Australian journalist Nick Cater has written a diatribe about the failure of immigration policy in Britain in the Australian. It’s an excoriating attack on the saga to date and especially the first few weeks of the new Labour Government. He also has a warning for Australia. The story is behind a paywall and is likely to go largely unnoticed in Britain, but here’s an extract:
The eruption of ethnic tension in dozens of British towns and cities is a reminder of what happens when governments lose control of immigration.
Boats transporting illegal migrants land so frequently they no longer make the headlines. Since Keir Starmer became Prime Minister at the start of July, there have been 87 “uncontrolled landings”, as the Home Office delicately calls them. That’s another 5,000 asylum-seekers to be fed, housed and processed as guests of the U.K. Government on top of the 31,000 who arrived under the Conservatives last year, and the 96,000 who arrived in the three years before that.
The Labour Government’s response to the crisis is to do precisely nothing. The last thing it wants to do is incur the wrath of the European Court of Human Rights, to which Britain remains beholden, nine years after the British people voted for Brexit.The government won’t confirm how many provincial hotels have been requisitioned, and editors are discouraged from publishing their names. Still, the BBC reported last year that 395 hotels had been requisitioned, housing 51,000 asylum-seekers at a cost of more than £6 million ($12 million) a day, or around $4.4 billion a year, a figure that appears to be a gross underestimate.
The political class may have lost control of the borders, but it has an iron grip on the narrative. To suggest there might be underlying causes to the recent civil disturbances is strictly taboo. Those who come close stand accused of justifying hate crime or may even face charges of being an actual hate criminal, the equivalent of being labelled an enemy of the people in Enver Hoxha’s communist Albania.
It is a catch-all charge laid against anyone who deviates from the party line, which is that the multicultural, globalist project would work fine if these people would only shut up.
The alternative interpretation is that the riots are a manifestation of the pent-up frustration among many Britons who want a say in who comes to their country and how they come. The longer the British establishment keeps its ear turned and tries to suppress serious discussion, the more it will fester.
The truth, however unpalatable, is that the vision of the anointed has turned out to be a horrible, socially destructive and probably irreversible mistake. Trust in the British Government’s ability to control immigration has disappeared outside the London bubble. The British stiff upper lip is being tested every day in provincial towns and cities where wedding receptions are cancelled, business conferences relocated, and golf courses fenced off to make room for the archipelago of mini-Christmas Islands housing people with no cultural connection with Britain or its people.
By comparison, immigration in Australia appears to be working like a dream, at least on paper. It has twice as many overseas-born residents per capita as Britain, the highest concentration in the OECD, excluding Luxembourg, which is different. Australia is the kind of country one goes to seek one’s fortune, while Luxembourg, with its generous tax rules, is the kind of place you go to keep it.
Labor appeared to restore its support for sovereign borders in opposition but, as we now know, the malevolent growth of progressive ideology continued below the surface. Anthony Albanese’s misguided belief that the Australian government has a duty of care to displaced people from a lawless terrorist enclave is entirely consistent with his long-held belief that the Howard government should have accepted the Tampa asylum-seekers.
It stems from the dangerous idea that Australia’s commitment to universal human rights overrides its duty to protect the safety of its own citizens. It assumes that expenditure of compassion on a category of people in a faraway land should be a higher priority than the rights of its citizens, who merely want to know that new arrivals will keep the law and invest in the Australian dream.
No post-war prime minister has tested the limits of public acceptance of an active migration policy as much as this one nor tested the strength of the social fabric by dismissing legitimate grievances. The lesson from the disastrous diversity experiment in Britain is clear: stop it before it is too late.
If you can access the website, the story is worth reading in full.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Another “conspiracy theory” comes true!
Is that about 22-0 now? Since AGW, Brexit, Trump and now COVID.
When I pointed out the success of Sweden’s approach more than a year ago to my MP he loftily declared, as if he was citing incontrovertible fact that Sweden had not done well as evidenced by the apologies offered by their King and Prime Minister.
I knew then that he, like the rest, was an utter ****. I wasn’t totally sure up to that point.
The fact he was a MP should have been your first clue
It was always likely that lockdowns killed more people than they “saved”.
Sweden was misrepresented, lied about, vilified, and we were vilified for using them as an example.
However it should be remembered that Sweden did have some restrictions, vaxxed lots of people, and for a long time barred entry to the unvaxxed. Way better than here, but far from perfect.
Finally, while it’s nice that Sweden “did well”, covid was obviously never a societal threat so any measures beyond giving people accurate information and looking into effective treatments (HCQ, ivermectin, whatever) there was no need to do anything out of the ordinary or treat it differently to a bad flu season. We knew that from the start.
So true. Lockdowns inherently kill more people than they save. And it was self-evident and thus entirely foreseeable from the get-go by anyone with a modicum of intellectual honesty and more than two brain cells to rub together.
How much better again would it have been if safe and effective early treatments had not been not outlawed at the behest of Big Pharma? There must be a reckoning.
“not been outlawed”!
Indeed, very true.
Has the UK really had 24.5% excess deaths over 2020-2022? That is more than twice what I have from ONS data.
I have about 10.5% from January 2020 to today’s figures. That is excess above the average 2010-2019, corrected for population.
Have I got something wrong here?
is it because you’re using a 10 year (2010-2019) previous average as comparison?
This is its most simple form, uncorrected for population. Deaths registered in England and Wales Sheet 1a here gives
2021 586,334
2020 607,922
2019 530,841
2018 541,589
2017 533,253
2016 525,048
2015 529,655
2014 501,424
2013 506,790
2012 499,331
2011 484,367
2010 493,242
Ave 2010-2019 = 514,554
Ave 2015-2019 = 532,077
Deaths registered weekly in England and Wales Sheet 1 here gives
2022 471,064 (sum to week 43)
Total deaths 2020-2022 = 607,922 + 586,334 + 471,064 = 1,665,320
(2+43/52)*average 10 year = 1,454,605, excess = 14.5% approx
(2+43/52)*average 5 year = 1,454,605, excess = 10.7% approx
(These will be a few percent smaller when corrected for population and does not adjust for seasons. My chart does include this.)
Either way, it is nowhere near 24.5%
What have I done wtong?
Note: I think I see what Joel Smalley has done!
He has not taken the real % excess – i.e. above normal.
He has taken about 2.5 years excess deaths as a percentage over 1 year!
It’s accumulative excess deaths over the 2020 – 2022 period, not an annualised average.
Yes, as I later suggested.
I have been working with excess weekly deaths. These are currently 17.7% above the 2010-2019 average (population adjusted) when taken over the last three weeks. That’s for England and Wales. So 24.5% was a surprise until I sussed what it meant!
Amen to that! “Stockholm Syndrome” should really be renamed “Melbourne Syndrome”, because #SwedenGotItRight.
Additionally, Belarus, Nicaragua, Tanzania, and the Faeroe Islands didn’t do any worse than their stricter neighbors either in terms of all cause excess deaths. Ditto for the 12 states in the USA that eschewed lockdowns as well, compared to the rest of the country.
And it appears that the Governor of one of the sane states has done quite well in the current election (Ron De Santis). I wonder if that had anything to do with the election results?
Indeed. Ditto for Kristi Noem of South Dakota as well. A fortiori, in fact.
Well at least they got something right, but how is that multiculturalism working out for them? Or is it still against the law there to criticise the sex crime statistics?
I taught in schools for years. In the good old days the winter lurgy (whatever it was) would sweep through the school system and we’d hear that half the staff of school A were off and it was chaos as teachers tried to cope. A week later we’d hear that the lurgy had moved to school B and it was chaos there. This pattern continued through the local schools over a period of a few weeks and then everything settled down to whatever was considered normal. The point being that viruses moving through the population is what they do. People get ill or don’t depending on their own biology and susceptibilty. People are affected differently but for most it is a few days of ill health followed by a return to life. There is no need for lockdowns, masks, social distancing or whatever.
It is to be hoped that lessons will have been learned in the last 3 years but then again…
They didn’t bother with the lessons learned in the last 100 years, so clearly these buffoons will learn nothing from the last 3.
Sweden would have done even better if it had refused to roll-out the gene therapy jabs.
Indeed. Ditto if they had used HCQ and IVM as well (unfortunately it looks like they did not). But their food is fortified with Vitamin D at least, like the other Nordic countries and Canada, but unlike the USA, UK, and most of Europe.
Surely its obvious to anybody, but Americans, that Fauci was the supporter and promoter of the research originally in America, but later farmed out to the Wuhan lab in China. On that basis he has a big part of the responsibility for Covid existing, because it escaped from that lab, yet he continued in post imposing his restrictions not based on real science. Now he is being allowed to retire with probably a big payout and pension – he should be strung up, although as that doesn’t happen these days people should at least be aware of the number of deaths he has caused. Surely he should be forced to accept his responsibility and make a public appology.
And then be convicted and sent to jail.
“Those responsible for implementing them should be held accountable for the deaths they have caused”
While this is true, the economic and social effects of lockdowns will persist for generations. The people responsible for lockdowns should be held to account for this too
Can someone explain the sourcing on this? I can’t seem to spot any even on the full article.