Central to Donald Trump’s historic victory in the US Presidential election was his pledge to restore the integrity of America’s southern border after four years of chaos under the Democrats. During the campaign, Trump promised tough action, including the systematic deportation of offenders. In contrast, his opponent Kamala Harris – the Vice President who is meant to be in charge of border policy – utterly failed to convince as a champion of tighter controls.
Like her paralysed indifference, the last Tory Government’s enfeebled oversight of our own southern border played a significant part in its General Election defeat. The failure to stem the rising tide of dangerous Channel crossings by small boats reinforced the Conservative Party’s reputation for incompetent laxity and political dishonesty.
Indeed, far from tackling this lethal trade, ministers pathetically encouraged it by using the Border Force as a quasi-ferry service and putting up the migrants in luxury hotels. To the hordes gathered along the northern coast of Europe in the hope of reaching England, the message went out: you have nothing to fear from capture; your free accommodation awaits.
But Labour have been just as ineffectual. In October alone, more than 5,000 people made the journey – the highest monthly total of the year so far. Altogether, 31,094 migrants have crossed the Channel since the start of 2024, up 16.5% on the same point in 2023. As in America, the southern border crisis has become intolerable. Its very existence erodes the legitimacy of the entire immigration system, while it remains a death trap for its users.
Stung by criticism of the Government, Sir Keir Starmer and his Home Secretary Yvette Cooper this week launched a new strategy which, they said, would “smash the gangs” that run this racket. Their measures featured the recruitment of more investigators; another £75 million for the recently established Border Security Command; new powers for the Crown Prosecution Service; and further negotiations with EU states on co-operation.
For all the illusion of activity, the Government’s approach is fundamentally flawed because of left-wing ideology. At the heart of Labour’s philosophy is the belief that Channel migrants are invariably victims of oppression, who deserve support rather than punishment. The action by the authorities is therefore targeted exclusively at the people smugglers, who are portrayed as cruel operators eager to exploit the vulnerable.
But this sentimental narrative is false. The vast majority of the Channel migrants – around 80% of them – are young men with enough cash to pay the traffickers’ charges, estimated to be over £3,000 for a trip to England. They are not the smugglers’ victims but their clients. It is their determination to reach our southern shores that creates the demand for the trade in human cargo.
Without a recognition of this reality, the efforts to “smash the gangs” will be doomed. The web of criminality can only be broken when the demand evaporates. In turn, that will only happen if potential Channel migrants are deterred by the genuine threat of imprisonment followed by swift deportation, if necessary to a safe third country. That was the purpose behind the Tories’ Rwandan scheme, which Labour dumped as soon as they came to power.
So Starmer’s Government has been left with no meaningful deterrent. More bureaucracy and photo-opportunities with European leaders will achieve nothing but greater disillusion. The problem will actually worsen because Labour wants to clear the current backlog of asylum applications by fast-tracking claims from Syria, Afghanistan and Iran, which will lead to a surge in the number of people settling here from cultures where misogyny and jihadism flourish. Starmer declared last week that he wants to classify the border crisis as a “national security” issue, but the actions of his Government may deepen the threat to our society. Rather than clinging to this failed approach, he should look across the Atlantic and take note of Trump’s more robust plan.
***
On her debut at the dispatch box as the Tories’ new leader, Kemi Badenoch appeared confident, even relaxed, despite the Labour benches howling at her, and she expertly skewered Sir Keir Starmer over Labour’s awkward relationship with Donald Trump. On the downside, there was an error about the Budget and a lame joke about scripted answers – read from her script. But overall, it was a promising performance that augurs well for the future.
***
Trying to stay up all night to witness the outcome of the US election, I was nearly sent into a slumber by British broadcasters. With their ponderous coverage, they managed to suck out the drama, urgency and excitement from this crucial moment for the world. Even when it was clear that Trump had built an unassailable lead, the BBC was still squawking that the outcome was “too close to call.”
But the slowness points to a deeper problem. Like the rest of the British establishment, much of the media’s judgment was clouded by its blind hostility to Trump. Denial and delay built on the desperate hope that Kamala Harris might somehow find a route to the White House. The same bias could be found in the excessive reliance on misleading polls or predictions of the outcome based on nothing more than wishful thinking. Some liberal-minded journalists – like Emily Maitlis – made no attempt to conceal their disgust at the decision of the US electorate.
Like Brexit in 2016, what the victory for Trump illustrated was the chasm between the metropolitan liberal elite and the public. Puffed up with their own misplaced intellectual and moral superiority, the experts, policy-makers, influencers and pundits keep getting it wrong. They blather about extremism, but, insulated by their affluence and groupthink, they are the real authoritarians. They wail about ignorance but they are the ones who peddle disinformation. Trump’s win was another blow to their credibility.
***
Trump’s remarkable comeback has provoked grim warnings that global peace is now under threat. Such panic is based on the caricature of him as a warmongering bully who adores tyrants and thrives on confrontation. But the reality is very different. His first term in the White House was characterized by energetic diplomacy, the avoidance of military interventions overseas and pressure on European nations to strengthen NATO. In contrast, the Presidency of Joe Biden heralded savage conflict in the Middle East, brutal war in Ukraine, and a humiliating withdrawal from Afghanistan.
The West’s enemies were emboldened by Biden’s weakness, typified by his calls for a “de-escalation” in counter-terror operations by Israel. But as Trump recognises, the only way to achieve lasting peace in the Middle East is through Israel’s defeat of the terror groups Hezbollah and Hamas. And Trump’s second term could again show that strength is the best guarantor of stability and security.
***
The reckless deployment of the term “fascist” by the Democrats against Trump was an insult to both history and voters’ intelligence. But intriguingly, England really was led by a fascist a century ago. I am referring to the England cricket team whose Ashes series against Australia opened in December 1924 under the leadership of Arthur Gilligan. a member of the British Fascists, a right-wing organisation forged by admiration for the Italian dictator Mussolini. So serious was his involvement that he came under surveillance from Australian police, though no action was taken against him. Gilligan remained a key member of the cricket establishment.
***
On a still Wednesday morning this week, just 3% of our electricity was generated by wind power so 69% had to come from gas. Ed Miliband’s net zero green agenda is hailed by supporters as a bold advance. Sceptics might describe it has a lunatic act of self-harm.
