Don't Vote Labour (Part 6)

The Channel Crisis; Opposing Deportations

The Channel Crisis

For a long while, Labour had a real blindspot when it came to the migrant crisis in the Channel. They barely mentioned it, except when their MPs were holding 'refugees welcome' signs or when they were criticising the Tories or Nigel Farage for daring to bring it up. Even as the numbers soared, resulting in 42,000 coming in 2022, hardly anything was said. Once again, though, Starmer finally listened to the focus groups and Labour started making a noise about it.

The trouble is, after their Damascene conversion, Labour are not suggesting anything which would really fix the problem. For some time it was 'faster processing' and 'safe routes', despite those arguably encouraging migrants even more. Then it became 'work with the French' and 'returns agreements', despite the EU Dublin Agreement we were signed up to having been useless. Finally we had 'smash the criminal gangs' (insert David Brent "ooh, you're hard" GIF).  These are all valid to some extent, but superficial. There has been no official mention of proper deterrents, such as offshore processing, removal of pull factors, or secure detention while claims are processed. The latter, for my money, is the best bet, expensive though it would be.

There was a recent discovery that Tony Blair had wanted to process asylum seekers on the Isle of Mull in Scotland, but was told the ECHR would block it. Upon hearing this, his reaction was that the government should find a way around our Strasbourg overlords. Clearly though, the idea was abandoned, so presumably a way could not be found. A reality of New Labour is that although it enthusiastically increased legal and regular immigration, it understood that the public was affronted by the illegal and irregular kind and was sure to stay tough on the issue. They first developed the concept of the 'hostile environment', often wrongly attributed to Theresa May and the Tories. It was easier then because the numbers were much lower (indeed until 2018 there were hardly any crossings by dinghy), but toughness was nevertheless a feature.

With Starmer's Labour, however, it is harder to tell whether they have the same instincts. One would assume Blair and Mandelson, who we know are advising Starmer, are now encouraging them along these lines. There was a suggestion Labour would consider offshore processing - presumably just not the version the Tories are proposing. Quite possibly this was planted in the press to muddy the waters and appeal to the right, without actually being genuine. Labour also refused to rule out continuing to use the controversial Bibby Stockholm barge. However, their weakness on the issue before does suggests they don't really get it.

Perhaps the Starmerites didn't want to move too fast, lest it alienate the Corbyn wing of the party from which they were transitioning, and that is why they were hesitant. On the other hand, maybe the politics of 1990s Labour are not really compatible with the modern left. Starmer's Labour might be economically liberal as Blairism was, but socially things have changed, both in the country, among the left and in the party ranks. There is a stronger influence of political correctness and internationalism in a way there wasn't under Blair and Brown. New Labour were social radicals really but they kept their power levels hidden from the more conservative public and 'old Labour' working class members. Could the bruiser attitude of John Reid and David Blunkett really occur again? Or would it be crushed by the current handwringing about the 'rights' of foreign interlopers gaming our system? Would it be smothered by us 'all needing to work together' under legal rulings from Strasbourg'?

These are answers we will only get if Labour forms a government. From what we've seen, though, the outlook is not good. As well as not commenting on the situation for so long, Labour have blocked any measure the government has taken to try and deter the migrants from coming. This includes the Nationality and Borders Act, the Illegal Migration Act and all subsequent legislation to get the Rwanda relocation scheme working. They have accepted every negative ruling of the ECHR and the UK Supreme Court and rubbished the Rwanda scheme to death (something admittedly it's been easy to do). Their need to embarrass their opponents and virtue signal has overridden any care for the nation's security.

Perhaps being in power would see them stand up to the courts if judges tried to thwart their deterrent measures. Then again, perhaps they wouldn't even suggest such measures, or they would suggest them but roll over when denied. Another possibility is that the courts and the biased Civil Service are making Rwanda fail, because they want to make the government fail and usher in their fellow traveller Starmer. They might even be purposefully making the Channel Crisis worse for the same ends. Thus we may see things working a lot smoother once their guy is in No 10 - and wouldn't you know it, Labour will get the credit.

Just to illustrate the bias of the Civil Service, the head of the Home Office asylum department, took a new job with Amnesty International. Emma Haddad took the role in 2023 after leaving the Home Office in late 2022. The NGO had referred to the UK government's asylum policy as 'inhumane, racist and divisive'. The outgoing head of the Border Force, Paul Lincoln, said in 2021 that "bloody borders are just such a pain in the bloody arse". Incredibly this was in a workplace leaving speech which quoted the late lead singer of The Pogues: "People are talking about immigration, emigration and the rest of the bloody thing. It’s all bloody crap!".

Despite having been frustrated by such Trojan horse individuals, it still must be said the Conservatives have made a hash of the asylum crisis. Indeed they have made a hash of immigration in general. Their allegiance to big business, addicted to cheap labour, has partly caused this. It has caused an existential problem for the country, and cannot be glossed over. Admittedly, the numbers coming by dinghy have declined by a third since  2022, and the issue of Albanians coming has been effectively tackled by an agreement. At least the Tories have managed this, but the numbers are still way too high, and the situation is still a travesty.

In one sense Labour couldn't do much worse. In another, they could surpass the Tories in failure, because of radical ideology within the party, because they hope to gain votes from the Channel trespassers, or because of weakness. Even if - and it's a big if - Labour's intentions are to fix the issue, there is no guarantee that they could. Such vast numbers are not easily tackled without bold deterrent action - action it seems no mainstream British government has the guts for.

Opposition to deportations

Labour's ability to control our borders is called into question further when you consider Labour MPs have been opposing immigration raids and deportations. One letter was sent on February 9th 2020 concerning a flight scheduled to remove 50 Jamaican criminals who had served their prison sentences. Authored by Nadia Whittome, it expressed concerns about the flight, asking eight questions of the Prime Minister. It asked that the deportations be suspended until a review into the 'Windrush' scandal had been completed. This letter was signed by Keir Starmer, who became Labour leader in April that year, and several current Labour frontbenchers. The deportation flight went ahead as planned on February 11th, but not with every criminal on board. Some were released and seven went on to reoffend, committing violence and drug-crime.

Another flight was scheduled for December 2nd 2020, again with around 50 people on board. A letter was written by Clive Lewis on November 30th and was signed by 66 Labour MPs. It called for the flight to be cancelled, citing Covid 19 and 'institutionalised racism' as reasons. Presumably the signatories wanted the felons to be simply released afterwards. Starmer did not sign this, most likely because he was now the Labour leader, no longer needed the approval of the party's left, and didn't want to look bad. The flight took off on schedule - however, only 17 criminals were on it. A legal challenge ensured 23 were removed from the plane.

One individual who was removed was Ernesto Elliot, a career criminal with 17 convictions. He was released and six months later on June 2nd 2021 he and his son stabbed a man to death in broad daylight. The murder took place in Greenwich after a fight with their victim when they tried to rob him of drugs and cash. Elliot should not have been on our streets. He had been taken off the deportation flight after an intervention by the ECHR (them again) ruled he could not be deported because it would have denied his 'right to a family life'. Part of this 'family life' seems to have been committing violent crime with his son. 

The MPs who opposed the flights did not directly influence that decision by the ECHR. They were not directly lobbying on behalf of Elliot. They could not have known what he would go on to do. But that's the problem - they didn't know. They irresponsibly virtue signalled, without any thought for the reality of the situation or the safety of this country. They were the Westminster equivalent of the Swedish girl who kicked off on a 2018 civilian flight and prevented the deportation of a rapist. She thought she was being virtuous, but she was in fact protecting a predator. This type of incident has occurred multiple times around the western world.

Like the Swedish useful idiot, these MPs contributed to the atmosphere of hysteria surrounding border control, where normal procedures are labelled 'cruel' and 'racist'. They were pandering to a particular voting demographic, rather than considering the security consequences of releasing known criminals. You could argue their actions indirectly led to the Elliot murder and they are morally responsible. Certainly they did nothing to help prevent it.  And who knows what other crimes may stem from their interventions?

Yet more irresponsibility was shown by Labour when a 2021 immigration raid was prevented by a mob in Pollokshields in Glasgow. The crowd surrounded the van and pressured the HMRC officers into releasing two suspected illegal immigrants. Shamefully the officers complied. The group were leftist activists and local Muslims who believed the men were Islamic, despite them actually being Sikhs. The raid being on Eid (13th May) had increased anger. Activists claimed the interlopers were 'concerned neighbours' showing spontaneous solidarity with the pair, but a rallying call had been sent out on leftist chat groups to storm the location. The mob had no idea who they were assisting. All they saw was 'poor brown men being taken away' and an affront to their naïve views about borders. He could have been a criminal, or being exploited by the underground jobs market, but of course they didn't care.

Enter some low-grade Labour politicians, and yes that includes Angela Rayner and Anas Sarwar. Sarwar, the leader of Scottish Labour, Tweeted: "I am disgusted by the Home Office raids... It is particularly unacceptable that this is happening during a pandemic... and on the day of Eid". Rayner reposted this saying: "Solidarity with the people of Glasgow today [fist emoji]". Perennially wrong Corbynite, Zarah Sultana Tweeted: "Nothing is more beautiful than solidarity... The people of Glasgow mobilised, fought back and got their neighbours released". At that time Claudia Webbe still had the Labour whip, before it was removed following a conviction for harassment of a love-rival. Her stellar contribution was: “This is the moment that People Power forced the release... with the power of solidarity and humanity the people of  Glasgow mobilised and said NO". They're not ones for originality, the current PLP.

It is one thing to quietly oppose arrests of illegal immigrants or 'tough' border enforcement as a policy. It is quite another, as an MP of a party hoping to form the next government, to openly celebrate and encourage such behaviour - namely stopping the authorities in the course of their duties. This mob was using the threat of violence to prevent the law of the land being enforced, and Labour MPs were giving it their full backing. How can we trust any party staffed with such people to govern the country, especially when there is an asylum crisis?