FRANK HAVILAND
I’ve often thought the Labour Party’s approach to ministerial appointments was an insider game of Truth or Dare, where the PM of the day challenges the public to notice the sheer insanity of its increasingly ludicrous reshuffles. Jess Phillips as Safeguarding Minister was a pretty good effort: the woman who once said she “didn’t give a toss” about certain victims’ issues, and fought tooth and nail to water down any semblance of a proper national inquiry into ‘grooming gangs’. Then there was Ange Rayner, Minister for Edyookayshun: who famously has a bit of catching up in the classroom to do herself. Throw in David Lammy as Foreign Secretary, whose most diplomatic achievement was calling Trump a ‘Neo-Nazi’ before having to have dinner with the man. It’s a crowded field. Personally, I always hoped they’d officially make Diane Abbott ‘Minister for Mathematics’, but that’s probably just being cruel.
You could say the same about the current Home Secretary, Shabana Mahmood. Pitched to the public as an immigration ‘hardliner’ (yes, really), her past and her voting record would tend to suggest otherwise. Was it not Shabana who was soft on deportations and the Tories’ former Rwanda scheme? Was it not Shabana who almost always voted against a stricter asylum system? And was it not Shabana who confidently proclaimed her Muslim faith was “the core of who I am…the part of me that remains when everything else is gone” and the thing that shapes her views and drives her public service?
Under Mahmood’s stewardship, the Home Office has just announced a new sponsorship scheme for “refugees” to come into effect later this year. Modelled on the Homes for Ukraine programme (which brought in upwards of 200,000 Ukrainians displaced by the Russian invasion), the scheme will allow businesses, community organisations, and universities to sponsor refugees under “safe and legal routes.” The plan is presented as a means of reducing the number of illegals, by offering prospective arrivals a controlled pathway. Genius gaslighting, though it does seem to ignore the obvious: A) the Channel crossing is already fairly safe, judging by the thousands who make it across each week, and B) those who enter illegally are clearly not that concerned about the law in the first place.
To be fair, Labour’s approach to immigration has always been at odds with the British public. In Blair’s day, “refugees” were rounded up and press-ganged into Labour focus groups. Starmer’s ‘one-in-one-out’ Hokey Cokey never made sense to me, until I saw the hydration breaks at the World Cup. Clearly the point was to allow the Afghans and Eritreans substitutions between conquests, so that the seamless gang-rape of Britain could continue uninterrupted.
Burnham, however, may have topped them all. Eager to expand his voter base, he’d obviously much rather be King of North Africa than merely King in the North. With rumours he may scrap restrictions altogether, this leaves Mahmood in a quandary: should she stick to her ‘hardline’ guns and only let a few million in, or acquiesce by installing an illegal in every spare bedroom across the country? This has the benefit of cutting out the hotel middleman, delivers rapists to rapees as efficiently as possible, and could be sold to the public by offering tax breaks to anyone with an attractive wife or teenage daughters.
Let’s return briefly to sanity, and remind ourselves of a few of the facts. The small boat illegals are comprised almost entirely of young, fighting-age men – around 90 percent, even by the Home Office’s own statistics. Which means the war-zones they are fleeing (France?!) are so bad, only women and children should be left to face them. That is the argument, stripped of disguise and bad faith that those using words like “refugee” and “asylum” are making, and it should immediately exclude them from the conversation. Which means, at the very best, these are economic migrants the country can ill-afford.
Immigration has been the primary concern of the British public for a good many years, occasionally beaten into second place by the lamentable state of the NHS; a state caused, in no small part, by mass immigration, one ought to acknowledge. One in thirteen Londoners is an illegal immigrant, a record 20,000 foreign criminals have recently avoided deportation, and unsurprisingly Labour have secretly dropped the ban on illegals winning British citizenship. Amnesties do tend to help massage the figures.
Illegals commit a disproportionate share of sex crimes in the country, with Eritreans and Afghans working over twenty times harder than native Brits. Not to worry though, says the Home Office: the plan is to deport 45,000 illegals and foreign criminals over the next decade. The next decade. That’s 4,500 a year – or a couple of week’s worth, however you look at it. And bear in mind, we have a returns agreement with Albania which accounts for most of the removals anyway.
In short, the country is under siege.
No one in Westminster, and I mean no one could possibly pretend they thought this is what the public wanted. Yet that is precisely what the Labour administration insists on claiming. At every juncture when the public has expressed its loathing for him and his policies, Keir Starmer parroted the same line: “the British people want us to go further and faster.” Such wilful misrepresentation is the equivalent (if you’ll forgive me sticking rather crudely to our theme) of interpreting your objection to your daughter’s gang-rape, as regret that she wasn’t getting as much out of it as she could.
Let’s call this what it really is: an open declaration of war against the British people. And it’s not the first time either. Remember the illegals set to be removed from Epping, and Yvette ‘refugees welcome’ Cooper’s 11th hour Hail Mary to keep them in situ? When people consistently tell us who they are, perhaps we should start believing them?
Despite the slight optimism I still hold for a Reform government (or genuine right-wing coalition of the willing), I am erring towards the inevitable conclusion that the days of voting our way out of this problem may be coming to an end.
Prepare accordingly.
Frank Haviland is the Editor of The New Conservative, and the author of Banalysis: The Lie Destroying the West.
If you enjoy my work, please consider buying me a coffee – it would really help to keep me going. Thank you!
This article (Labour Declares War on the British People) was created and published by Frank Haviland and is republished here under “Fair Use”
See Related Article Below
On Asylum seekers
Not my problem.
LAURA PERRINS
Over the weekend, Shabana Mahmood MP, the home secretary announced ‘new safe and legal routes’ for refugees to come to Britain. That Home Office tweet in full: “New safe and legal routes for refugees to come to the UK will begin to roll out in the autumn, giving genuine refugees a pathway to rebuild their lives.
Our new community sponsorship scheme will allow approved groups to choose the refugees they sponsor, taking responsibility for their housing, integration and supporting them into work. Trusted universities will be able to directly sponsor refugees through a new refugee study route. A new refugee work sponsorship route is expected to open next year.
All arrivals will have refugee status, undergo strict biometric screening, criminality checks and health assessments before arrival, to ensure support reaches those in genuine need. Numbers will start small and build over time, ensuring the routes remain controlled and sustainable while public confidence is restored in Britain’s immigration system.
The first refugee arrivals are expected by autumn 2027.”
Mark that in your diary.
Labour’s ‘controversial’ immigration and asylum bill is expected to be introduced to Parliament next week. This ‘safe route’ scheme is necessary to shore up support for Mahmood’s controversial immigration bill on the left of Labour according to the Guardian. When the Bill was first suggested it was sold as a crackdown on illegal immigration. This caused panic even in Dublin. I wouldn’t get too excited.
The Bill promised last November seeks “to increase the forced removal of people refused asylum, introduce stringent age checks for people claiming to be children and limit applications under human rights laws…”
The legislation is expected to direct how article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) is applied in immigration and deportation cases. The much hyped changed to indefinite leave to remain (increasing the time you need to be in the country from 5 years to 10 years before you could apply for ILR) will not be in the bill. It will contain new structure for asylum tribunals by dropping an independent court system and replacing it with a new appeals body that sits within the Home Office. Finally, it is proposed to allow the “immediate forced removal of those who have exhausted all appeals.” The family reunification scheme was paused in Mahmood in September 2025 but is expected to reopen this year.
All of this – like the proposed welfare changes – will come against fierce opposition from the labour left as well as refugee charities. Hence the offer, the sweetener, of legal safe routes for refugees to settle in the UK.
This is what will happen. Asylum numbers will increase. This will be the welfare shambles part 2. Remember when PM Starmer proposed a £5 billion cut in welfare but the backbenches rebelled and managed to turn that into an increase of about £4 billion? A £9 billion swing. Expect the same with immigration – a cut that somehow turns into an increase. A demand by the public for reduced numbers of people coming to Britain will be “realised” by more people coming to Britain.
The safe route scheme has some support. It is the kind of thing that a government would come up with after consulting a lot of focus groups. In these focus groups the peeps tell you they are not against immigration or asylum seekers, just those who abuse the system. I’ve said this kind of thing myself. What really irks is the ongoing small boats crisis, hundreds of military aged men coming over what should be a natural sea defence and border to break into the country. An invasion, if you will (call me far-right.) This drives even the middle-class slightly crazy, as it is daily reminder of the diminishing status of Britain and how it cannot even control its own border. A mere 11,000 have arrived this year so far. The numbers since 2022 are:
- 2022 – 45,774
- 2023 – 29,437
- 2024 – 36,816
- 2025 – 41,472
Asylum via the English Channel also favours the strong – those who can make difficult and dangerous journey to the UK. Whereas if we had “safe routes” this could shift the balance to women and children securing asylum. Or as my friend Tim Stanley tweeted, “refugee sponsorship scheme sounds promising! A capped safe/legal route, sponsored by private citizens, less pressure on communities &, if like Canada, speeds-up employment. Combine this with reducing boats & it’s a better balance: a wall with a gate in it.”
A few problems. First, many people in Britain want zero new asylum seekers. The British people have taken in more than their fair share already. They have suffered an influx of people unprecedented in modern times. How about you deport the 164,500 military aged men who broke into the country illegally since 2022 before you set up the whole safe route fandango? How about that?
In addition to the small boat numbers above there was the 30,000 Afghanis settled in a secret scheme, kept super-secret by a super injunction. The small boats keep coming and show no sign of stopping. Also by definition asylum seekers have the least to offer. They are not here because of their skill set or to fill a gap in the labour market. It is the exact opposite. They are here because of what Britain offers them. Indeed the more traumatic their experience of war, oppression and persecution the greater the claim to asylum.
That’s sad, but it’s not our problem. This is the truth. It is time for someone to make the case and say, new asylum seekers or refugees with their tales of woe are not our problem. I have compassion for them but that does not mean I should take hundreds of thousands to the detriment of my fellow countrymen.
Do you know what is our problem? At least 520 women and babies who received maternity care so substandard that they died or were seriously harmed. The housing crisis and poor condition of the NHS is our problem. The fact that more is spent on welfare than defence is our problem.
There is a hierarchy of people you owe a duty to. If you take those duties seriously and are not morally bankrupt, that hierarchy is: your family, your extended family or clan, those in your community, those in your broader community and then your fellow countrymen. Right down the bottom of the list, at the very, very bottom, is the person who turns up on your door from Turkmenistan with a sad tale of woe and suffering from PTSD and very poor English. This includes the children. Read my lips: this is not my problem.
A person who prioritises someone from say Sudan over their own family, friends and community is morally disordered. The refugee charities will say that this is a false choice. It isn’t. Resources are limited. Every child of a large family knows this. It is one thing to lose parental time and resources to another sibling but quite another to the dude from Sudan who receives resources transferred under compulsion by a vast government bureaucracy.
This is before we get to issues of the culture clash and the threat a minority of these men pose to the safety of women and children in this country.
For instance, part of this mad ‘safe route scheme’ includes universities taking on refugees. So this means a university could take in a few hundred (we don’t know?) men who have witnessed a brutal genocide, was perhaps a child soldier for years or lived in a country where rape was a weapon of war. And they are just going to drop that lad into Freshers Week 2027. Tell me, how is this a good idea? Will that person be offered the counselling they need and if so, who is paying? Again the greater the persecution and oppression the better your claim for asylum. You witnessed your entire village being butchered with machetes? Welcome to first year residence accommodation.
Getting back to Tim who sees the Bill as a deal – safe routes for fewer small boats. “Combine this with reducing boats & it’s a better balance: a wall with a gate in it.” The word combine is doing a lot of work in that sentence. The problem with legislation is that it reflects the wishes of the legislators, in this case the Labour left. The home secretary cannot make laws herself. The Bill must pass through the House of Commons, committee stages, and then go to the House of Lords until finally it receives Royal assent. Just like the welfare bill all the restrictions to reduce asylum seekers will be watered down or stripped out completely and the provisions for ever increasing numbers of asylum seekers will be beefed up. Has anything the Starmer government done so far given you cause to believe otherwise?
Britain doesn’t need a wall with a gate in it. It just needs a big wall. A very high, very long scary wall with barbed wire on top that says: Keep Out. Nothing less than that will do.
Buy me a coffee
This article (On Asylum seekers) was created and published by Laura Perrins and is republished here under “Fair Use”
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Liberty Beacon Project.
Leave a Reply