In Defence of May. Why the nation needs to get behind the Prime Minister and how UKIP leadership will affect the outcome.

It has been an inauspicious beginning.  In a very short period Mrs. May has been guilty of a series of extremely poor decisions.  She appointed the wrong man as Chancellor.  She appointed the wrong man as Foreign Secretary.  She appointed the wrong advisors.  She called an entirely unnecessary election which left her without a working majority.

The Blame Game

What Mrs. May cannot be blamed for is the series of catastrophes that have blighted her short rule.  She cannot be blamed for the terrorists who struck in Manchester and London, albeit the structures to deal with them were set up under her period as Home Secretary.

She cannot be blamed for the blaze that took so many lives in West London.  Her problem is that the ruling PM is tarred with whatever disaster happens. If any Prime Ministers are to blame they would be MacMillan, Douglas-Hulme, Heath, Callaghan, Thatcher, Major, Blair, Brown, Cameron/Clegg.

Bad Decisions

Here again she made a bad decision.  She turned up at the site and so identified herself with the disaster, rather than the solution.  In turning up she suggested she was responsible for the situation.  Jeremy Corbyn was a little more canny and turned up at one of the relief centres, thereby identifying himself with actions to deal with the aftermath.  Both of them hindered the work going on and both of them turned up for the same reason:  a photo-opportunity.  Here was a chance to gain publicity.  For Mrs. May it back-fired explosively.

Who or What Caused the Fire?

So let us start with the fire.  Who is responsible?  The primary cause of the fire was overpopulation and particularly the significant over-population of London.  High rise flats have been built in the spurious belief they will deal with the issue.  In fact those flats provide a lower density of housing than rows of terraced houses.  The planners, though, thought the public would prefer to live stacked on top of each other so that a large green space could surround them.  Naturally the green space was then built on creating a horrible densely packed concrete jumble where no-one wanted to live.

Inconvenient People and 20th Century Slums

This development was so repulsive the people moved out.  The flats were then populated with people who knew no better.  Where better to place the vast flood of economic migrants, “asylum seekers” and various other unwanted groups?  Then the estate was too ugly to be seen by the nearby developments where very rich and privileged people were moving.  They could not be expected to have such a scab visible from their windows and so, hey presto, a cheap and nasty cosmetic “refurbishment”, to hide the abomination in plain view.

Unsustainable Migration

The block would now be inhabited by people who, in a more just world, would have been discouraged from migrating here. They would be a group fairly powerless to help themselves.  Having poor or no English language skills they would include a high proportion of unemployable people.  From the interviews we have seen, with residents, it seems a fair number were not in a position to earn a living because of their immigration status.  All of these people were herded together in a grossly overcrowded environment.  What a tinder box this was bound to be!

We do not need to wait for an enquiry to act on most of the causative factors.  We know we are accepting too many newcomers to our shores.  It is unsustainable.  If the sink is running over you turn off the tap!

Food Security

We know that the UK remains capable ONLY of feeding 40 million people (on war time rations) from its own resources.  Those resources include its fishing grounds which the EU has stolen.  Given the spread of urbanisation the number we can feed at this level is probably more like 30 million now.  To feed at a comfortable level we should expect a sustainable population would be more like 15 million people.  However we do trade internationally and the purpose of that trade is to feed ourselves.  If the supplies are secure this can enable us to house a slightly larger population. 

Membership of the EU deprived us of our traditional cheap, high quality food resources.  These included Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the USA, South America, the West Indies, Israel and the like.  Despite the fact we dumped on those countries they all appear willing to resume trade as we leave the EU. 

With luck we shall see inexpensive New Zealand fruit, lamb, cheese and butter at prices we can afford.  We shall see the return of Australian beef and fruit.  We shall see the cost of hard wheat reduced bringing down the cost of our staple food:  BREAD.  We shall certainly not need expensive EU produce which generally arrives at the times when our harvests are delivering while our

The Need for Speedy Legislation

The other issues will be resolved if and only if legislation is brought forward very rapidly to return our legal system to where it was before the introduction of EU inspired Health and Safety Regulations.  While regulations can only continue to specify minimum standards those owning or constructing buildings must be required to bear responsibility for the consequences of their cost-cutting. 

There must be a duty of care.  The duty must require the developer and owners ensure the building is safe. Observing “regulation” should be no excuse for neglecting good practice. Where such an incident happens they must automatically be GUILTY of

The Dangers of a Change of Regime.

None of these essential actions will take place if we have a change of regime.  It is not clear who would comprise any new regime.  An election would mean delay.  The need is for decisive and speedy action. 

It might be better, too, if those who have no influence and responsibility kept their mouths buttoned.  Housing is a matter for the local authority and not the London Mayor.  Regulation is a matter for the National Government and not the London Mayor.  Here we see yet another opportunist hoping to feast on the misery this catastrophe has inflicted on a group he thinks he can turn into voters.

The Argument for Letting May Carry on.

Whatever we may think of Mrs. May it is imperative she remains Prime Minister.  We may doubt her will or ability to deliver on BREXIT.  We can judge that at the next election.  What she gets wrong can be repaired. 

The urgency of the task demands she is given licence to complete the task she has promised to undertake.  The urgency for legislation on housing is also in the critical path.  That, I suggest, should be carried out on a cross-party basis.  All of the parties are, after all, to blame.

UKIP and Ethics and Then There Is The Leadership Contest!

UKIP has consistently argued that the people who suffer from mass migration are the migrants themselves.  Only UKIP has stood up for the interests of the people that the traffickers, Employers, Government have consistently abused, on the hypocritical pretext of “human rights”. 

The hard right (the Conservatives) and the hard left (LabLib) all “talk the talk” but their words are meaningless.  What they argue for in their own differing ways will have the same end result.  The indigenous people of the UK and the migrants will all be the victims.  This is a time for the non-aligned (left or right) pragmatists to have their day.  This is a time when UKIP needs to make its mark.

What do we have instead?  A divisive leadership contest overshadowed by a scurrilous change to the election rules without any consultation with the membership.  A leadership contest that demands the candidates be rich.

You may also like...