HomeHome  CalendarCalendar  FAQFAQ  SearchSearch  MemberlistMemberlist  UsergroupsUsergroups  RegisterRegister  Log in  

Share|

Immigration

View previous topic View next topic Go down
AuthorMessage
Storm
Admin
avatar

Posts : 616
Join date : 2011-11-11

PostSubject: Immigration Fri Oct 18, 2013 8:49 pm


The truth at last! Peter Mandelson admits Labour ‘sent out search parties’ to bring migrants here after losing the votes of the working class, writes RICHARD LITTLEJOHN

PUBLISHED: 22:25, 17 May 2013 | UPDATED: 23:24, 17 May 2013

Three months after the 1987 general election, Labour assembled in Brighton for its annual conference. The famous smoke-filled rooms were replete with recrimination and disbelief.

How had the party managed to suffer a third debilitating defeat at the handbag of the hated Margaret Thatcher? Most of the dwindling band of delegates simply couldn’t comprehend why millions of ‘their’ people had voted Conservative yet again.

Neil Kinnock, who even after the polling stations closed was convinced he had won a famous victory, enlightened them.
In 1987, Labour managed to suffer a third debilitating defeat to Margaret Thatcher. Most of the dwindling band of delegates simply couldn't comprehend why millions of 'their' people had voted Conservative yet again

In 1987, Labour managed to suffer a third debilitating defeat to Margaret Thatcher. Most of the dwindling band of delegates simply couldn’t comprehend why millions of ‘their’ people had voted Conservative yet again

In his keynote address, Kinnock posed a rhetorical question: ‘What do you say to a docker who earns £400 a week, owns his own house, a new car, a microwave, as well as a small place near Marbella?

‘You do not say,’ he continued, adopting a cod Cockney accent intended to mimic Ron Todd, then leader of Britain’s biggest union, the TGWU: ‘Bruvver, let me take you out of your misery.’

It was a reluctant acknowledgement that Labour’s clapped-out collectivist model had run out of road. It was also the moment that the rising generation of Labour politicians realised that they could never again rely on the votes on the white working class.
Standing at the back of the hall that day, listening intently, was one Peter Mandelson, a moustachioed former television producer brought in by Kinnock to modernise the party’s image.

Mandelson, together with the ruthlessly ambitious young men and women who would subsequently form the nucleus of New Labour in the mid-Nineties, concluded that if they could no longer take the support of the white working class for granted, they would have to import a new working class from overseas.

Yet they have always denied that the mass immigration unleashed after Tony Blair’s 1997 landslide was a deliberate policy driven by naked political self-interest.

Until now, that is.
In an extraordinary and unexpected moment of candour, Peter Mandelson himself confessed this week that Labour 'sent out search parties' for immigrantsIn an extraordinary and unexpected moment of candour, Peter Mandelson himself confessed this week that Labour ‘sent out search parties’ for immigrants

In an extraordinary and unexpected moment of candour, Mandelson himself confessed this week that Labour ‘sent out search parties’ for immigrants.

He told the Blairite think-tank Progress: ‘In 2004, as a Labour government, we were not only welcoming people to come into this country to work, we were sending out search parties for people and encouraging them.’

He added: ‘The situation is different now . . . entry to the labour market of many people of non-British origin is hard for people who are finding it very difficult to find jobs [and] who find it hard to keep jobs.’

It was an astonishing admission, the first time someone at the very heart of the New Labour project has confirmed that Britain’s border controls were cynically dismantled.

When former Labour adviser Andrew Neather said three years ago that mass immigration was a ploy intended to ‘rub the Right’s nose in diversity’ his claims were categorically rebutted by Labour leaders.

Mass immigration was never once mentioned in any Labour manifesto. No one voted for it.
A policy which was to change the face of Britain irrevocably was smuggled in under the radar purely for long-term electoral and short-term economic advantage.

The assumption was that the new arrivals would all become naturalised and return the favour by voting Labour.

The party’s new friends in the business world, meanwhile, would benefit from an endless supply of willing foreign workers prepared to accept low wages.

So it was that Tony Blair’s victory ushered in the greatest mass migration in this country’s history.

The most outrageous Left-wing lie is that Britain has always been a ‘nation of immigrants’. This is arrant nonsense. Between the Norman Conquest in 1066 and 1950, immigration was virtually non-existent, save for a few thousand Jews and Huguenots fleeing persecution in Europe.

It began to rise when the government opened the door to Commonwealth citizens to help rebuild the post-war economy and run essential public services, such as transport and the National Health Service.

But as recently as the early Nineties, net migration stood at around only 40,000 a year, statistically insignificant. After Labour came to power, more people moved to Britain than in the entire previous millennium.

Figures released this week show that one in eight of the population, 7.5 million people, is an immigrant.

Half of them arrived in the decade up to 2011.
As recently as the early Nineties, net migration stood at around only 40,000 a year, statistically insignificant. After Labour came to power, more people moved to Britain than in the entire previous millennium

As recently as the early Nineties, net migration stood at around only 40,000 a year, statistically insignificant. After Labour came to power, more people moved to Britain than in the entire previous millennium

In London, those who describe themselves as ‘white British’ are in the minority. Other cities are heading the same way as migration drives the population to 70 million and beyond. Vast areas of the country have been transformed beyond recognition.

Labour’s pernicious policy of ‘multiculturalism’ has created monocultural ghettos in our inner cities and former mill towns. Far from encouraging integration, Labour expected the host communities to adapt to the immigrants, not vice versa.

The result for millions of British people has been a sense of dislocation, a feeling that they don’t belong in the place they were born. In the Mail last year, A.N. Wilson wrote poignantly about returning to his home town of Stoke, a city he no longer recognises.

The impact has been harshest on the very people Labour once purported to represent, the old white working class. They have seen the areas in which they grew up, generation after generation, gradually absorbed by alien cultures.

Their wages have been undercut by cheap foreign labourers, without so much as a peep from the once powerful trades unions set up to protect them.

None of this appears to trouble the new breed of self-regarding social worker, political researcher and college lecturer which comprises the modern Labour Party.
'Multiculturalism': Far from encouraging integration, Labour expected the host communities to adapt to the immigrants, not vice versa

‘Multiculturalism’: Far from encouraging integration, Labour expected the host communities to adapt to the immigrants, not vice versa

Their contempt for the traditional working class is exceeded only by their hatred for middle-class Daily Mail readers.

This demographic catastrophe has its roots in the fallout from that third Labour defeat in 1987. Mrs Thatcher’s decision to sell off council housing stock to tenants had created a burgeoning property-owning democracy.

Conservative economic reforms had liberated millions of aspirational, newly-affluent people who had previously been forced to rely on state largesse or union militancy to improve their standard of living.

The trades unions were in terminal retreat, as a result of Margaret Thatcher’s comprehensive crushing of Arthur Scargill’s kamikaze coal strike, and they could no longer deliver their members en bloc at the ballot box.

Lifelong Labour voters had switched allegiance to the Conservatives, especially in dozens of crucial marginal constituencies in the Midlands and the South East.

From the rubble of Kinnock’s defeat, Labour set out to create a different country.

A fourth Tory triumph in 1992 only served to reinforce their resolve, such that after 1997 practically Labour’s first act was to demolish Britain’s border controls.
After Labour's defeat in 1987, the trades unions were in terminal retreat as a result of Margaret Thatcher's comprehensive crushing of Arthur Scargill's kamikaze coal strike

After Labour’s defeat in 1987, the trades unions were in terminal retreat as a result of Margaret Thatcher’s comprehensive crushing of Arthur Scargill’s kamikaze coal strike

The intention was to attract millions of immigrants from across the globe, legally or illegally. A new category of ‘asylum seekers’ was created, effectively granting any foreign national who claimed persecution the right of settlement in Britain. Background checks were cursory, at best, and Labour’s Human Rights Act made it virtually impossible either to deny entry to, or deport, anyone, no matter how undesirable.

Labour also signed up to freedom of movement within the EU, which was to lead to a mass exodus to Britain from Eastern Europe. We were told only 13,000 people would move here from Eastern Europe. In the event, more than a million came.

Those who questioned the policy were routinely smeared as a ‘racist’. The distinguished former diplomat Sir Andrew Green, of MigrationWatch UK, who has consistently produced accurate figures on the scale and impact of uncontrolled immigration, was subjected to the most vile character assassination.

The Tories were cowed into submission.

Despite the Left’s denigration of those who were worried about the effect of the policy on national identity, social cohesion, public services and housing, most people were not objecting to immigration itself.

The argument has been about the scale and speed of the transformation.

Indisputably, many newcomers have brought great benefits to Britain. From the Fifties onwards, the NHS and public transport would have collapsed without dedicated staff from the Commonwealth.

London would not be the wealthy, vibrant world city it is today if it was shorn of its army of hard-working, enterprising recent arrivals from across the globe.

Great businesses have been built by Asian immigrants from East Africa and the Indian sub-continent.

A new black middle class is emerging. Service industries owe much of their success to young immigrants prepared to work long hours for modest rewards.

They have been willing to take on jobs which British natives were unwilling to do, or had been given an incentive not to do by an over-generous welfare system.

Britain is a brighter, more eclectic nation as a result.
From the rubble of Kinnock's defeat, Labour set out to create a different country. After 1997, practically Labour's first act was to demolish Britain's border controls

From the rubble of Kinnock’s defeat, Labour set out to create a different country. After 1997, practically Labour’s first act was to demolish Britain’s border controls

Immigrants have made huge contributions across sport, music and the arts. But immigration has also brought serious problems, from pressures on housing, schools and hospitals to gang culture and religious fundamentalism.

If you are reasonably affluent, you’re probably quite relaxed about immigration — which has contributed to your quality of life.

I’m lucky to live in a suburb where different races and religions all rub along in harmony. I’ve got an Italian gardener, a Greek Cypriot barber, my wife’s piano teacher is Polish and our favourite local restaurant is Indian.

But if you’re living on a small pension and feel trapped because the area in which you grew up has been transformed into a foreign country, you’d be forgiven for not ‘celebrating diversity’ quite so enthusiastically.

It didn’t have to be like this. We could have had a proper, managed immigration which would have delivered all of the benefits but fewer of the problems.

Even Labour realised this at the time. In his autobiography, The Third Man, Peter Mandelson writes about the run-up to the 2001 general election.

‘I thought that if we were going to re-engage with voters, we had to have something to say on an issue that was becoming increasingly difficult and controversial: immigration and asylum.

‘Immigration and asylum were generating debate, and sometimes anger, in pubs and on shop floors as much as in gentlemen’s clubs or leafy suburbs. I was hearing that concern on the doorstep in Hartlepool, and I knew that other MPs were getting a similar message in their constituencies.’

So Labour knew people were opposed to their undeclared, undemocratic policy of transforming Britain into a different country — but carried on regardless. Three years later, they were still, in Mandelson’s own words this week, ‘sending out search parties’ around the world to encourage more and more people to settle here.

Perhaps Mandelson intends us to think more kindly of him in the knowledge that he had his doubts all along. Frankly, his hypocrisy only makes his duplicity all the more despicable.

Blair and Mandelson have gone off to become seriously rich. Not for them the problems their immigration policies have wreaked upon Britain. The downside is for the little people, the grubby working classes who had to be punished for voting Tory four times on the trot.

We will all now have to live with the consequences, as we brace ourselves for yet another wave of unwanted immigration — this time from poverty-stricken Romania and Bulgaria.

Romanian criminals and beggars are already operating in London’s West End.

The only glimmer of hope is that, as some of us have always maintained and despite the evil slanders of the Left, according to a survey published yesterday Britain is one of the most racially tolerant nations on earth.

Let’s hope it stays that way. If it does, it will be no thanks to New Labour.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.
5 Responses to 2013 – 030 Immigration, Multiculturism and New Labour

Bryan Harris | 18 May, 2013 at 8:49 am | Reply

It is seriously time that this message was rammed up the nose of labour voting working class people… because otherwise they are going to miss it.

The rest of us probably got to know about this at some stage, so we are a wasted audience… we know the labour party is the biggest load of crooks and liars and at least equal to those clowns in Brussels, so one should ask why they are still peddling their wares.
Why hasn’t this brought them down and reduced them to less than half of what the libdems are now… it’s because of:
1. apathy and ignorance amongst voters;
2. a media that doesn’t want to upset their party;
3. union support that keeps labour just solvent.

What’s the answer – Keep on getting the message out, with the evidence - “The labour party deliberately work against the people of this country just so they can get elected on the promise of helping the poor”.
Mick | 27 August, 2013 at 5:44 pm | Reply

Please circulate to all your contacts.
Mick | 29 August, 2013 at 5:55 pm | Reply

Please circulate to all your contacts
Robert Hatcher | 12 October, 2013 at 5:40 pm | Reply

Spot on article!
With the help of the treacherous, bias BBC Labour will continue their poison.
Mick | 14 October, 2013 at 6:03 am | Reply

Thanks Robert, please forward on to all your contacts. MG

Leave a Reply

_________________
www.gamblinginsider.ca
Put a Bible/Quran in the wind and rain, it will perish...my book is the wind and the rain.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Storm
Admin
avatar

Posts : 616
Join date : 2011-11-11

PostSubject: Re: Immigration Fri Oct 18, 2013 11:42 pm

How the UK became overwhelmed with immigrants

2013 – 027 How the UK became overwhelmed with immigrants
Posted on 8 May, 2013 | 1 Comment
The outrageous truth slips out: Labour cynically plotted to transform the entire make-up of Britain without telling us

By Melanie Phillips
UPDATED: 15:48, 28 October 2009
Jack Straw

Shifty: Jack Straw on BBC Question Time where he addressed Labour’s immigration policy

So now the cat is well and truly out of the bag. For years, as the number of immigrants to Britain shot up apparently uncontrollably, the question was how exactly this had happened.

Was it through a fit of absent-mindedness or gross incompetence? Or was it not inadvertent at all, but deliberate?

The latter explanation seemed just too outrageous. After all, a deliberate policy of mass immigration would have amounted to nothing less than an attempt to change the very make-up of this country without telling the electorate.

There could not have been a more grave abuse of the entire democratic process. Now, however, we learn that this is exactly what did happen. The Labour government has been engaged upon a deliberate and secret policy of national cultural sabotage.

This astonishing revelation surfaced quite casually last weekend in a newspaper article by one Andrew Neather. He turns out to have been a speech writer for Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

And it was he who wrote a landmark speech in September 2000 by the then immigration minister, Barbara Roche, that called for a loosening of immigration controls. But the true scope and purpose of this new policy was actively concealed.

In its 1997 election manifesto, Labour promised ‘firm control over immigration’ and in 2005 it promised a ‘crackdown on abuse’. In 2001, its manifesto merely said that the immigration rules needed to reflect changes to the economy to meet skills shortages.

But all this concealed a monumental shift of policy. For Neather wrote that until ‘at least February last year’, when a new points-based system was introduced to limit foreign workers in response to increasing uproar, the purpose of the policy Roche ushered in was to open up the UK to mass immigration.

This has been achieved. Some 2.3million migrants have been added to the population since 2001. Since 1997, the number of work permits has quadrupled to 120,000 a year.
Unless policies change, over the next 25 years some seven million more will be added to Britain’s population, a rate of growth three times as fast as took place in the Eighties.

Such an increase is simply unsustainable. Britain is already one of the most overcrowded countries in Europe. But now look at the real reason why this policy was introduced, and in secret. The Government’s ‘driving political purpose’, wrote Neather, was ‘to make the UK truly multicultural’.

It was therefore a politically motivated attempt by ministers to transform the fundamental make-up and identity of this country. It was done to destroy the right of the British people to live in a society defined by a common history, religion, law, language and traditions.

It was done to destroy for ever what it means to be culturally British and to put another ‘multicultural’ identity in its place. And it was done without telling or asking the British people whether they wanted their country and their culture to be transformed in this way.

Spitefully, one motivation by Labour ministers was ‘to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date’.

Even Neather found that particular element of gratuitous Left-wing bullying to be ‘a manoeuvre too far’.

Yet apart from this, Neather sees nothing wrong in the policy he has described. Indeed, the reason for his astonishing candour is he thinks it’s something to boast about. Mass immigration, he wrote, had provided the ‘foreign nannies, cleaners and gardeners’ without whom London could hardly function.

What elitist arrogance! As if most people employ nannies, cleaners and gardeners. And what ignorance. The argument that Britain is better off with this level of immigration has been conclusively shown to be economically illiterate.

Neather gave the impression that most immigrants are Eastern Europeans. But these form fewer than a quarter of all immigrants.

And the fact is that, despite his blithe assertions to the contrary, schools in areas of very high immigration find it desperately difficult to cope with so many children who don’t even have basic English. Other services, such as health or housing, are similarly being overwhelmed by the sheer weight of numbers.

But the most shattering revelation was that this policy of mass immigration was not introduced to produce nannies or cleaners for the likes of Neather. It was to destroy Britain’s identity and transform it into a multicultural society where British attributes would have no greater status than any other country’s.

A measure of immigration is indeed good for a country. But this policy was not to enhance British culture and society by broadening the mix. It was to destroy its defining character altogether.

It also conveniently guaranteed an increasingly Labour-voting electorate since, as a recent survey by the Electoral Commission has revealed, some 90 per cent of black people and three-quarters of Asians vote Labour.

In Neather’s hermetically sealed bubble, the benefits of mass immigration were so overwhelming he couldn’t understand why ministers had been so nervous about it.

They were, he wrote, reluctant to discuss what increased immigration would mean, above all to Labour’s core white working class vote. So they deliberately kept it secret.

They knew that if they told the truth about what they were doing, voters would rise up in protest. So they kept it out of their election manifestos.

It was indeed a conspiracy to deceive the electorate into voting for them. And yet it is these very people who have the gall to puff themselves up in self-righteous astonishment at the rise of the BNP.

No wonder Jack Straw was so shifty on last week’s Question Time when he was asked whether it was the Government’s failure to halt immigration which lay behind increasing support for the BNP.
‘No wonder Jack Straw was so shifty… when he was asked whether it was the Government’s failure to halt immigration which lay behind increasing support for the BNP’

Now we know it was no such failure of policy. It was deliberate. For the government of which Straw is such a long- standing member had secretly plotted to flood the country with immigrants to change its very character and identity.

This more than any other reason is why Nick Griffin has gained so much support. According to a YouGov poll taken after Question Time, no fewer than 22 per cent of British voters would ‘seriously consider’ voting for the BNP.

That nearly one quarter of British people might vote for a neo-Nazi party with views inimical to democracy, human rights and common decency is truly appalling.

The core reason is that for years they have watched as their country’s landscape has been transformed out of all recognition – and that politicians from all mainstream parties have told them first that it isn’t happening and second, that they are racist bigots to object even if it is.

Now the political picture has been transformed overnight by the unguarded candour of Andrew Neather’s eye-opening superciliousness. For now we know that Labour politicians actually caused this to happen – and did so out of total contempt for their own core voters.

As Neather sneered, the jobs filled by immigrant workers ‘certainly wouldn’t be taken by unemployed BNP voters from Barking or Burnley – fascist au pair, anyone?’

So that’s how New Labour views the white working class, supposedly the very people it is in politics to champion. Who can wonder that its core vote is now decamping in such large numbers to the BNP when Labour treats them like this?

Condemned out of its own mouth, it is New Labour that is responsible for the rise of the BNP – by an act of unalloyed treachery to the entire nation.





_________________
www.gamblinginsider.ca
Put a Bible/Quran in the wind and rain, it will perish...my book is the wind and the rain.
Back to top Go down
View user profile

Immigration

View previous topic View next topic Back to top
Page 1 of 1

Similar topics

-
» Poem written by immigrant

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
 :: Twitter Debate-