UK IMMIGRATION 2010 - MORE UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTHS

98.5% OF 1.67 MILLION JOBS CREATED SINCE 1997 HAVE GONE TO A FOREIGNER

In an article due to appear in the Spectator magazine the emotive subject of migration has leapt to the top of the political agenda. Information from the Office for National Statistics reveals that of the 1,670,000 "jobs" created since Labour came to power, a staggering 1,645,000 (98.5%) have been taken by immigrants.

The Government has totally failed to deliver its pledge of 'British jobs for British workers'.

Shadow immigration minister Damian Green revealed unpublished figures showing there are almost 730,000 fewer British-born workers in the private sector than in 1997. But Mr Green said the official figures were 'the final proof that Gordon Brown was misleading the public when he promised British jobs for British workers'. He added: 'Instead he has presided over boom and bust and left British workers in a worse position than when he took office 13 years ago'.

Sir Andrew Green, of the Migrationwatch pressure group, said: 'The government's economic case for mass immigration is finally blown out of the water.'

See the media articles here, here and here.

To see our report : "UK Immigration 2010 - The Uncomfortable Truth" click here

To see: "Disgraceful Truth Of The Labour immigration Strategy" click here

In these reports we compiled the most recent statistics and revelations about how, since 1997, Labour have invoked a deliberate strategy to sling open the UK borders to foreign nationals on the basis that it would be good for the country.

CITIZENSHIP

Handing out passports to foreign nationals is how the Labour Government changed the make-up of society for ever. In 1997 just 37,010 people were given citizenship.

Last year the Home Office approved an all-time record 203,865 applications, an increase of 58 per cent in a year.

In total, Labour has now created 1.5million new British citizens - all with full voting rights.

It doesn't take rocket science to see that Labours motive was votes.

ASYLUM REMOVALS

Labour has never got to grips with the record number of asylum seekers pouring into the UK. Even on conservative estimates, it has left around 285,000 failed claimants living in Britain - but the number being removed is falling.

In 2009, there were 10,815 removals or voluntary departures, down 16 per cent on 2008.

Of those who went, 2,985 benefited from the Assisted Voluntary Return scheme - worth £3,000 each.

The Government's target of concluding 90 per cent of asylum cases within six months by December 2011 has been dismissed as 'unachievable' by Independent Chief Inspector of the UK Border Agency, John Vine.

Only a third of failed asylum seekers - 7,850 out of the 26,832 served with deportation notices - were actually removed in 2008. Inspectors have recently identified a new backlog of 40,000 cases massing in the asylum system.

THE DOCUMENT THEY DON’T WANT YOU TO SEE:

“We know they’re going to move asylum seekers in there. All the flats have been done up, central heating, the works. And they’ve put up brand new net curtains. That’s a sure sign.”


This is the kind of message voiced by angry locals all over Britain for the last couple of years. Many of the details change, but the total renovations and the highly visible net curtains crop up time and time again.


So too do the denials by local councils that the premises concerned are going to house asylum seekers. And almost as regular is the spectacle of those same councils being forced to eat their words within weeks as local residents wake up to find that new neighbours from Albania and Somalia have been moved in overnight.

The repetition of this pattern over the entire country has been something of a mystery up until now. Strangest of all has been the sight of so many councils telling lies to local residents and newspapers alike, even though the bureaucrats and local councillors telling the lies must know that they will be exposed and discredited.

Secret Tenancy Agreement
 
The answers to this puzzle lies in a secret 26-page document – the Revised Tenancy Agreement April 2001 – produced by the Secretary of State for the Home Office, acting through the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. Its very existence is supposed to be secret and has this warning for people or companies thinking of making money out of housing asylum seekers:

“The Landlord’s attention is drawn to the Official Secrets Acts 1911-1989. The landlord shall take all reasonable steps to ensure that all individuals engaged on any work in connection with this Agreement have notice that these statutory provisions apply to them and shall continue to apply after the expiry or termination of the Term.”

Detailed list of items for asylum seekers :-

So what doesn’t the Home Office want you to know?
 This list of requirements for any property being used to house asylum seekers begins, reasonably enough, by insisting that it shall be fit for human habitation, and have adequate light. Let us ignore the fact that many hundreds of thousands of our own people are either homeless or live in houses which are “unfit for human habitation” because, according to central government and local councils, there “isn’t enough money to deal with all the problems.”
 The agreement begins to lay out requirements which are beyond the reach not just of a relatively small number of the homeless or desperately poor:
 “… all meters shall be of the quarterly type, the use of card or key meters shall not be allowed.”
 Isn’t that nice? If you and your family fall into arrears on your utility bills, particularly electricity, you have to agree to the installation of a card meter set at such a rate that it gobbles up money. British families with children can’t be officially cut off – but if they run out of meter credit, their lights and heating go off anyway and they have to go to bed at dusk in the winter to try to keep warm. Such hardships are unacceptable, however, when it comes to asylum seekers.
 It continues... “The Property shall have a full and safe central heating system installed. Paraffin or bottled gas fed heating systems shall not be used.” Perish the thought! Such devices are fine for British pensioners and young families shivering on the poverty line, but far too smelly, inconvenient and dangerous for the liberal elite’s favourites.
 New electrical goods
 After laying down requirements on issues such as fire safety, the document states: “All electrical appliances in the Property shall be either new or, if second hand, shall be supplied complete with a twelve month guarantee.” Well, I don’t know about you, but many couples setting up home have to rely on hand-me-down electric cookers and heaters without any guarantee at all. And, of course, ordinary British youngsters moving into places of their own still face the same choice between paying through the nose for new equipment or going without guarantees.

The document goes on to provide a long list of the things needed in the kitchen, living room, bedrooms and bathroom of each asylum property. As you’re probably expecting by now, this features everything from chip pans to teaspoons, from an easy chair for each bed space to a Boots first aid kit.
 The long ‘General’ list in Section 1.13 of the document even proves that the popular observation about new net curtains showing that asylum seekers are moving in is true, since landlords are ordered to provide “net & drawable curtains to all living rooms and bedrooms.” They get everything, in fact, including the kitchen sink.


• Free colour TV and licence paid!


One item does, however, stand out:
 • “For Each Living/Dining Room 1 new twenty inch screen colour television complete with licence which shall be renewed at each annual anniversary of the Start Date throughout the Term.”

UK citizens have to wait until they are 75 to get a free TV licence, and non-payment of this iniquitous tax is the biggest single ‘crime’ that puts British women in prison.
 Many of those women can’t afford a TV licence because they are struggling to bring up young families on pitifully low incomes. As a result, they are also often unable to afford proper child safety equipment. No wonder, then, that the Home Office bureaucrats being so generous with our tax money wanted to keep this section secret:

“Where there are to be children living in the Property, the Property shall include:

• Adequate cot and highchair facilities;

• Appropriate sterilisation equipment;

• Child safety gates on all stairways;

• Childproof resistant devices or casement stays on all windows;

• Appropriate play areas both inside and outside the Property.”

Another thing that ordinary families on average incomes find a big problem is the occasional cost of major repairs. Asylum seekers have no such worries. Under this Agreement, the Landlord is bound to do all repairs within seven days, and to provide an emergency repair service “where a threat to health and safety is apparent.” The rest of us have to turn to Yellow Pages or pay for call out insurance, but it would be unfair to expect asylum seekers to do the same, wouldn’t it?

Similarly favourable treatment is also specified in the Letting Provisions, the appropriate section of which commits the Landlord “to redecorate all parts of the Property in the third year of the Term.” The rest of us may have to fork out down at “Do It All”, but not our special guests.

Perhaps most ludicrous of all, however, is the next section whereby the Landlord agrees: “To have the exterior of all windows of the Property cleaned once every twelve weeks.” I kid you not, it’s there.

Who pays?

So what do all these modcons and services cost the lucky occupants of such premises?

Nothing. Absolutely nothing. When various bleeding heart liberals tell us how asylum seekers only get basic income support payments, they don’t tell us about the Letting Provisions on page 4 of the Home Office’s Revised Tenancy Agreement, do they? Yet these show that not only do asylum seekers get their TV licences paid for them, we, the tax payer also pick up the tab for their rent, water rates, gas, and electricity bills.

Surely, you must think, these people must want to spend night after night on the phone to all their friends and family back home, telling them all about the wonders of Soft Touch Britain? A lot of their pocket money must go on paying the phone bill? No, as you probably guessed, they don’t have to pay a penny. Section 1 ((b) of the Letting Provisions sets out the fact that the Tenant Company (funded by the taxpayer) agrees to pick up the phone bill for every single property provided by the Landlord in question to asylum seekers.
 Don’t forget that every single council or housing association in this land which is housing asylum seekers has signed this document. Thousands of councillors in the ruling party in these councils have either read this document or studiously avoided seeing it so they didn’t have to.

A REMINDER OF THE COST OF IMMIGRATION IN THE UK

Influx of immigrants 'costs every UK household £350 a year'

Labour's 'open door' policy on immigration costs every household £350 a year, claims David Coleman, an Oxford University academic, who puts the total annual bill to the taxpayer at almost £8.8billion.

In a submission to a House of Lords committee, he said there had been an 'absent-minded commitment' to increase the population by one million every five years.
 Professor Coleman, an internationally respected population expert, said the costs of immigration are likely to increase if, as according to Government figures, immigration continues to swell the population at its present rate.
 
'The absent-minded commitment into which we have drifted, to house a further 15million people - one million every five years - must be the biggest unintended consequence of government policy-of almost any century,' he said.

'There are no merits in the promotion of population growth itself and many reasons to regret it, especially in a country as crowded as the United Kingdom.'


Professor Coleman said the costs to the public sector include £1.5billion to run the asylum system, £280million to teach English to migrants and at least £330million to treat illnesses such as HIV.

Immigrant communities are over-represented in the criminal justice system, he added. Mass immigration also imposes 'congestion costs, diverts investment to new infrastructure and housing, impinges on space and amenity and accelerates the output of waste and greenhouse gas emissions.'

THE EFFECT OF IMMIGRATION ON THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

Crime related costs, at £4Billion is by far the largest cost attributable to immigration.

In recent years the British people have been increasingly denied their democratic rights. On issue after issue, the views of the majority of British people have been ignored and overridden by politically correct elite with its own agenda. All this in a country that invented modern Parliamentary democracy.

For all the reasons we have detailed on these pages, surely the time is long overdue for urgent steps to halt the damaging effects of immigration in the UK.

The problem of immigration has nothing to do with race, creed or culture.

It has everything to do with overcrowding and a politically motivated attempt by ministers to transform the fundamental make-up and identity of this country. The Government immigration strategy of ethnic cleansing was devised and implemented with the deliberate intention 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 what it means to be culturally British and to put another 'multicultural' identity in its place for devisive political gain. 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.

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.

A measure of immigration and cultural diversity is indeed good for a country. Sadly, the immigration strategy of the Labour Government had nothing to do with enhancing British culture and society by broadening the mix. It was implemented for perverse political reasons that risk the destruction of its defining character altogether.

Other countries would not tolerate millions of immigrants taking over their society and miminising the value of its tradition, heritage and culture. Japan would not do it; China would not do it; India would not do it; Pakistan would not do it – so why should Britain?

Whichever party wins the election on May 6th, they must do something urgently and stop pretending this isn't now a major problem that will have catastrophic consequences for the nation if left unchecked.

UK IMMIGRATION 2010 - THE UNCOMFORTABLE TRUTH

In recent years the British people have been increasingly denied their democratic rights. On issue after issue, the views of the majority of British people have been ignored and overridden by politically correct elite with its own agenda. All this in a country that invented modern Parliamentary democracy.

On immigration, on capital punishment, on the surrender of British sovereignty to the EU and in numerous other areas, democracy has been eroded as politicians fail to offer the British people real choice on such vital issues.

We are owed that choice and we should restore and defend the basic democratic rights we have all been denied. More REAL democracy, not less, at national, regional and local levels is what is required.

Unchecked, mass immigration at the current level will mean that Britain will become a Third World nation well within two generations. All these facts point to the extinguishing of the British identity through immigration. Something must be done if the British people are to retain their homeland and identity.

We have compiled the facts about the scandal of UK immigration in our latest report. To view or download a copy, click here. This report should be read in conjunction with our previous report "The Disgraceful Truth of the Labour immigration Strategy" The latest report is also available in the "View Our Reports" sidebar on the right of this page.

The current unrestricted, uncontrolled immigration has led higher crime rates, demand for more housing, extra strain on the environment, traffic congestion, longer hospital waiting lists, lower educational standards, higher income tax, lower wages, high unemployment, a loss of British identity, a breakdown in community spirit, more restrictive policing, higher council taxes, a shortage of council homes, higher levels of stress and unhappiness and a fragmented community.

These are some of the consequences of uncontrolled immigration, a massive financial burden on the taxpayer that should be spend on UK solutions, a broken criminal justice system, prison overcrowding, a broken society with a rapidly eroding sense of national heritage and culture.

The problem of immigration has nothing to do with race, creed or culture.

It has everything to do with overcrowding and a politically motivated attempt by ministers to transform the fundamental make-up and identity of this country. The Government immigration strategy of ethnic cleansing was devised and implemented with the deliberate intention 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 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.

6 KEY FACTS ABOUT IMMIGRATION

• A migrant now arrives nearly every minute.

• We must build a new home every six minutes for new migrants.

• England is already the most crowded country in Europe (except Malta)

• Immigration will add 7 million to the population of England in the next 20 years – that is the equivalent of 7 cities with the population of Birmingham.

• To keep the population of the UK below 70 million, immigration must be reduced by 75%. Government measures so far may reduce it by 5%.

Source http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/

THE COST OF IMMIGRATION

According to figures from the Office of National Statistics, immigrants send home about £4 billion a year in remittances back to their home countries. When this is added to the previously estimated cost of immigration to Britain of £8.8 billion, the grand total of £12.8 billion is reached.

Immigration costs Britain £12.8 billion per year: 10 times the NHS Deficit and 40% more than the foreign aid budget.

WHERE ARE WE HEADING?

Given current demographic trends, we, the indigenous British people, will become an ethnic minority in our own country well within sixty years – and most likely sooner.

All the signs are there:

• 84% of all current UK citizenship applications are from the Third World
• 14%of all primary school children do not have English as a mother tongue
• 316 primary schools in England have a majority of children whose first language is not English
• Non-indigenous births will soon account for more than half of all the babies born in Britain
• Over the next twenty five years, immigration will account for 40% of all new households in this country
• 3.7 million legal migrants have entered this country since 1997 – and 2.5 million are from outside the EU
• At least 20% of the currently resident population was either born overseas or are descendants of foreign-born parents.

According to the House of Commons Hansard entry for March 7 2009, there were 27,525 new citizenship applications being processed by the UK Borders Agency.

23,062 are from Third World nations

• 1,715 were born in the UK, applying for UK citizenship, and their parents’ country of origin is not stated
• 269 of these applications are from people born inside the European Union1904 are from traditionally majority European countries which are outside the EU
• 361 applications are from South Africa, of which the majority is likely to be of European or British origin.

The breakdown of the countries of origin of these applicants is contained in the report.

SIR ANDREW GREEN of Migrationwatch on immigration comments:
"In the past 10 years we have seen a massive increase in immigration to the UK. Together with Holland, we are now the most crowded country in Europe, and the increase in our population is putting pressure on our primary schools, our maternity wards and our housing. The EU’s expansion to the east has brought around 500,000 extra people to the UK, but in the long term the issue will be with people arriving from the rest of the world — from Asia, Africa and the Far East. There are clearly some cultural and economic benefits from immigration, but there is no question that the failure of the government’s immigration policy over the past 10 years has played directly into the hands of right-wing extremists like the BNP, whose strongest card is the chaos of the immigration system and the way in which working-class areas are being changed beyond recognition. We are at a turning point, and it is for the main political parties to decide whether they are going to adopt serious immigration policies and take the sting out of the extremists or continue to hide away from the issue." June 1, 2009

IMMIGRATION AND CRIME

Take a look at the foreign nationals in our prisons:

Population in prison by nationality – 30th June 2009

• All nationalities 83,454
• British nationals 71,231 85%
• Foreign nationals 11,350 14%
• Not recorded 874 1%

The Foreign National Prison Population is represented by :

• Africa 2,897 3%
• Asia 2,456 3%
• America 302 0.36%
• N America 137 0.16%
• Europe 3,617 4%
• Middle East 595 1%
• Oceania* 52 0.06%
• W Indies 1,289 2%
• Other 5 0.01%

*(Australia, New Zealand, Fiji) (We have the numbers by individual country).

14% of our prison population is foreign nationals. The Prison Service states that each prisoner is housed at a tax payer cost of £30,000 per year. That is a staggering total of £340,500,000 per year.

If these foreign criminals were returned to their country of origin, this would solve the prison overcrowding problem, and empower our courts to impose correct sentences for UK offenders who, all too often get away with a judicial slap on the wrist. Issues associated with immigration add further massive burdens on our police and judicial system, not only in financial terms (including the many millions required to provide interpreter services), but also with regard to the additional crime committed by this sector of the community.

There are those that say (including certain diversity obsessed Chief Officers of Police), that crime has not risen disproportionately when measured against the population increase. HOGWASH! The fact remains, that these are additional crimes committed by visitors to this country, who abuse the hospitality and generosity extended to them. At the moment, the criminal fraternity, including the law breaking element of the foreign national community is laughing at the farce of British justice.

Immigration is way out of control. Britain’s population is now over 60 million and rising. Not only is Britain increasingly overcrowded, but a country is the product of its people, and if you change the people you inevitably change the nature of the country.

CORRELATION BETWEEN CRIME AND IMMIGRATION

When key criminal justice and immigration facts for England and Wales are compared alongside each other, the picture becomes clear. The net migration figure (the inflow less the outflow) has more than doubled in the last ten years.

Recorded crime has reduced, however as we have reported from these pages previously, in the article "Top Cops Are Fiddling The Crime Figures" recorded crime statistics can no longer be given any credence.

The increased prison population is a measure of the success of our front line police officers. The startling statistic, supporting our view that immigration has a major impact on crime, is the percentage of prisoners that are foreign nationals. This figure has stood at 14% for 5 years, having doubled since labour came to power, costing the taxpayer a staggering £1.7 Billion across the period.

Whilst not included in this report, we have compiled the recorded crime, police strength, population growth, prison population and foreign national and immigration statistics for the 12 years of Labour Government. The composite picture when all the statistics are viewed together is a sad indictment on how they have decimated the social fabric of our nation.

CONCLUDING COMMENT

The latest report contains the recommendations of Migration Watch and Balanced Migration, the two main apolitical organisations responsible for so much of the excellent information collated over recent years.

We want Britain returned to the way it has traditionally been. Britain always will have ethnic minorities and most have no problem with this as long as it does not change nor seek to change the fundamental culture and identity of the indigenous majority.

The current unrestricted, uncontrolled situation has contributed to higher crime rates, increased pressure on the police and criminal justice system, prison overcrowding, a demand for more housing, an extra strain on the environment, traffic congestion, longer hospital waiting lists, lower educational standards, higher income tax, lower wages, high unemployment, a loss of British identity, a breakdown in community spirit, more restrictive policing, higher council taxes, a shortage of council homes, higher levels of stress and unhappiness and a fragmented community.

A measure of immigration and cultural diversity is indeed good for a country. Sadly, the immigration strategy of the Labour Government had nothing to do with enhancing British culture and society by broadening the mix. It was implemented for perverse political reasons that risk the destruction of its defining character altogether.

Other countries would not tolerate millions of immigrants taking over their society and miminising the value of its tradition, heritage and culture. Japan would not do it; China would not do it; India would not do it; Pakistan would not do it – so why should Britain?

Each nation has the right to maintain its own traditional culture and identity. The right of India to remain Indian, the right of China to remain Chinese, the right of Pakistan to remain Pakistani and the right of Saudi Arabia to remain Saudi does not mean that any of these nations have to “hate” anybody else. All it means is that they wish to preserve their identity and national existence.

This is all we want for Britain – the right to be British and the right to openly celebrate events like Christmas that we have celebrated for centuries, without fearing the imaginary offence this might cause.

Is this such an extreme request? Is this so unreasonable? – NO! In fact, it is perfectly normal and completely in line with the rights granted to every other nation and in accord with international law.

DISGRACEFUL TRUTH OF THE LABOUR IMMIGRATION STRATEGY

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

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.  

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.

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.

 

So they made sure it was left it out of their election manifestos Those responsible conspired to deceive the electorate into voting for them. 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 he was asked whether it was the Government's failure to halt immigration which lay behind increasing support for the BNP'


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.