? If you want the sensation of spice, instead of importing foreign nonsense – like chilli – people can simply chew a nettle. Never did me any harm. It’s all well and good for the political cartel in Westminster to order tagliatelle and the like; but you can’t get a decent sheep’s head broth in a British cafe these days, for love nor money.

In sum, I welcome Mr Nuttall’s ascendancy. What has Johnny Foreigner ever done for us Britons? For our culture, heritage, and way of life? Nothing on a par with Ukip’s bold scheme to restore the proper order of things, by bringing back smoking in pubs; along with capital punishment.

The Right-Minded View: Donald Trump & Nigel Farage.

This week has witnessed one small step for Donald Trump; one giant step forward for humankind. Donald Trump is not merely the first ethnically-vermilion person to become US president, but the only President-elect to date who intends to govern for the broad array – if not quite the full gamut – of American people.

That is, after all, what Mr Trump’s ascendancy reflects: a popular uprising against the status quo. Many ordinary people were very angry at the establishment – run, as it is, overwhelmingly in the interests of wealthy white males; and the only sensible solution was to elect somebody who embodies those identical traits.

Much like homeopathy – whereby contagious ailments are treated by introducing a toxic property into one’s gullet. Whether all of this results in a hard Trump, or a soft Trump, remains to be seen.

However, if you ask me, Donald Trump is taking the first tentative steps towards what all fair-minded observers will surely agree is no more than a commonsense presidency. On the one hand, standing up to the elite, by reducing their taxes; while on the other hand, standing up for the little guy by removing their healthcare and employment protections – thereby allowing them to compete on wages and life-chances with the inhabitants of Malaysia, overseas; and closer to home, the denizens of local cemeteries.

The reason for this is quite simple: Mr Trump is a fellow of robust business nous – exemplifying a style of thinking often mischaracterised as “stupid”. What nefarious left-leaning sorts fail to realise, however, is that this is actually a compliment. President-elect Trump has the necessary moxy to puncture the pretensions of so-called intellectuals; and strike deals, left, right, and centre, thereby restoring America to its former glory.

For example – China has a Great Wall. So, thanks to Trump, America will have a greater wall – albeit part fence. While some express scepticism about the necessity of all this, I have to say that they need to imbibe a dose of reality.

Only recently, in fact, I encountered some chip-wrapping in my front garden – no doubt casually bestrewn there by a young, knife-wielding hoodlum; with at least two chips clinging to the inside of the paper, and very possibly a third (I didn’t care to investigate too closely, in case I developed Stockholm syndrome). Therefore, I immediately ordered some fencing from a local timber-merchant – a bit of the old wattle and daub later, and there it was, in all its glory. Not a chip-wrapper in sight, since. I see no reason why America cannot manage likewise; and prosper accordingly.

What’s more, nothing could give greater cause for confidence than the patronage of Nigel Farage; who, as luck would have it, has already volunteered to mend fences on behalf of his American counterparts. Admittedly, the Republican Party perhaps lags behind the more intellectually sophisticated confines of Ukip, in some respects, and has some catching-up to do on the score of etiquette and breeding; but nobody could contest its historical achievements in office.

It took a firm but fair approach to the old terrorism lark, for example. While it’s true that the Bush administration ignored warnings from defence experts about a planned attack on America – opting to put their faith in predicting the future through the interpretation of chicken entrails instead – it is equally true that they persevered, and continued to reduce both the tax burden and the homeland security budget throughout the entirety of those dark days; never pausing for a moment. Just the sort of risk and reward approach which will make America great again.

While Mr Trump may have no more time for experts and their expertise than the average person, he is only too eager to welcome the finest brexperts and their brexpertise that money can buy – this is where Nigel Farage comes in: a fulsome harbinger of the sentiments held by the common man (or woman, where applicable); who can advise the incoming President on the pros and cons of tea and crumpets, and many more things besides.

In return, as an older man – experienced in the ways of business and the world – President Trump can serve as a mentor to the young Nigel: keeping him on the straight and narrow. I have seen so many up and coming fellows in my time come a cropper just for a lack of avuncular edification in the early stages of their careers; and that is what Farage is embarking upon today.

In more ways than one, Farage would be ideal as an under-secretary for something or another in the way of congeniality between Britain and America. While it is true that he has never actually been elected into municipal office; that is merely the sort of trifling detail that only the most embittered of souls would consider pertinent to a role in government.

Judge the book by its cover, I say. Just as the pilgrims once landed on Plymouth rock, Farage admirably crawled out from beneath it: ready and waiting to serve, at the whims of his master; in a manner unequaled since Mr Renfield performed similar duties on behalf of his liege.

And therein lies the nub: what Mr Trump embodies is the fact that we can all rise to the very top, regardless of whether we possess anything by way of charm, talent, or ability; while Nigel Farage proves that there really is such a thing as a free-lunch, just as long as you’re prepared to travel – and have a generous expenses account.

Between these two men, I am confident that something worthwhile can be achieved for our two countries.

Many Politicians Have Very Real Concerns About Immigration


These days, many marginalised and ignored politicians have very real, legitimate concerns about immigration.

The problem, of course, is that politicians can’t talk about the problems of immigration anymore without being labelled ‘opportunists’; or worse, find themselves being called racist – just for expressing anxiety about the threat migration poses to the continued supremacy of the white majority, in our society.

For too long, the public has been ignoring the subject of immigration, by reading about it constantly in the newspapers; instead of listening to politicians when they express their very real concerns. When a politician says ‘immigrants take all the jobs and only come here to claim unemployment benefits’ members of the public have tended to dismiss this as paradoxical nonsense. Whenever a politician writes an article about migrants siphoning away peoples’ bath water, in order to extol the merits of a new, tougher deportation system – disbelief, if not scepticism, is the most commonplace response among their audience.

Image result for farage poster

In my view, ordinary people need to be more attentive to the concerns of the political class. Many politicians blame the EU for the squeeze on living standards; and an increasing number of MPs say that immigration is to blame for social problems – such as the government’s failure to adequately fund local services; or the prevalence of low wages in those areas of employment which low-skilled and poorly educated people tend to depend upon. A failure to acknowledge the concerns politicians express about these issues, means that the public hasn’t earned the right to be heard on other topics – such as the shortage of available jobs in a local economy; or the absence of affordable housing, nationwide.

While we should celebrate the contribution that migrants have made to British politics, we should not overlook the fact that many Members of Parliament simply do not want to raise taxes on their more affluent voters, or address long-standing economic dysfunctions; and politicians should be able to say that immigration is to blame for these problems, without being ignored by members of the public in response.

What’s more, many MPs have very real concerns about losing their jobs, through being displaced by foreign-born candidates in elections; and are emotionally concerned about the downward pressure on their Parliamentary expenses, caused by MPs who grew up in poverty overseas, yet do not avail themselves of public finance, just because it happens to be on offer.


The simple fact is, no British politicians are born racist; but immigration which reaches levels beyond a Parliament’s willingness to invest in the necessary social infrastructure to support it can lead to racism in politics – and we can all agree that racist policies are distasteful.

Worse still, people often think that anti-immigration politics is a bit old-hat, if not faintly unfashionable: the preserve of those Parliamentarians who hold antediluvian views on a variety of issues – from the putative relationship between same-sex marriage and inclement weather; to a woman’s freedom to bare her ankles in public. Or else, those habitues of Westminster who happen to have no particular desire to share bathrooms, and eating facilities, with colleagues who possess more than a modicum of foreign extraction. As a consequence, ordinary members of the public often refuse to even dignify, let alone support, politicians who espouse an aversion towards immigrants.

The problem is that, as far as ordinary members of the public are concerned, all immigrants should feel welcome in Britain – no matter what language they speak, or ethnicity they belong to; and without regard for their religious or political commitments. All that matters, they say, is that migrants are human; and that any politician who suggests otherwise is being illiberal. But this ignores the very real concerns politicians have over the scale of migrants arriving in Britain from the EU; putting pressure on MPs to invest in public services.


Anyone who spent a lot of time talking to politicians during the recent EU referendum, particularly in a constituency like mine, cannot fail to appreciate how strongly MPs have grown to feel about freedom of movement in the weeks following the result; and why, whatever the economic disadvantages of leaving the Single Market may be for ordinary people, politicians are frankly not willing to even engage in a conversation about that reality unless there is a recognition of their concerns about the ability of Parliament to manage immigration. To take but one example, the huge number of refugees from war-torn countries such as Iraq, Syria, or Libya, makes it difficult for politicians to deport them straight back to these areas, en masse.

How then do we stop this situation from arising? How can we create a migration system, which assuages the concerns and anxieties of Britain’s politicians?

There is a simple solution to this conundrum: instead of investing in industry, or creating employment opportunities, and building homes, what we should pursue instead is a managed system of immigration. More specifically, we can turn Parliament into an arrangement based on work permits – that is, a points-based scheme for MPs. This can be carefully calibrated so that a politician’s skills and qualifications are measured against the need for their abilities in Parliament.

For instance, is somebody with a background in banking really needed to manage the National Health Service? Is someone with an interdisciplinary degree in Philosophy, Politics and Economics really necessary for the job, when the post being offered is head of environmental policy? It seems fair to wager not.


What’s more, it is common knowledge that wages often drive down immigration – that is to say, the more poorly a job pays, the less likely somebody will travel across a continent to do it. Therefore, we simply need to ensure that all Members of Parliament are paid on a results basis; which will all but guarantee that they receive no more than the minimum, in the majority of cases. This will mean that very few migrants opt to become Members of Parliament – pursuing instead the traditional careers of newcomers to Britain’s shores; in the fields of medicine, nursing, and education, for example.

But what of politicians who wish to enact anti-immigration policies; yet still want to call themselves contemporary, liberal, and relevant to the economic internationalism of the twenty-first century? The answer is easy: merely invest anti-immigration policies with progressive values.

So then, what would a progressive anti-immigration approach look like in practice? Well, rather than the fairly stuffy, antiquated ‘death to traitors’ variety of anti-migrant sentiment; the public could vote for an eco-friendly, environmentally-sustainable version instead.

For example, if a large crowd of MPs were to authorise the forcible expulsion of a refugee, on a no-questions-asked-about-their-pregnancy basis, deportation officers could be issued with truncheons which have wooden handles all sourced from certified, sustainable forestry; and with cans of pepper-spray, fairly traded from co-operatively owned cayenne plantations.

Moreover, if a Home Secretary wanted to justify bypassing their legal obligations to somebody under the age of 16, and needed a convenient anecdote about someone’s pet cat preventing their deportation, then they could ensure that the reference is to a cat from a rescue centre. This offers a feel-good approach to refoulment; which we can all share in.

And lastly, ordinary people foregoing their right to freedom of movement really has to be a red line in a post-Brexit UK – otherwise we will be holding our country’s MPs in contempt. If ordinary Britons agree to give up their liberty to live and work in EU countries, then we can avoid driving the social tensions which lead to outbreaks of racism among a minority of politicians: resulting in entities such as Yarl’s Wood being erected, for example; or else undertaking wars in the middle east continuously and indifferently.

In sum, the best way to keep Britain the open and non-racist country it has always been, is to no longer allow ordinary people from the wrong sort of countries to enter it; where they could frighten elected representatives, and disquiet easily perturbed members of Parliament.

The Right-Minded View: Traingate


Everything we had been told to believe turned out to be a lie. There was no crowded carriage. There were no passengers, seated in aisles. There was no train. There was no floor.

We were told that Mr Corbyn had a copy of Private Eye. It was said that the train had walls. In reality, it was all an elaborate ruse to cover up the terrible, shocking truth…that the Corbyn train picture was faked using the same studio which was employed to simulate the moon landings.

Wake up people!!!!!

Thankfully, however, commonsense prevailed. The owner of a private train company arbitrated this dispute in an entirely neutral and fair-minded manner, to the satisfaction of all concerned: reaffirming that his profit-making enterprise is entirely free from problem – which is particularly reassuring, given the fact that Mr Corbyn has mentioned something or another about returning the railways to public ownership.

And to think, Corbyn would have gotten away with it all, too; had it not been for Richard Branson and his talking dog.

The truth is out there.

Trust no-one.