Click to get your own widget

Friday, February 12, 2010


Migrationwatch has done a Freedom of Information Act enquiry on Labour apparatchik Andrew Neather's remarks about the party having deliberately encouraged mass immigration to change Britain's population & presumably their own electoral chances. This was kept secret because apart from the social damage it does to the country its most severe effects are on the poorer among Britain's indigenous population, who are Labour's current core vote and were expected not to appreciate it.

The FoI was on the original draft of the Labour document which Neather said had been substantially altered prior to publication to conceal the intent. The Daily Mail says
Labour threw open the doors to mass migration in a deliberate policy to change the social make-up of the UK, secret papers suggest.
A draft report from the Cabinet Office shows that ministers wanted to ‘maximise the contribution’ of migrants to their ‘social objectives’.
The number of foreigners allowed in the UK increased by as much as 50 per cent in the wake of the report, written in 2000...

A draft of the original Cabinet Office report has now been published following a freedom of information request by Migrationwatch.
It contains six references to social policy, all of which were removed from the later, published version.
One deleted paragraph said a framework was needed to ‘maximise the contribution of migration to the Government’s social and economic objectives’.
Another says that migration pressures will intensify because of demographic changes across Europe but that this ‘should not be viewed as a negative’.
It states: ‘The entry control system is not closely related to the stated policy objectives.
'This is particularly true in the social area, where in the past the implicit assumption has largely been that keeping people out promotes stability.’
Also cut out was a statement that ‘in practice, entry controls can contribute to social exclusion’.
The Telegraph & the Sun have reported it & that is about it so far.

The BBC. as the voice of the nation, or at least the censor of first choice of its government have nothing to say on the subject except a report from last October saying move along nothing to see here.

Extraordinarily 24 hours later the Conservative to whom this should be a godsend enabling them to disenchant much of Labour's core vote, are effectively silent.

While Migrationwatch's article is more restrained than the Mail but has done other articles showing that at present rates we are bound to hit a population of 70 million within 25 years, that the alleged short term economic benefits of mass immigration may raise GNP marginally but not proportionately more than they raise population so we aren't better off (this excludes the long term cost should immigrants either choose to have families or to grow old) but that they are heavily likely to vote Labour. Presumably this is what Labour means by "social objectives". I welcome immigration by scientists & the truly skilled who would clearly enrich us but when Labour say mass immigration is necessary to prevent the "socially excluded" not getting in they clearly mean Afghan & Somali peasants not Iraqi nuclear scientists.

By comparison with the Conservatives silence on this my recent poll shows that of all the threats to Western civilisation demographic change, largely by mas population movements is considered most damaging though followed closely by big government, political correctness & Ludditry with radical Islam coming behind. Virtually nobody is worried about competition from China, racism or catastrophic warming. I was gratified to see other's opinions pretty close to mine particularly if you conclude that with big government then nannystatism & government enforced Luddism & it seems also mass immigration are all aspects of the main problem. It isn't foreigners we are worried about, even aggressive Islamic ones so much as our own parasitic government. I think that is a correct assessment.

Labels: , ,

A more pragmatic title for a blog post there has never been and for what it is worth Neil I agree with your assessment.

Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

British Blogs.