The truth of the Labour immigration strategy is out. Immigration into Britain has risen uncontrollably.
The question many are asking is "how exactly has this happened?".
Was it absent-minded management or gross incompetence? Or worse, was it deliberate? This seems just too outrageous to consider. 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?
If this had indeed been the strategy, there could not have been a more grave abuse of the entire process of democracy.
Make no mistake, this is exactly what happened.
It has been revealed this week that the Labour government implemented a deliberate and secret strategy of national cultural sabotage. This astonishing news was revealed this week in a newspaper article by one 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.
The real reason this strategy was introduced, and the secrecy.
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.
"Labour 'deliberately let migrants in so Tories could be accused of racism"
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.
Former Labour minister Frank Field said: 'I am speechless at the idea that people thought they could socially engineer a nation on this basis.'
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. I would urge the Home Affairs Select Committee to look at this whole episode. Ministers must now be honest with the British people. Do they still believe, as they did five years ago, that uncontrolled immigration is good for the country?'.
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.
"Immigration and Crime"
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.' There were likely consequences of more 'marriage rackets' - and also drug dealing, people trafficking and fraud.
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 wasn't introduced to produce nannies or cleaners for the better off. It was 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.
"The Labour Immigration Strategy conveniently guaranteed a labour voting electorate"
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.
So, sworn to secrecy, they continued their disgraceful strategy. The party faithful knew full well that to reveal the truth the truth about what they were doing, would create uproar in amongst the electorate.
This was no mere failure of policy. It was deliberate. From the very mouth of the Labour speech writer, we now know that Mr Straw and his cohorts plotted to flood the country with immigrants to change its very character and identity.
"The Labour strategy is backfiring - 22% of British voters considering 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.
For years we have watched as our country's landscape has been transformed out of all recognition - and politicians from have told us that it isn't happening and that we are racist bigots to object even if it is.
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.
Neather commented that 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 sees the white working class, supposedly the very people it is in politics to champion. 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.