Although Churchillian in origin, the well-rehearsed Tory slogan ‘We’re all in this together’ is most famously associated with the coalition government’s response to the credit crunch. Ever since then, it’s been the precursor to belt-tightening measures imposed by those, like Churchill, willing to sacrifice their own waistlines for the good of public health. Former Chancellor George Osborne first used it to sell his austerity programme to the nation in 2009. David Cameron employed it to promote “the big society,” which critics argued was merely a cover for substantial public sector spending cuts. And Rishi Sunak, the fattest cat of them all, gave the line a new spin by going on a £400 billion lockdown bender, and quietly handing the taxpayer the bill.
As political slogans go, ‘We’re all in this together’ was always going to be a hard sell for the Gucci-bedecked members of the Bullingdon Club, but it turns out there’s more than a grain of truth to the motto, provided one align it with the correct conservative policy. Reposition it with the government’s response to the immigration crisis, and suddenly Tory inaction becomes less of a mystery. One might even dare suggest that, far from stopping the boats, those in authority are happy with as much immigration as they can lay their hands on.
Milking the system
The latest addition to Britain’s pro-immigration lobby is the judiciary. Thanks to last week’s undercover investigation by the Daily Mail, it is now apparent that UK lawyers are charging up to £10,000 to illegal immigrants on how to game our asylum system. Those caught in the sting were Rashid Ahmad Khan, of Rashid & Rashid Solicitors, who instructed the ‘client’ to lie to the home office, and offered to invent a story of a dangerous life in India; Muhammad Azfar, of Kingswright Solicitors, who suggested the client invoke a sham marriage; and VP Lingajothy, of Duncan Ellis Solicitors, who offered to concoct a backstory of slave labour, false imprisonment, torture, and death threats, alongside a doctor’s report and a history of anti-depressants to convince the home office of psychological trauma (failing that, a front row seat at this year’s LibDem party conference). Multimillionaire lawyers on the take, who’d have thought it?
To be frank, it would have been more of a mystery had the law firms not had their hands in the till. Why not, when everyone else appears to? The most basic inspection of the facts leads one inexorably to the conclusion that every cog in the immigration wheel is either milking the system, or at the very least working against the interests of the British people, 82% of whom want the boats stopped.
The British and French authorities are colluding in their efforts to chaperone illegal migrants into UK waters, while home office staff have regularly threatened to mutiny over the Rwanda deal. French border guards are alleged to be accepting backhanders from the smuggling gangs, which hardly comes as much of a shock. Despite this, the French have once more been bribed by UK PLC, this time, to the tune of half a billion quid. But there’s a catch: if they succeed, the bribes dry up. Small boat crossings are currently at peak levels—work that one out, Sherlock!
And what of the illegals themselves? Almost 90% of those arriving along the south coast of England are young males; clearly the women and children settle for a bit of peace and quiet back home in the war zone. Two-thirds of those whose claims to be children are doubted, turn out to be lying. And 98% of new arrivals somehow lose their passports in transit. Thank God for ISIS who inject a little honesty into the proceedings, and at least have the decency to admit they are sending their finest jihadis into Europe via the small boats.
Tory and Labour
The truth of the matter is simply this: if the British government genuinely wanted to stop the boats, its actions would be palpably different. The Royal Navy would be instructed (not asked) to patrol the Channel, and work in unison rather than in place of the Border Force. Whatever genuine asylum processing system the home office deems appropriate, any small boats making the journey across the Channel would be towed back to France immediately. Even The Guardian was forced to admit that Tony Abbott stopped the boats from coming to Australia, and there is no reason why Britain could not do the same. Certainly a zero tolerance approach would be expensive, but how about the £7 million daily cost of hotels and the half billion quid we just gave Macron for starters? Tory inertia in the face of the migrant crisis can perhaps be explained by incompetence rather than connivance, but ask yourself this: if the home office wanted open borders, what exactly would they be doing differently?
In terms of the lawyers involved in the Daily Mail sting, the SRA (Solicitors’ Regulatory Authority) has stepped in swiftly, shutting down the three firms as well as suspending those involved. But how confident can we be that this is not an industry-wide practise, and a void which will be swiftly (if not surreptitiously) filled? According to industry regulations, while asylum seekers may be jailed for false refugee claims, solicitors are merely required to act with “honesty and integrity.” It appears they face a maximum penalty of being struck off; hardly reassuring.
In response to the news, Rishi Sunak took the disingenuous step of deflecting the matter towards the Labour Party:
All of that may well be true, but it’s a cheap shot. Not only have the Tories been in power for 13 years, but, judging from their actions, they’re on the same side as Labour.
It doesn’t take a genius to realise that Joe Public is not going to tolerate this situation indefinitely, nor that the financial concerns of illegal immigration may be the least of the nation’s worries. Indeed, there are already signs that the taxpayer is taking matters into his own hands. Only last month, the first migrant barges in Dorset were blocked from docking by furious residents, and eventually returned to their owners. How long before this is the norm? Are the British authorities seriously going to arrest and imprison their own voters for standing up to mass, illegal immigration when their own government refuses to?
We may “all be in this together,” but with the next general election some time off, 67 million Brits may soon conclude that 2023’s estimated intake of 85,000 illegals, aided and abetted by Westminster’s intake of 650, may be a lot more “in it together” than the rest of us.
“All in This Together”: The UK Asylum Con
Although Churchillian in origin, the well-rehearsed Tory slogan ‘We’re all in this together’ is most famously associated with the coalition government’s response to the credit crunch. Ever since then, it’s been the precursor to belt-tightening measures imposed by those, like Churchill, willing to sacrifice their own waistlines for the good of public health. Former Chancellor George Osborne first used it to sell his austerity programme to the nation in 2009. David Cameron employed it to promote “the big society,” which critics argued was merely a cover for substantial public sector spending cuts. And Rishi Sunak, the fattest cat of them all, gave the line a new spin by going on a £400 billion lockdown bender, and quietly handing the taxpayer the bill.
As political slogans go, ‘We’re all in this together’ was always going to be a hard sell for the Gucci-bedecked members of the Bullingdon Club, but it turns out there’s more than a grain of truth to the motto, provided one align it with the correct conservative policy. Reposition it with the government’s response to the immigration crisis, and suddenly Tory inaction becomes less of a mystery. One might even dare suggest that, far from stopping the boats, those in authority are happy with as much immigration as they can lay their hands on.
Milking the system
The latest addition to Britain’s pro-immigration lobby is the judiciary. Thanks to last week’s undercover investigation by the Daily Mail, it is now apparent that UK lawyers are charging up to £10,000 to illegal immigrants on how to game our asylum system. Those caught in the sting were Rashid Ahmad Khan, of Rashid & Rashid Solicitors, who instructed the ‘client’ to lie to the home office, and offered to invent a story of a dangerous life in India; Muhammad Azfar, of Kingswright Solicitors, who suggested the client invoke a sham marriage; and VP Lingajothy, of Duncan Ellis Solicitors, who offered to concoct a backstory of slave labour, false imprisonment, torture, and death threats, alongside a doctor’s report and a history of anti-depressants to convince the home office of psychological trauma (failing that, a front row seat at this year’s LibDem party conference). Multimillionaire lawyers on the take, who’d have thought it?
To be frank, it would have been more of a mystery had the law firms not had their hands in the till. Why not, when everyone else appears to? The most basic inspection of the facts leads one inexorably to the conclusion that every cog in the immigration wheel is either milking the system, or at the very least working against the interests of the British people, 82% of whom want the boats stopped.
The British and French authorities are colluding in their efforts to chaperone illegal migrants into UK waters, while home office staff have regularly threatened to mutiny over the Rwanda deal. French border guards are alleged to be accepting backhanders from the smuggling gangs, which hardly comes as much of a shock. Despite this, the French have once more been bribed by UK PLC, this time, to the tune of half a billion quid. But there’s a catch: if they succeed, the bribes dry up. Small boat crossings are currently at peak levels—work that one out, Sherlock!
And what of the illegals themselves? Almost 90% of those arriving along the south coast of England are young males; clearly the women and children settle for a bit of peace and quiet back home in the war zone. Two-thirds of those whose claims to be children are doubted, turn out to be lying. And 98% of new arrivals somehow lose their passports in transit. Thank God for ISIS who inject a little honesty into the proceedings, and at least have the decency to admit they are sending their finest jihadis into Europe via the small boats.
Tory and Labour
The truth of the matter is simply this: if the British government genuinely wanted to stop the boats, its actions would be palpably different. The Royal Navy would be instructed (not asked) to patrol the Channel, and work in unison rather than in place of the Border Force. Whatever genuine asylum processing system the home office deems appropriate, any small boats making the journey across the Channel would be towed back to France immediately. Even The Guardian was forced to admit that Tony Abbott stopped the boats from coming to Australia, and there is no reason why Britain could not do the same. Certainly a zero tolerance approach would be expensive, but how about the £7 million daily cost of hotels and the half billion quid we just gave Macron for starters? Tory inertia in the face of the migrant crisis can perhaps be explained by incompetence rather than connivance, but ask yourself this: if the home office wanted open borders, what exactly would they be doing differently?
In terms of the lawyers involved in the Daily Mail sting, the SRA (Solicitors’ Regulatory Authority) has stepped in swiftly, shutting down the three firms as well as suspending those involved. But how confident can we be that this is not an industry-wide practise, and a void which will be swiftly (if not surreptitiously) filled? According to industry regulations, while asylum seekers may be jailed for false refugee claims, solicitors are merely required to act with “honesty and integrity.” It appears they face a maximum penalty of being struck off; hardly reassuring.
In response to the news, Rishi Sunak took the disingenuous step of deflecting the matter towards the Labour Party:
All of that may well be true, but it’s a cheap shot. Not only have the Tories been in power for 13 years, but, judging from their actions, they’re on the same side as Labour.
It doesn’t take a genius to realise that Joe Public is not going to tolerate this situation indefinitely, nor that the financial concerns of illegal immigration may be the least of the nation’s worries. Indeed, there are already signs that the taxpayer is taking matters into his own hands. Only last month, the first migrant barges in Dorset were blocked from docking by furious residents, and eventually returned to their owners. How long before this is the norm? Are the British authorities seriously going to arrest and imprison their own voters for standing up to mass, illegal immigration when their own government refuses to?
We may “all be in this together,” but with the next general election some time off, 67 million Brits may soon conclude that 2023’s estimated intake of 85,000 illegals, aided and abetted by Westminster’s intake of 650, may be a lot more “in it together” than the rest of us.
READ NEXT
Merry Christmas from The European Conservative
A Defense of the Small Christmas Ritual
Trump Broadened the Tent; Europe Must Follow Suit