THE competition to claim the greatest authenticity when it comes to the parliamentary candidacy in Makerfield is hotting up.
The Cambridge-educated professional politician Andy Burnham, who worked only briefly in the commercial sector, is determined to prove just how local he is – and therefore ‘authentic’, a term carrying connotations of honesty and moral uplift.
Yes, Burnham is more or less a local boy, though born on the outskirts of Liverpool rather than Manchester and of Irish heritage. But does geographic familiarity and provenance equal a better candidate? Possibly, but how does that work if, as he aspires, he dumps his mayoralty and legs it back to London where he previously hopped around in a variety of ministerial roles involving different political loyalties and strategies?
Burnham is of course pitched against ‘the plucky plumber’ of Makerfield, Robert Kenyon. Well, he really is a plumber which is a good start and he really does live in the town, both positives when it comes to authenticity. Does that mean he would make a good local MP? The answer remains to be seen.
In the meantime ministers and MPs might go easy on the ‘I was brought up in a poor household by a single mother’ syndrome. Maybe they were, but so were many others, and given that so many of them got to Oxbridge and then became members of a government, they haven’t done too badly, have they? I guess they grew up in a period of upward mobility. They were the lucky ones.
Tony Blair – whom so many blame for our plight – has criticised a range of Labour policies and implicitly Sir Keir Starmer. From Number 10 came the standard limp, lame response that the PM was ‘fully focused on delivering change for working people’.
Poor ‘working people’. As we know all too well, there is now a sizeable cohort in society which prefers to swindle and outsmart the benefits system in preference to working to earn a living.
Here in Crowborough, East Sussex, we have 400-plus young men languishing in an open camp adjacent to our town. At the outset the Home Office said that the camp would be temporary – for just a year – enabling local Army cadets to return to their rightful place. Last week we learned, as many had feared and suspected, that the Government is retaining the option to use the camp until 2030. After all, at the rate of arrival via the Channel – a mind-blowing 1,000 in four days – many such camps will be needed. Shabana Mahmood indicated that this was her intention several weeks ago.
The Home Office asserts that asylum decisions will be made within 80 days and that those accepted will enter a ‘national dispersal system’. Where to? Who will pay for their forward accommodation? Recently we learned that of the majority asylum seekers who were waved in eight years ago, fewer than half are in work. Yet last year 400,000 mostly young Brits and EU citizens left the UK. Sends chills, doesn’t it?
Hardly surprising therefore that we never hear about how, if, when, those granted asylum find work. Yes, we know that a proportion of those entering the country illegally run off and work in the black economy. But why are those who are sitting it out in Crowborough camp not being told that they will have to find or be placed in work immediately after leaving the camp and that if not their benefits will be stopped and/or they will be deported. That’s how it used to be here. In order to continue receiving work related benefits – ‘the dole’ in old money – it was necessary to show evidence of actively seeking work.
In Crowborough camp we have the contrary. We learn that Wealden District Council (headed by Green deputy leader Rachel Millward) will receive some funding for each migrant but such monies may be used only for items directly applicable to the camp, eg ‘leisure services’, ‘wellbeing services’, ‘interpreting services’.
Incidentally, Rachel Millward is opposed to the camp. Why? Because it’s not good enough for the migrants sheltered there. She and her acolytes believe we must be as nice as possible to them as – one of their fave mantras – ‘they can’t help it’.
Jolly good. Never mind all the mounting pressure on local services. Never mind plummeting property values. No wonder some residents are declining to pay their council tax.
Meanwhile Crowborough Town Council has seen fit to pay £1,000 to a private contractor to remove Union and England flags which have been affixed to lamp posts.
The lunacy doesn’t end there. We are now approaching our 30th town protest march. For several weeks, as we approach the end of our High Street, we are faced with the sight of a clump of dour people clutching cardboard signs with messages such as ‘Refugees and Asylum seekers welcome’ and various dotty things about love and diversity, and a ‘Ban the Bomb’ sign. This last week they were barricaded to the rear and sides by police as if they had to be protected at all costs. As it was, they were allowed to spread out into the road and encroach on the march’s space. Two-tier policing raises its head again.
As if their mere presence was not irritating enough, their provenance is questionable. These are not just local folk who are a bit naïve. They are gathered and recruited by a Crowborough-based group – SAMAS – ‘Supporting Arriving Migrants and Asylum Seekers in East Sussex’.
This purportedly ‘apolitical kindness-led group’ has a slick website which claims ‘We cherish diversity, respect . . . and build community bonds’.
In respect of the camp, it claims that it runs art workshops, music workshops, language classes, cooking classes and sport, for which they take men to ‘proper level pitches’ (because the camp terrain on the edge of the Ashdown Forest is not suitable).
Incidentally, until two years ago East Sussex had its own Adult Education Service which provided much-appreciated courses throughout the area. It closed abruptly. In neighbouring Tunbridge Wells the Kent service has been devastated. Why? Lack of funding. If only our local virtue-signallers felt as obliged to local people as they do to foreign men about whom they know zero.
Thus we return to the theme of authenticity. Are these people really nice, kind, liberal folk? It turns out that some of their number created a limited company with a registered office in the east end of London just four days after the first migrants entered the camp. That may well be for the most benign of reasons but our silent protesters are not simply local folk who got together in someone’s kitchen.
Further proof, if it were needed, of their less than 100 per cent commitment to kindness and diversity was provided recently. One of their number complained to the employer of a participant in the protest marches. The person complained about is a teacher.
The complaint? Essentially, how dare anybody hold different views from that of the caring kind cohort, even if such privately held views were never expressed in the professional context? Yes, really. That tells us all we need to know. The snitcher would have felt very snug in the Stasi.
Oh so ironic too that in schools children are routinely pumped full of propaganda relating to climate change and gender politics, leaving sane parents limp with frustration.
When it comes to diversity of thought and opinion it’s clear that for those involved in the culture wars there is only one right way and if you dare to oppose them you are morally deficient and should be cast out. In other words they are cultists.
This point was brought thundering home by the bold Maeve Halligan, president of the Cambridge University Society of Women, in her recent speech to the Cambridge Union. She was referring specifically to the indoctrination of children by the LGBQT+ lobby. Her contention that children who have been coerced into taking measures to change their sex have been utterly failed by those who should protect them is incontrovertible. Yet, as she found, countering fiercely promoted agendas can be a hazardous and deeply unpleasant experience which entails an onslaught of threats and name calling.
As Maeve said: ‘It’s not bigoted to ask questions and being kind doesn’t mean turning a blind eye.’ She concluded by asserting that she’d rather tell the truth than subscribe to being kind. I’ll second that.
The ‘be kind’ brigade wilfully ignore the financial implications of the causes they promote. Peer behind the propaganda and you will find a cohort of manipulative, avaricious opportunists who in turn are supported by the Government and woke foot-soldiers. There is a whole industry comprising NGOs, charities, consultants, therapists, pseudo medics and pharma companies which promote climate change ideology, advocate open borders and persuade vulnerable young people that they have some mental health ‘condition’ or should take steps to change their sex.
Thus the members of the silent protest in Crowborough may superficially be adjudged to be ‘away with the fairies’. The authenticity of their dottiness is questionable and their feigned kindness and love of diversity is basically fraudulent.
As Maeve said, telling the truth is what’s really important. It requires determination to refuse to be silenced.
