British Prime Minister Andy Burnham thinks it is a “point of principle” that the effects of mass migration be spread to rural and middle-class areas, as critics wake up to the potential social consequences of planting “asylum seekers” around the country.
Downing Street has made clear the Prime Minister has again doubled down on his ill-received policy pronouncement that it is time to get newly arrived boat migrants, asylum seekers, and refugees out of the working-class urban areas into which they have so far been decanted to spread them around the country, and particularly into middle-class regions. This is a “point of principle”, it is stated.
A spokesman said on behalf of the Prime Minister, The Daily Telegraph reported, that: “Andy feels that the current system is unfair, and as a point of principle, he wants to see a redress of the distribution. We all want to see fewer people crossing to the UK and a decreased use of all asylum accommodation, but it needs to be fairer in the meantime. He acknowledges that it would cost more money to do it more fairly, but that is what we need to do.”
Despite the lip-service to “fewer people crossing”, Burnham has this week declined to say he would end the English Channel migrant crisis, which is driving these issues.
These remarks follow others by Burnham’s immigration minister on Wednesday who acknowledged that where migrants have been planted in working class areas it has “put a huge burden on local communities and created real civil unrest.”
Of course, in the United Kingdom middle-class voters do disproportionately vote for open-borders parties, and among them is Burnham’s own Labour Party, which long ago abandoned its working-class roots and has adopted an electoral coalition of educated urban professionals and migrant communities. Yet per his own reckoning, it appears Burnham’s “principle” is that the middle classes shoulder more migrant burden not because they voted for it, but because all in Britain must “play their part”.
Migrant plantations have already proven extremely controversial where they’ve been tried, with protests and riots in several areas either in reaction to notorious incidences of alleged migrant crime or on the the principle of not having no-consent change forced on areas. As earlier reported, while the flashpoint for a protest may be a shocking crime, often local ill-will has already been driven by deep-pocketed government contractors acquiring large swathes of local housing for migrant arrivals, pushing up prices for legacy locals, or even pricing them out altogether.
There are now, after all, over 90,000 recently arrived irregular migrants being put up in hotels, privately rented homes, and camps at the taxpayer’s expense, according to the latest figures.
Those concerns, which have been mostly limited to working class voices and their representatives so far — like pro-border-control parties such as Nigel Farage’s Reform UK — are now starting to slowly bleed through into the broader discussion, however, as the Burnham Labour government moves to push through spreading boat migrants nationwide.
Increasingly commentators are saying the previously unspoken out loud, that planting large numbers of migrants into areas, be they working class towns or middle class villages, necessarily creates a massive gender-imbalance and causes sexual crime. The Times notes this rebellion has already spread to otherwise pro-open borders Labour Parliamentarians when their own electoral areas are earmarked for plantation, with Rachael Maskell, the MP for York Central cited as among those speaking out.
Her constituency is close to the proposed mega migrant camp at the former Royal Air Force base at Linton, where 1,200 migrants — and those overwhelmingly young men — may soon arrive. The newspaper cites her complaint that this “would result in a ratio of six men to every woman in the 600-person village”, with its attendant implied crime problems understood but unsaid.
Also cited was a lawmaker for another upper-middle-class-voting pro-mass migration party, the Liberal Democrats, whose Calum Miller MP represents an area next to the proposed migrant camp at former Bicester Garrison and who thinks locals should have a chance to have a say about migrants coming to their neighbourhood.
Most remarkable and blunt of all was a conversation on Times Radio where guests debated the merits of sending migrants to “affluent… rural” areas of the country, where a frank discussion was had on the sexual incontinence of new arrivals. Former Conservative government minister Edwina Currie noted that previous migrant plantations have caused “absolute mayhem” made reference to complaints of sex assaults on local girls in areas where distribution has already been tried and, apparently sardonically, told the show: “I’m not sure I’m going to be allowed to say this, you’re probably going to shut me up in no time at all.
“But the obvious thing that 1,200 young men are going to need in the middle of a village like Little Piddington is a brothel. I don’t think they’re going to provide that! I have a feeling that’s not going to be allowed.”
Fellow guest the author A.N. Wilson also suggested there was an issue with placing over a thousand migrant males in a former military camp with no restrictions on them leaving the site and walking to nearby villages and towns if they get bored, and added: “supposing we don’t have a brothel in Piddington as Edwina suggests, what are you going to do all the time? And that is the question in these small places”.
Read the full article here
