Reaction to voluntary-repatriation and the Traditional Britain Group/ Jacob Rees-Mogg meeting.

Head Author.

    It seems the slightest mention of anything that isn't deemed politically correct by any member of the right is automatically deemed offensive/racist by the left, including the BBC and other mainstream news outlets.
If Jacob Rees-Mogg truly believes that the appointment of Doreen Lawrence to the House of Lords and disgust at the idea of voluntary repatriation reflects a upholding view of core values of a traditional Britain; then ergo he must be stating that the Conservatives are more for traditionalism, certainly in part, now, then they were during the period of the Conservative 1970 manifesto that supported voluntary repatriation, as mentioned by Mr Lauder-Frost on Newsnight yesterday evening.
  The underlying issue is the mere fact that Britain is superior to many other nations, thus immigrants come here to settle and not vice-versa. Acquiring this very simple and logical piece of information raises the question of why do most on the left really become (or pretend to become) so offended by the thought of voluntary repatriation?
  They will deny Britain any superior status, stating we aren't a power we once were whilst simultaneously stating that immigration has unquestionably made Britain a stronger, better country. They will, more suspiciously, be offended by the thought of repatriation as unfair whilst claiming that countries in question regarding being the recipients of repatriation are all well and fine and are perfectly apt countries to live in. If so; why take offence? They take offence knowing that such immigrants are likely to fail the 'Tebbit test' and will thus weaken the will of the country to retain, or reinstate parts of what may be essential for a traditional Britain.
  In the Newsnight debate; Mr Rees-Mogg wrote off the thought of repatriation as 'shocking', in a manner that concludes that the subject shouldn't even be debated or mentioned. This is a key tact of the left, not a supposed traditionalist MP.
He falls into the category of 'we must all think the same to be able to even speak to each other' path of thought, which is a major shame for a Tory who should be standing for individual right to debate and speak with integrity about important issues and ideas that aren't mainstream; thus holding up the pillars of free-speech. In reacting like he did, he has made it more difficult for MP's or politicians to attend any form of meetings which may not reflect the values of the party in which they serve and thus making it more difficult for new, fresh ideas (along with traditionalist ideas) to be proposed to people who serve the populous.