Disgraceful Truth Of The Labour Immigration Strategy

Nov. 1, 2009 - PRLog -- Was it absent-minded management or gross incompetence? Or worse, was it deliberate? Surely a deliberate policy of mass immigration would have been tantamount to an attempt to change the very make-up of this country without telling the electorate? Make no mistake, this is what happened. There could not have been a more grave abuse of the entire process of democracy.

It has been revealed this week that Labour implemented a deliberate and secret strategy of national cultural sabotage.  This astonishing news was revealed in a newspaper article by Andrew Neather.  Mr Neather was a speech writer for Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

It was Mr Neather who wrote a speech in September 2000 for Barbara Roche, the then immigration minister, calling for a loosening of immigration controls. However, the true purpose of this strategy was carefully concealed from the electorate.

In 2001, the Labour manifesto disguised their real objective by stating that the immigration rules needed to reflect changes to the economy to meet skills shortages. The way the policy was constructed concealed a sinister shift of policy. Neather said 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. To that end, the Labour strategy was successful.

2.3 million migrants have swollen the population since 2001. Work permits for migrants have quadrupled to 120,000 a year since 1997.   Unless there is a dramatic change of policy, Britain's population will increase by seven million through immigration over the next 25 years. This rate of growth is three times as fast as in the Eighties. This would be simply unsustainable. Britain is already one of the most overcrowded countries in Europe.

Neather has revealed that the Government's 'driving political purpose', was 'to make the UK truly multicultural'. It was politically motivated by ministers to radically transform the fundamental make-up and identity of this country. WHY? To destroy the right of British people to live in a society defined by its common history, religion, law, language and traditions. It set out to destroy the "culturally British" and to put another 'multicultural' identity in its place.

All of this was done without asking the British people whether they wanted their country and their culture to be transformed in this way.

Part of the devisive motivation by Labour ministers was 'to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date'. The former Labour adviser said the Government strategy was in part, to try to humiliate right-wing opponents of immigration. It is said that Labour 'deliberately let migrants in to make Britain more multicultural and so that Tories could be accused of racism'. The claim demonstrates a utterly disgraceful and irresponsible approach to decision-making.

Mr Neather said ministers hoped the report and strategy would enable Labour to paint the Conservatives as xenophobic and out of touch. 'I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended - even if this wasn't its main purpose - to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date,' Mr Neather added.

Tory leaders William Hague, Iain Duncan Smith and Michael Howard were attacked by Labour as out of touch when they raised questions about immigration. Mr Hague was said to be 'playing the race card' in 2001 when he accused Mr Blair of turning Britain into a 'foreign land'. Mr Howard was called a 'racist' in 2004 when he went to the BNP stronghold of Burnley to criticise Labour's stance on asylum seekers.

Tory immigration spokesman Damian Green said: 'It would be a disgracefully irresponsible way for a government to run their immigration policy. To organise it on the basis of what might embarrass the Opposition would be shameful.

It was this gratuitous left-wing bullying that Neather found to be 'a manoeuvre too far'. As far as the overall strategy went though, Neather could see nothing wrong in the actions he revealed. Suprisingly, he thinks it's something to boast about. "Mass immigration", he wrote, "provided the 'foreign nannies, cleaners and gardeners' without whom London could hardly function". How arrogant, elitist, irresponsible and downright criminal is that!

Neather implied that most immigrants are Eastern Europeans. In fact, these comprise fewer than a quarter of all immigrants. Despite his misguided and innacurate assmptions, schools in very high immigration areas find it desperately difficult to cope with so many children who don't even have basic English.

Health, housing, the prison and Criminal Justice System are similarly being overwhelmed by the sheer weight of numbers.

A concern about immigration is that it could lead to more crime. An early draft of the later censored Labour report covered the subject - but deciding it was a too sensitive it would be best to cut it from the final version. One of the passages read: 'There is emerging evidence that the circumstances in which asylum seekers are living is leading to criminal offences, including fights and begging.' Another declared: 'Migration has opened up new opportunities for organised crime.'

Instead of looking how a problem could be addressed a decision was made to ignore it.

Neather's most shocking revelation was that the mass immigration policy was introduced to transform Britain into a multicultural society where British attributes would have no greater status than any other country's. A measure of controlled immigration is accepted as good for a country. This strategy was never intended to enhance British culture and society by broadening the mix. It was to destroy the very character that defines its uniqueness. It also guaranteed (conveniently) an increasingly Labour-voting electorate. A recent survey by the Electoral Commission confirms that some 90 per cent of black people and three-quarters of Asians vote Labour.

According to Neather, mass immigration provided so many overwhelming benefits, he couldn't understand the nervous response of concerned ministers. Ministers were, he wrote, reluctant to discuss what increased immigration would mean, especially to white working class representing Labour's core voter.

Sworn to secrecy, they continued their disgraceful strategy. They knew full well that to reveal the truth the truth about what they were doing, would create uproar in the electorate.

They made sure it was left it out of their election manifestos Now it is these very people who have the cheek to inflate themselves in self-righteous indignation at the rise of the BNP. Little wonder Jack Straw was so cagey on "Question Time"... when asked whether it was the Government's failure to halt immigration which lay behind increasing support for the BNP'

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 now 'seriously consider' voting for the BNP.

Nearly one quarter of British people considering voting for a neo nazi party with views abhorrent to democracy, human rights and common decency is a staggering indictment of the Labour legacy.

Now the political landscape has been transformed overnight by the unguarded comments of Andrew Neather's eye-opening revelations. We now know that Labour politicians actually made this happen - with total contempt for their own core voters. Should they be suprised then that its core vote is now choosing to emigrate in such large numbers to the BNP when Labour treats them like this?

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

# # #

Nice 1 Ltd provide solutions to the UK insurance and motor sector thatt benefit the UK motoring consumer. In particular, the company ptovides Theft Protect, a unique like for like replacement vehicle facility for up to 28 days, for victims of car theft.