Deportation Camps in Green Party Areas? Carl Benjamin & Michael Murphy Discuss Asylum Solutions

Summary

---

Episode Summary: "Deportation Camps in Green Party Areas? Carl Benjamin & Michael Murphy Discuss Asylum Solutions"

Podcast: New Culture Forum
Date: May 18, 2026
Host: New Culture Forum
Guests: Carl Benjamin (Lotus Eaters), Michael Murphy (Telegraph, Outpost Studios)

---

Overview

In this episode, the New Culture Forum hosts a timely and provocative discussion examining Reform UK's controversial proposal to build large-scale immigration removal centres (“deportation camps”) exclusively in Green Party-controlled constituencies, as part of their Operation Restoring Justice mass deportation program. Host and moderator (A) is joined by Carl Benjamin (B) and Michael Murphy (C) to analyze the implications, fairness, and political wisdom of this strategy, as well as to propose practical policies to address illegal and legal immigration post-Brexit.

The conversation critiques the morality and effectiveness of targeting communities for their voting choices, contextualizes it within recent British history, probes the broader failings of political leadership on immigration, and considers both the demographic and constitutional realities shaping British politics.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Reform UK’s Policy: The “Deportation Camps” Proposal

Timestamps 00:00–07:15

• Reform UK has proposed to site new Secure Immigration Removal Centres (capacity: up to 24,000) only in Green Party parliamentary constituencies and councils, explicitly sparing areas held or controlled by Reform.
• The stated logic is: "If you vote Green, you get what you voted for"—a rhetorical challenge to areas that support policies for more open migration and oppose detention.
• The policy has triggered debate on its fairness and the wisdom of linking local consequences so directly to voting, especially under first-past-the-post.

Notable Quote:

• "When I heard this and the way that it was delivered, it sounded very much like something I would hear in an Arab dictatorship... to penalise them using the power of the state. This, I think, is actually really antithetical to the way that British politics is usually run." — Carl Benjamin (B), [02:23]

2. Concerns About “Politics as Punishment”

Timestamps 02:12–11:55

• Carl Benjamin: Argues this approach undermines social cohesion—a “psychic blanket” of belonging—by dividing the electorate into adversarial camps based on voting, Americanizing British politics in ways that are hard to repair.
  • Stresses the policy’s threat to the spirit of national compromise and its vindictive, coercive overtones.
  • Cautions that such actions set a precedent for future reprisals and deepen societal divisions.

Notable Quote:

• "What you're saying is, 'I'm going to put rapists in your nice community because you don't agree with me politically unless you give me political power.' ...That just feels poisonous to me." — Carl Benjamin (B), [06:33]

• Michael Murphy: Partially agrees but contextualizes this in the tradition of using patronage in UK politics (promising regeneration or targeting sectors for taxation). Points out this is, rhetorically, an escalated version—a form of schadenfreude.

  • Sees merit in highlighting the disconnect: Communities that tend to vote for open borders don’t directly feel the consequences of those policies; this proposal “started more of a conversation than millions in an advertising budget,” but is ultimately an unworkable, risky stunt.

3. Logistical, Moral, and Historical Context

Timestamps 11:55–18:11

• Host (A): Brings up the historical use of camps in Britain, especially post-WWII, and disputes the taboo around using “camps” to accommodate migrants.

  • Notes working-class areas have borne migration’s brunt, while more homogenous, pro-migration areas remain sheltered.
  • Advocates for camps in remote, less populated areas (e.g., Scotland/remote islands), not as punishment but as practical necessity and a possible attitude-changer for insulated elites.

• Panel Response: Both Carl and Michael remain skeptical, warning against vindictive tit-for-tat policies (“rubbing the left’s face in diversity”) and emphasizing the need to transcend the politics of retribution.

4. Security, Community Risk, and the Feasibility of Secure Facilities

Timestamps 17:40–20:57

• Concerns are raised about safety for locals, particularly women and children, and skepticism over whether proposed “secure” centres would actually remain secure or staffed adequately, especially if sited in unsympathetic, Green-run areas.
• The ongoing problem of informal, unsupervised migrant accommodation leading to protests and government evasions is cited.

5. Alternative Solutions & The “Adopt a Migrant” Satire

Timestamps 20:57–24:04

• Michael Murphy raises the idea (half-seriously) of voluntary, “adopt a migrant” schemes in pro-migration areas as a more honest gauge of public sentiment, rather than punitive impositions.

• Both panelists agree that the Reform policy comes across as “clever dickishness,” a performative stunt transparent to voters—a “slick Fox News video” style that doesn’t align with British sensibilities.

Notable Quote:

• "Everyone can see that, oh, okay, this is just a stunt to make the Greens look like hypocrites, which of course they are. But then it takes on an unserious and it's a frivolous aspect that I don't think it reflects well on reform." — Carl Benjamin (B), [23:11]

6. Timing and Political Calculations

Timestamps 24:04–25:04

• Reform UK interrupted their opponents (the Greens) when they were already politically weakened, potentially boosting left solidarity.
• The discussion suggests Reform’s approach was ill-timed from a strategic standpoint.

7. Why Has the UK Failed to Control Immigration?

Timestamps 25:04–35:12

• The panel reflects on why supposed “tough” measures have failed for decades, likening government action to “emptying a swimming pool with a teaspoon.”

• Host (A) proposes a raft of hardline measures: camps, penalty for rogue landlords, no benefits for non-citizens, cruise ships as detention centres, and repealing the Human Rights Act.

  • Emphasizes "making Britain less attractive than France" as the key deterrent.

• Carl: Migrant networks share information via social media, and state largesse is a major pull factor.

  • The lack of government action is not due to inability, but lack of will and moral clarity.
  • Attributes left-wing pro-migration impulses to a misguided “missionary” complex.

Notable Quote:

• "We actually know why migrants themselves come here... what the British state will do for them. It will give you money, access to shelter, food, access to the towns, access to white women... While the British state provides this kind of largesse, they will constantly try to find a way." — Carl Benjamin (B), [30:38]

• Michael: UK did successfully curb Albanian flows with bilateral agreements and targeted messaging—a rare example of effectiveness that could be scaled up if political will existed.

8. Demographic and Political Realities: The Window for Change

Timestamps 35:12–41:26

• Host (A) warns Britain is nearing a “last chance” to address immigration through elections because of demographic shifts (older, right-leaning electorate dying out; youth, migrant, and Muslim voters trending left).
• Carl and Michael are cautiously optimistic, citing the theoretically immense power of a determined UK Parliament and the “supremacy of Parliament,” but note this will require an unprecedented level of unity, resolve, and technical competence.

Notable Quotes:

• "If we can get a party that wears it authentically and actually is what the Conservatives claim to be—that kind of deep sort of Arthur Wellesley and sort of conservatism—then I think actually a lot of people will agree with it, even if they themselves aren't very disposed..." — Carl Benjamin (B), [38:28]
• "Our parliamentary system is probably the most powerful in the world relative to others. All we need is 350 good men, women and who've been elected on a certain matter, mandate..." — Michael Murphy (C), [39:29]

9. The Need to Restore Parliamentary Sovereignty

Timestamps 41:26–42:53

• Michael notes much power has been outsourced to “quangocracies” and off-shore bodies—fixing immigration and other national issues will require revoking this and re-centering Parliament.
• Carl criticizes Reform for not committing to bring the Bank of England and other “arm’s length bodies” under direct ministerial control—underscoring the need for real institutional power in Parliament.

---

Timestamps for Key Segments

• 00:00–02:12 — Introduction to Reform’s policy, context.
• 02:12–07:15 — Carl Benjamin’s critique of the proposal.
• 07:22–11:55 — Michael Murphy’s analysis and policy comparison.
• 11:55–15:13 — Host’s historical argument for “camps.”
• 15:13–18:11 — Discussion on class, experience of migration, and policy intent.
• 18:11–24:04 — Logistics and political optics; “adopt a migrant” suggestion.
• 24:04–25:04 — Critique of Reform’s timing/strategy.
• 25:04–35:12 — Why governments have failed; proposed hardline solutions; public order.
• 35:12–41:26 — Demographics, electoral urgency, prospects for real institutional change.
• 41:26–42:53 — Parliamentary sovereignty and quangos.

---

Memorable Moments & Quotes

• "It sounded very much like something I would hear in an Arab dictatorship... to penalise them using the power of the state." — Carl Benjamin (B), [02:23]
• "It's a sort of celebration of Schadenfreude against your enemies..." — Michael Murphy (C), [07:30]
• "The middle classes and the chattering classes like to categorize the working classes as racist, whereas in fact, the working classes are the realists, because they've been living at the dark side of diversity." — Host (A), [13:32]
• "There's a phrase by one of New Labour's advisors: 'We're going to rub the right's face in diversity.' All I'm seeing in this is, 'Oh, we're going to rub the left's face in diversity.'" — Carl Benjamin (B), [15:23]
• "I think they've committed now to something that is not really workable or in their interest." — Michael Murphy (C), [11:45]
• "Our parliamentary system is probably the most powerful in the world relative to others.—All we need is 350 good men, women... elected on a certain matter..." — Michael Murphy (C), [39:29]
• "The problem with the migrant boats is not a lack of ability, it's a lack of willpower." — Carl Benjamin (B), [33:48]

---

Concluding Thoughts

• Both guests conclude that, while the frustrations underlying Reform’s policy are understandable, resorting to punitive, showy politics risks further poison, division, and backlash.
• Real solutions will require both a restoration of Parliamentary sovereignty and the political will to enact unpopular but necessary reforms.
• The panel remains wary of British political decline but characteristically emphasizes the UK’s capacity for course correction through determined, majoritarian Parliamentary action—provided it happens soon enough.

---

Transcript

[A]

Just days ago, Reform UK unveiled a highly provocative part of their Operation Restoring justice mass deportation program. They announced that new Secure Immigration Removal Centres, which our facility is designed to hold up to 24,000 people awaiting deportation, would not be built in any Reform constituency which had a Reform MP or was under reform control. Instead, they would prioritise Green Party parliamentary constitution constituencies and Green controlled councils. Reform's message is quite blunt. The Green Party's manifesto calls for ending almost all immigration detention and creating far more open migration routes. Reform's logic, therefore, is if you vote Green, you get what you voted for. Now, this has triggered a sharp debate within the British right. Supporters call it powerful democratic accountability. Critics argue it is unfair under first past the post and risks real safety problems for local communities. So we're going to examine both sides of this and then we'll broaden the discussion out and discuss what really is the best solution for stopping illegal immigration. To discuss this today, I'm delighted to be joined by Carl Benjamin, the founder and host at Lotus Eaters, and also Michael Murphy, Telegraph writer and head of journalism at Outpost Studios. I should say we're filming this a very short notice. We did extend an invitation to Reform. Unfortunately, we weren't able to get someone to our time schedule, but we will be trying to present reforms side of the case when we do get to discuss their policy issues. Carl and Michael, I laid out there in the introduction exactly what reforms policy proposals are in terms of establishing these migrant detention centres in potentially green constituencies. Carl, I know you have some issues with that. Do you want to lay out your case as to why you're opposed to that?

[B]

Certainly. I think the main problem that I have with this is that it's an approach to politics that is rather alien to British life and culture and how we see what the. The foundations of political legitimacy in the country. When I heard this and the way that it was delivered, it sounded very much like something I would hear in an Arab dictatorship. Actually, this client group failed to give me patronage to seize power in the country and therefore I'm going to penalise them using the power of the state. This, I think, is actually really antithetical to the way that British politics is usually run, which normally has a kind of background assumption of a general legitimacy of the people in the country, regardless of their political opinions. There tends to be the assumption in Britain of a kind of psychic blanket that lays across the country and everyone has a sort of place on that blanket and everyone belongs. And what this kind of policy does, and particularly the attitude that Informed, it was actually say, no, a bunch of you don't belong because you failed to vote in the right way. That's a really, I, I, I actually found it quite shocking that this was a policy that was announced because it attacks that kind of psychic blanket that lays across the country that makes us feel like this is our country and that we belong in it. And it, when you sort of burn off areas of this, they're very, very hard to bring back. And once you've begun, begun your project by saying, I'm actually going to be attacking segments of the electorate for failing to support me, well, that justifies further reprisals down the line. And then you get into, and that's, that's just, that was my primary concern, which I think is actually the bedrock concern. The other concerns built on top, which are, I don't, I don't really want to see a politics of coercion. The intent from reform is a kind of very surface level ideological Americanization of politics. We're team Red, you're team Blue, or vice versa, and we're going to box at you because this is kind of playing a game of all or nothing now, which is what the Americans have been doing for a long time. But the problem with ideological politics like this is it completely compresses everything into a state where it's very hard to recover it. So, for example, if, I mean, it looks slightly vindictive about Gorton and Denton, frankly, and we can use that as a great example. The people of Gordon and Denton never voted to have 30% of their constituency be foreign born or foreign origin. And those people swung very hard for the Greens in order to secure a kind of client patronage model from the Green Party, which is essentially what the Greens are just openly offering at this point. And rather than embracing that kind of politics, I mean, you remember Zach Polanski saying, we need to build society without the right wing. Well, this is essentially reform saying we need to build society without the left wing. And you split this, split our politics into these two warring camps that can never find any kind of reconciliation. And I mean, this is why I'm not afraid of the Green Party. I think the British public will generally reject that kind of, you know, I hate to say politics of division, but I think that's genuinely what happens when you put these things into these two ideological camps. And so Gordon and Denton is actually a great example of this, where only about 40%, 35% of the constituency actually voted for the Green party. There's only 15,000 people out of something like 75,000 actual eligible voters and 10,000 Reform voters. And now, because of events beyond their control, the entire constituency ideologically gets flattened down. So, right, this is now Green, which solidifies it being a green constituency. It didn't have to be. Reform could have won it. And now they get a migrant camp, which is really not what I think. I mean, it's really not what most of the people in Gordon and Denton were voting for. And so it's got this kind of sour taste from that, but also the fact that it seems to genuinely contain a really savage threat underlying it for the very shallow purpose of proving the left are the real hypocrites. Well, yeah, okay, the left are hypocrites. I mean, do we need to prove this? And what you're saying is, I'm going to put rapists in your nice community because you don't agree with me politically unless you give me political power. And that. I mean, that whole. That just feels poisonous to me. It just feels completely poisonous.

[A]

Well, there's some good points there for discussion, but first, Mike, are you in broad agreement? Is there differences you have in what

[C]

I. I agree with. With much of what Carl said there? I would probably. Obviously this is, you know, could be seen as a very vindictive policy, and it's targeting people in a sort of. In a negative way, as opposed to what usually happens, which is that politicians will dispense patronage to people who. They. Whose votes they want to get. You saw this with the Red Wall, marginal Tory seats, with Boris Johnson promising regeneration. You see it in a negative sense, I suppose, with what Labour's doing with private schools and farmers. And so I don't think it's a great break substantively from the model of British politics. I think rhetorically, it is clearly a raising of the temperature to something that we haven't seen, a sort of celebration of Schadenfreude against. Against your enemies. Having said that, I do think frames the debate in an interesting way, because the people who vote for policies of open borders and thereby that, you know, that their. Their voter base and those parties are imposing a negative externality on the rest of society in the form of more risk of violent crime. All of the problems that come with immigration, financially, education, health service, and the people who have borne the brunt of those problems so far have not been in the leafy areas where they tend to vote for, say, the Greens or the Lib Dems or even labor in metropolitan areas. And so I do think that that is an interesting conversation starter about the asymmetrical nature of these policies and how they affect people. And to that extent they've probably got more pr. They've started more of a conversation than they could have with millions of dollars in an advertising budget. Just by throwing this spanner into the works, is that going to benefit them long term? I'm a bit more ambivalent. I think that had they come out, had Farage come out and made this as a gag and sort of left a bit up to the imagination as to whether this would actually be a policy, I think that would have been a much shrewder move than actually committing yourselves to a policy that I think is deeply impractical and likely to be counterproductive. For example, if you were to put these migrant detention facilities which they want to be in army barracks in, in communities, let's say they want to be able to detain 24,000 people at a time. For argument's sake, let's say it's 1,000 people per center. The infrastructure that we have in this country is, is, you know, very specific. We don't have that many spare army barracks is going or high, you know, capacity facilities where we can just put these people. So I think there will be logistical constraints. And then added onto that, if you put them into areas where say they have a Green or a Lib Dem council, you risk this becoming a sort of fiasco like we've seen in America with ice, where you have people out prostrating themselves on the street, you know, not, not allowing cars to pass and then you have the necessary heavy handed response from the police or a climb down, neither of which is ideal. And I think that that's where the Americans got it wrong, where they should have been been gone far longer on, on effectiveness, on efficacy and, and kept it a lot quieter really. You want it, you want to make this process efficacious but also unsexy. It' people like to see on the evening news. And so yeah, maybe as a talking point it may or may not work to reform's benefit. I don't know. I think some people will find it interesting and appealing, but as a policy I think they've committed now to something that is not really workable or in their interest.

[A]

Yes, certainly in terms of cost, I think the calculations were that it will be about 12 billion pounds to erect these sorts of camps if you're going to do it. Mind you, we did have these Nightingale hospitals we were able to erect seemingly overnight during COVID Not inconceivable. We wouldn't Be able to erect Nightingale Camps. There's a strange name about that, detention camps. Although I've been an advocate of camps for years, and I remember debating, before it was cool, long before it was cool. And I remember debating some historians, how can you use the word camps? This is terrible. We invented concentration camps. Camps must never be used. I said that would be a surprise for people who go to Butler Slims every year for a start. But people forget, after World War II, there were a quarter of a million Poles who were left in this country who couldn't go back to Poland. And they weren't just soldiers. They were wives, children, the elderly who were living in Nissan huts and 1940s quality camps for 10 or 15 years, including my mother's cousins. And they fell in love, got married, never complained, were grateful to have had that. And the fact that we continually put up young men of fighting age into hotels and HMOs rather than in camps. I think the camps are the only. Are the only temporary solution to the issue we have.

[B]

But yes, the issue is where.

[C]

Where do you cite the perfect advertisement for the policy just then? That bit of history?

[A]

Yeah, well, exactly, I would say. And also, of course, we're talking about young men today where the British army have to live in camps. We were putting old women into camps of the 1940s and 50s. We now have 21st century conditions. So there's no excuse, I say, not to have people in camps, particularly when you've come from some godforsaken place where you're living essentially in the corrugated hut. A camp is an upgrade for you. It's the Ritz Carlton as far as I'm concerned. But yes, but the question is, where do you put the camps? And I have long advocated that they should be in Scotland, in remote places like that, on remote islands, the midges do the work. But the case is, if we can rephrase reform's argument, reform isn't here. So let me. I'm a neutral moderator, but I will make reform's case and slightly twisted, because the point you made is very correct here. The middle classes and the chattering classes like to categorize the working classes as racist, whereas in fact, the working classes are the realists, because they've been living at the dark side of diversity, right at the coal face for years. So they've had that encounter with the real reality of mass migration, and they're reacting against that. And we know from polling and so forth that the more homogenous and isolated an area is, the more welcoming they are towards migrants. Scotland, think of Wales, think of people in Cornwall. I have a cousin in Wales who's all about open borders. So she hasn't seen a person who wasn't white for about 20 years. So is it not the case actually that if you really do want to shift the ovision window and change people's attitudes? Because actually there are lots of people who are in this country who are still pro migration, the only way you're going to get them to realize the real cost of immigration is if you actually bring it up to their doorstep. And so we've had years of the working classes being traduced by everybody being racist. Is it not actually time for others to experience what the working classes have experienced?

[B]

I think there's, I mean, you're obviously correct about the damage that's been done to the working class areas of England because of immigration and the horrors that have been inflicted upon them. I personally am worried there will never be a reckoning for what has done and the people who have done this will get away with it. But there's a particular phrase that was used by one of New Labour's advisors which is we're going to rub the right's face in diversity. And all I'm seeing in this is, oh, we're going to rub the left's face in diversity. And this feels like a downward spiral of, okay, we're still vindictively using diversity as a weapon against each other. Whereas actually, I think what everyone on the right, and I really mean everyone on the right, has come to the conclusion of is actually we need less diversity, we need fewer foreign people here who shouldn't be here. And actually, maybe rather than discussing the dispensation of them around the country, maybe we should be looking at policies to reduce the just sheer number of them altogether. So this is leading us down a path where it's just two boxes in an arena punching each other, in a ring, punching each other. When actually I think what we need to be doing is transcending this paradigm entirely. Don't let them drag you down into the mud, I think is the best way to look at this, because otherwise it's a very difficult thing to get out of. And if we start looking at the country in the same way that New labor started looking at the country, then we can't really make a very good argument from a morally correct or superior position to them because they'll just point and say, well, you're just like us really, aren't you? And unfortunately we'd have to Say, yeah, you've got us there. I mean, there's something very bizarre about this whole thing as well, which was in the framing that was we want the Greens to get what they vote for. It's like, do we? I don't want the Greens to get what they vote for. I don't see why reformer are framing themselves as the executor of green policy in this way. Actually, no, the Greens are mad students and minority communities who seek to make some to gain from the public purse. I don't want them getting what they want. I want them to never get what they want and essentially to fail so completely at politics that they return to their student roots and stand outside with placards as sensible politicians, go into Westminster and actually do what needs to be done rather than getting down in the mud and slinging it back and forth.

[A]

Michael, I'll come to you in just a second, but I have also seen one of the other concerns you raised about this was you thought, quite understandably, that it's not, in no way would it ever be right to put children and women at risk by bringing in migrants into these communities. However, reform's position is that these would be entirely secure migrant det centers and that actually wouldn't have what you have currently where migrants can waft in and out and we will pay for them to go to swimming baths where they can ogle young girls instead. Actually, they will be within these secure facilities.

[B]

Now, I mean, everyone agrees that, everyone on the right agrees anyway, that obviously migrants shouldn't be anywhere near just local communities who are not prepared and have no experience of this. But I fear that we're arriving in this sort of realm of, honestly, it's in the same sort of realm as the communists. It's like, well, look, my desirable utopia has never been achieved and therefore you can't critique it because there's no example that I will use, I will accept for you to compare it to. And okay, well, it's going to be a secure migrant detention center. Is it staffed by who? Is it going to be staffed by people in these green areas? Are we sure that they're going to do their jobs? Are we sure that people won't escape? Are we sure that there will be any real security there at all? I could make a fancy wish list of things that I would like in a thing as well, but whether that actually translates into reality is a different question entirely. But obviously I take your point that they shouldn't be near these communities at all. But I'm with you on the Remote, uninhabited Scottish island. Solution? Why are they here at all?

[A]

You see, I think actually what we're talking about is already happening. I mean, one of the things that makes me most despair about the state of the media in this country is that we saw all these massive protests outside the migrant hotels, the Bellhoped Hotel and all these other protests. Clearly people were outraged that you had migrants in their communities. They wanted these hotel shows shut down. The government said, very well, we're going to shut down these hotels on the outskirts of town. And no one said, where are they going to go? Well, they were on a golf course on the outskirts of town where they weren't such a threat. But now we're going to bring them into houses of multiple of occupation next door to you, opposite from your child's school. And nobody seems to have considered this might have been a possibility. Which again, as I've been saying, this is why we need camps. They've closed down all private accommodation and put everybody into camps. But anyway, Michael, what's your thoughts about what Carl has been saying?

[C]

Yeah, again, I agree with much of it. I think that reformers try to be too clever by half because in, as Carl points out, they tried to tie the Greens into a knot of their own logic. Right, because they do not acknowledge that there is anything unsafe about these places and they just simply lack the vocabulary to complain about it. And that is quite clever. But as Carl says, they reform thinks that they are full of, you know, very often very dangerous people. And so if they are asked, well, why are you placing them in these areas? And then they, they, you know, as Zia Youssef says, well, nobody's going to be allowed to leave them. It's like people abscond from prisons in Britain on a semi regular basis now,

[B]

when they're not just let out, they're

[C]

not, yeah, that where people, people will be able to. And then either you do this glib thing where you say, oh, no, it's just about democratic consent, but everybody knows that this is just a ruse, then you're kind of insulting the electorate, not to mention all of the Reform voters and other voters who will be in those areas just simply because there wasn't enough of them to form a majority in the council or elect an mp. So I think that will, you know, they'll be hoist on the petard that they were trying to hoist the Greens on in that regard. Although I would say, sorry to use another metaphor, but we might not want to throw the baby out with the bath water because I do like this idea of giving people a taste of their own medicine. And what could be an alternative would be. So they, they've got about a million people they want to deport maybe a million to 2 million. Now they're not, they're probably not going to get all of that done in the first four years. That's, you know, this 24,000 figures has how many people they want to detain at a time based on, you know, perfect train timetable of getting these people to leave the country. Why don't they suggest an adopt a migrant scheme and they can poll the areas who will buy into this and thereby if you adopt and sponsor a migrant and they can screen them for maybe the lower order priorities, not the low hanging fruits like criminals. And the results will be in. You can highlight the hypocrisy that way if you like, but that will be a voluntary thing and that will actually be something that's definitive and hilarious. Whereas if you impose what you think are like groups of dangerous men locked up in facilities on communities, I think that's not going to play very well as an actual policy.

[B]

Can I just add something to Michael's point there as well? I've seen Z Yousef doing interviews essentially trying to say, well, look at these hypocrites. But there's an underlying clever dickishness about it that everyone can see through. Everyone can see that, oh, okay, this is just a stunt to make the Greens look like hypocrites, which of course they are. But then it takes on an unserious and it's a frivolous aspect that I don't think it reflects well on reform. And I'm not a reform supporter, but you would think that they would want to have a kind of air of inevitability and authority rather than being sort of Fox News pundits. And that's, that's how this came across to me is kind of especially with the video they released. It was very slick, but it felt very sort of Fox News punditry.

[A]

So would you say it's more Trumpian influence there?

[B]

Yeah, but, but not in, not in a way that I think British people are very receptive to. I mean YouGov did some snap polling on this and found that only 19 of people were even vaguely disposed to using politics as a weapon like this. 45% people outright said no, we don't like this at all. And that was not entirely dissimilar to the reform voters own choices either. I think this has been a bit of a mistake to be Honest.

[C]

And just to add to that, they interrupted their enemy when he was already making a mistake. Because Zach Polanski's polling was through the floor after his comments about the golden green, trying to reframe the golden screen attack as an instance of police brutality that even created ruptures within his own party that I imagine has now had a rally round effect in the face of this policy. And so I don't think the timing was necessarily advisable.

[A]

Now, at the end of this, I want us to put forward what we think are the proposals, the policy proposals you would like to see a new government implement and how we can, I think, quite simply and effectively, stop the boats, bring an end to illegal immigration and deport those who are already here. But I hope our viewers will see how simple it could potentially be to do all this. Which does bring us to the bigger question as to why, after all these years, eight years of small boats, but even longer of mass immigration, we were getting per year 50,000 illegal immigrants, which was our legal immigration figures in the 1980s and 90s. Why have the Tories and the labor government been unable to get a hold of all of this? All we get are policies which seem as if they're trying to use a teaspoon to empty a swimming pool. The one in one out policy, silly deals with the French, things which clearly are not going to have any real efficacy. Look at the Rwanda scheme was only going to transport hundreds, if not a few thousand people to Rwanda.

[B]

It was mostly reciprocal and it was reciprocal.

[A]

We were receiving people back in by the same degree. And again, the point is most people crossing the Channel aren't watching the BBC actually reading about these articles about one in, one out. So why has our government been so impotent for so long?

[B]

Well, do you. No, no, you go ahead. I mean, there are many reasons, I think.

[C]

Well, I think, you know, one. One way that you could look at what's happened to our country since the Second World War is that the, you know, the empire has come to us and has been remade. Essentially. You could see the British Empire as retreating to the Metropole and this is like the final holdout. And we've replicated a lot of the systems that we had under Empire of Community Relation Officers. And I was just in Oldham and there are entire streets which have been transplanted from Mirpur, Pakistan into post industrial Northern England. And so we really have replicated a lot of those things and I think it was well described. I forget the man's name. You'll remind me one of you is, you know, in a fit of absence of mind. There's a kind of compounding logic. One thing leads to another thing. Do we need initially we need guest workers. We don't really have a thought out policy for guest workers. A lot of the Mirpuris who came over as a result of the construction of a dam in that part of Kashmir thought they would return. Indeed, many of them would go home to be buried. And so the migrants themselves didn't even know where this was going to end up. And it was only as the years went on that they decided to settle. The dead stayed put and started to be buried in Oldham, which is why we've now got a suggestion of a Muslim cemetery by the hopeful council leader, or I should say council leader hopeful. And I think that there's a million and one decisions that have gone into this, but it's always been a short term high for long term negative effects that haven't been factored in.

[A]

But I think you're talking about legal immigration. What I'm talking about are the measures that could be taken to stop. Because we're talking about the asylum system here in this conversation. So, you know, said for years, you just need to make Britain less attractive than France. So they're coming from France. So you need to crack down on the underground economy. It's so easy to come over here, work in the curry houses, work for delivery drivers. If I order something, it will say Muhammad is coming. And then I'll get. Some woman will come and deliver the food instead.

[B]

Oh, you transphobic as well you get.

[A]

But then you got rogue landlords who will have a two bedroom flat with six people living in there. So we need criminal sanctions, not just fines, but put these rogue landlords, employers in prison. As I say, you empty all the, all the private accommodation, have camps, that's for those who are living here until they can be sent out of the country. No benefits for anybody. No indefinite leave to remain until you're here for 15 years. Well, no indefinite leaves to remain at all. Citizenship after 15 years benefits literally go just to people who have citizenship. Citizenship brings benefits is actually the clue. And then for people who haven't yet come over here, you copy the Australians and would get old cruise ships, put them into the Channel, make them into detention ships. If you can't turn the boats back to France, you pick them up, you put them on these cruise ships. When the cruise ship is filled up, you sail it to one of the British overseas territory, the Ascension Islands, the South Georgia Islands. Or you could use A third country like Rwanda. Point is, the message will soon get out. You will never set foot on Blighty. You're going to be on a cruise ship, then you're going to be on a winswept island in the Atlantic and it won't be long, it won't be a few months before that message goes out. Now, all of those things are things we can do. We don't need to leave the echr, we just need to get rid of the Human Rights act, which is a piece of new labor legislation that could be done within the space of a year. And that's my question to you. Making Britain less attractive than France, putting these deterrents in place is so simple. Why are governments coming up with these madcap schemes instead?

[B]

Well, I mean, that's. All of these are obviously great ideas and we actually know that why the migrants themselves think to come here. We can see their tick tocks. They advertise to one another on tick tock all the time. And there's an entire economy, a trafficking economy that operates via tick tock. And literally migrants saying, pay us €2,000 and we will get you across the Channel or whatever it is. Right? And they advertise what the British state will do for them. It will give you money, it will give you access to shelter, food, food, access to the towns, access to white women is actually a big draw for a lot of these migrants, which is an unpleasant thing to say, but they tell you this. And whilst the British state provides this kind of largesse, they will constantly try to find a way. So you. I think you're completely correct and I, I don't even know if we need to go as far as you're saying. What, what needs to be shown is, is that the beneficence of the state is being rescinded. You are not getting money from us, you are not getting access to the country, you are not getting access to these towns. We are not paying for you to do anything. We will put you on a, say, a refugee boat in the Channel to make sure you're not in danger, assuming we want to carry on with the system as it is. But I mean, I'd be very interested in a complete overhauling of the system and the message will go out very, very quickly on tick tock. Oh, no, they're not be a phone screen. But they're not letting us into Britain anymore. Don't bother. They're just not gonna, they're not gonna give any money. But the question is to why. Why do our governments want this, why are they okay with. This is, is a really great one because, I mean, I, I honestly think that the labor and Green type people think they're saving the world. I genuinely think in their minds they think that it's essentially what you're saying about empire, which is a superb point that I've, I've made elsewhere as well. It's exactly what this, these people would normally have been Christian missionaries who went to deepest, darkest Africa to, you know, help with whatever plagues or whatever, the poor benighted people over there. That's, that's the impulse that these people are following. They just have nowhere else to do it now. And so it's turned inwards. And this is something I think is a genuine moral compulsion for them, I think for, I mean, obviously you've got a cynical sort of layer of people who are not like that, who are using these people to, to the their own advantage, like Zach Polanski, I think. But you, you see lots of sort of fresh faced young women who are just like, yes, I just want to help people. I just want to save the world. And this is why I thought the reform policy was a bit inappropriate because actually the majority of green activists kind of look like that and they're, they're naive but not evil. And so, but anyway. But I think the conservatives know what needs to be done. They're just profoundly weak people in a profoundly weak institution that has no spine and honestly in many ways consents to the direction of travel that labor have put us on in the first place. And so they consider these people to be their responsibility as well. And this is why we get boondoggle ideas like the Rwanda plan and the one in and one out and all this sort of nonsense, whereas it just, you obviously don't want to do something about the issue issue, otherwise you would just do it. The problem with the migrant boats is not a lack of ability, it's a lack of willpower.

[C]

If you take the example of Albanians coming over illegally four or five years ago, they were, I think, the largest cohort. And we identified that their country wasn't at war. It was designated a safe country country. We made a bilateral agreement with the Albanian government that we were going to send people home. We also, what Carl alluded to with TikTok, what is a technology that has been predominantly a pull factor can also act as a push factor. So we started paying for advertisements of unsuccessful journeys from Albania to Britain. And that had a great, great push effect. And to this day, I think it's the largest success story that we've had with stopping the boats because it was reduced in a matter of a year OR 2 by 95%, 98%. So it can be done. It's just the political willpower to scale that out to other groups.

[A]

You say it can be done and you said that you think the Green Party is going to end up being a bit of a damp squib at the end of the day because the British people are sensible. I would put it to you we only have a limited amount of time when we have any chance of doing this. Because as Eric Kaufman, I spoke with him about this and he agreed with me. He thinks that we're going to be entering a period soon where Britain is going to resemble Canada for the next 20 years. We're going to go into this woke Valhalla before people realize quite how appalling paradise is on the left. And that means we only have really one or two elections left where we would have a chance of dealing with illegal immigration and more importantly, obviously legal immigration and deportation. Because as I keep trying to explain to people on the right, by the year 2031.4 million right wing voters will have died. Only 400,000 left wing voters will have died. As we stand, the majority of this country vote for centre left parties. It's only because there's been a plurality of parties on the left that we've had strong majorities for the Tory party, the Neoliberal party as I call it, which means this is a truly significant moment this election. The next are the only times I think we're going to be able to get hold of this. Otherwise, because of demographics, because of the migrant vote, the Muslim vote and the youth vote who are radically left wing, we aren't going to have a chance of enacting this. But given how difficult it's been for the Tories to do any of this stuff, betrayal of the British people time and again, how confident are you that we are going to be able to actually get a grip of this, both legal and illegal immigration within the next two elections? And what does that mean if we can't?

[B]

Well, so I've got a lot of friends in other countries who are actually in a worse position than we are. The, the British system is often made light of by American friends or you don't have an amendment for that, you don't have constitutional protections. True, and the same in Germany. But that also means that if we manage to get a government of 350 absolute patriots, we can fix the problems where you guys Can't. So I'm not actually as despondent on this subject as a lot of people are. And not that it's not understandable to look at the future and think, oh my goodness, this is pretty bleak. Britain has quite a good natural Conservative tradition that when invoked has this effect of making people understand, oh no, I have to get in line now. I have to do my part now that a lot of other countries don't have because they kind of reject it. We were talking about Ireland before. They, they see it as being a kind of English conservatism. I mean, I think the Conservative Party is just viewed as the English party in certain areas of the Celtic countries.

[A]

So

[B]

the reason that we've been hamstrung by the Conservative Party is because they have always worn this mask very convincingly. If we can get a party that wears it authentically and actually is what the Conservatives claim to be that kind of deep sort of Arthur Wellesley and sort of conservatism that then I think actually a lot of people will agree with it, even if they themselves aren't very disposed to thinking of themselves in those terms. They will understand that there is a kind of legitimate order in the country that should be invoked for the good of the entire country. And I think actually it is possible for us to do that within the next election or two before things have gone too far. Are. But I think you are correct that we are on a timer. There is a clock ticking here and we really need to get all of these issues hammered out as quickly as possible.

[C]

Yeah, I agree with most of that. I think, you know, especially what Carl said imply, I think you implied about the supremacy of Parliament. We, pound for pound, our parliamentary system is probably the, the, the most powerful in the world in relative terms. And you know, if Parliament wants to sign a, a law into effect tomorrow to abolish the BBC, abolish the monarchy, it can do what, pretty much whatever it likes. And so Carl's completely right. All we need is, you know, 350 good men, women and who've, who've been elected on a certain matter, mandate. There's a lot of questions there though. Reform at the moment seem like the only game in town for the right really who are serious about solving these systemic problems. They have a very thin policy team. I think that's why they're coming out with these more gimmicky policies than more detailed stuff. I think that probably will change if, if they, if they want to have that caliber that Carl talked about, that confidence of, of, of Power, the air of power. Then I think they're going to need to get very serious on the policy side. Get what Dominic Cummings calls a room full of ninja lawyers, probably repeal more than more laws than they pass. And essentially upstream from almost all of our problems I see is the fact that the sovereignty of Parliament has been bled away from it over the last 25 years. And the first order of the day has to be re almost like picking that crown up from the gutter and putting it back in its place. And then only then can you start to everything else is downstream from that.

[B]

Can I pick up on that? You're completely correct about that and obviously by design that the sovereignty of Parliament has been outsourced to the armed length bodies. But this is one of my issues with reform is when Robert Jemerich said we won't be bringing the bank of England under ministerial control, we will maintain the Office of Budget responsibility. And what that signaled to me was we're actually not going to attack the quangocracy. We're actually not going to re import all of these powers into Parliament and put them under ministerial control. And I can't see the argument argument for that because at the moment for anyone who doesn't know, essentially there is no public oversight over something like £500 billion worth of government spending every year through this arm's length body web. And the ministers might not be brilliant but at least we have some control over a Minister. We still have the power of selection over the ministers and so having the ministers be in charge of the arm's length bodies, even if they're not great, would be better than the way it is at the moment for all of their flaws. I think that Liz Truss probably was shanked by the bank of England deliberately and that was I think a really good example of why we don't want these things to have their own independent life away from public control through the power of the Minister.

[A]

Well gentlemen, one thing is certain, we are entering into uncharted territory, especially not least with multiparty system of elections coming up. But one thing is certain, there's a heavy and solemn duty duty on the next government to deliver. Because the British people have been betrayed time and again. And for many this is their last chance as far as they're concerned. And if they get betrayed the final time, God knows what the next option will be for them. But only time will tell. Thank you so much for joining me today. That's all for now. If you're a member, do stay with us. We're going to have a couple of minutes of extra member content in the meantime.

[D]

I'm Ralph Heidelman Manku hello, I'm Ralph Heidel Manku. And on behalf of the New Culture Forum, I'm delighted to launch a series of free walking tours and historic visits around London and around Britain. If you like your commentary unwoke positive and upbeat, this is for you. And if you like your history to unabashedly celebrate the very greatest achievements of Britain, its history and its hero heroes, then I hope you will consider coming along. On one of our tours. I'll show you secret corners, hidden treasures and other curiosities that millions of people walk past without noticing, such as these air raid shelter ghost signs on a street near our offices. At the New Culture Forum, we'll celebrate some of Britain's greatest achievements. Behind me is the Buxton Memorial Fountain, erected to commemorate those bright, brave British abolitionists who campaigned successfully for the abolition of slavery in the British Empire. And we'll dispel the ridiculous new myths that the left are creating about some of our finest heroes, people like Lawrence of Arabia who lived in the house just behind me. But there's a catch. To join one of our tours, you need to be a signed up member of the New Culture Forum. From as little as four pounds a month, you can receive a range of exclusive perks and benefits. At the lower tiers, this includes exclusive content, discounted tickets to our lectures, our conferences, our literary festival, and much more besides. At the upper tier levels, this includes many things such as invitations to private events, a chance to meet the NCF team, and of course to attend many events in our studio videos. So please do consider joining either via the link below or our website newcultureforum.org.uk.