By Richard Deacon:
Labour Party stalwart and MP for Blackburn, Jack Straw, was recently in the news, seemingly admitting regret for his part in allowing large numbers of East European nationals the right to live and work in the UK in 2004. However, while news headlines have misleadingly, and deliberately so, been couched in terms suggesting that Straw now regrets the New Labour policy of deliberately imposing multiculturalism and multiracialism upon Britain in defiance of the wishes of the indigenous British people, a more careful examination of Straw’s statements reveals another story.
In an article in the Lancashire Telegraph, Jack Straw declared: “However careful you are, as a minister, in your analysis, many decisions are based upon predictions about the future, where, ultimately, your fate is in the lap of the gods.
“One spectacular mistake in which I participated (not alone) was in lifting the transitional restrictions on the eastern European states like Poland and Hungary which joined the EU in mid-2004.
“Other existing EU members, notably France and Germany, decided to stick to the general rule which prevented migrants from these new states from working until 2011. But we thought that it would be good for Britain if these folk could come and work here from 2004.
“Thorough research by the Home Office suggested that the impact of this benevolence would in any event be ‘relatively small, at between 5,000 and 13,000 immigrants per year up to 2010’.
“Events proved these forecasts worthless. Net migration reached close to a quarter of a million at its peak in 2010. Lots of red faces, mine included.”
While such statements might sound plausible to someone who has lived on the far side of the moon for the last couple of decades, most of us will remember the admissions of Andrew Neather, a journalist, one time Labour speech writer and Labour Party insider who revealed in October 2009 that this policy of opening up Britain to a tidal wave of immigration, not just Eastern European immigration, was a deliberate policy of the Labour Government that Jack Straw served in as a minister and secretary of state.
If Andrew Neather was deluded during his time serving New Labour and the immigration policy pursued by Labour was just a hapless mistake in which a whole government full of ‘well intentioned’ ministers simply ‘messed up’, one would have expected those ministers to have ‘slammed’ the immigration ‘doors’ shut, or at least to have spoken out in warning in 2005/6, when it became obvious that their predictions regarding immigrant numbers were out by an order of magnitude at the very least. This did not happen however, instead Labour ministers sat smugly watching as hundreds of thousands poured in year after year.
A further nauseating aspect of these feigned admissions by ex-Labour ministers that ‘we simply messed up’, is that they now attempt to mitigate the blame they must accept for what they have done by implying that ‘not too much harm has been done’.
In his recent statements, Jack Straw has drawn upon recent spurious research indicating that the immigrants from that period are less likely to be claiming benefits than UK natives, “… this latest research makes me feel a little better about this well-intentioned policy we messed up”, he said.
Of course Straw fails to acknowledge the fact that whether or not immigrants work when they come to Britain is completely irrelevant. If immigrants have disproportionately gained employment compared to the indigenous population, at a time when employment opportunities are scarce, then they have displaced British workers, taking jobs that British workers would have otherwise been employed to do, and their presence here is responsible for British people being on the dole.
Immigration into our country at a time when there is a shortage of employment opportunities, either means that immigrants will be on the dole and a burden to tax-payers, or if they obtain work, it means that a comparable number of British people will be on the dole and a burden to tax-payers. Either way, mass immigration creates an additional burden for British tax-payers.
While Straw has been indulging in this insulting PR exercise, his New Labour partner in crime, David Blunkett, has recently been making headlines by suggesting that the anticipated Roma invasion next year has the potential to spark riots among locals in his Sheffield Brightside and Hillsborough constituency.
We should remember that speaking as Home Secretary in August 2004 on the BBC2 Newsnight programme, Mr Blunkett stated when asked whether there was an upper limit on the number of migrants Britain could absorb, he said: “No, I see no obvious limit”.
According to reports at the time, he also said that the current net inflow of around 170,000 migrants a year was “permanently sustainable”.
In a recent BBC article however, Blunkett is reported as having accused the government of “burying their head in the sand” over the size of the Roma community living in the UK and the size of the problem they represent, which he said was revealed in a recent study by Salford University.
“They [the government] have been saying there is less than 50,000 Roma in England. The Salford study shows that at a very conservative estimate, there’s over 200,000. That they constitute a very large minority, with real problems.”
However, far from urging government to prevent the further influx of Roma immigrants that will take place early next year, Blunkett is simply calling for the government to spend more money on initiatives aimed at defusing racial tensions so that the planned new wave of immigration can take place without the existing population of Sheffield rioting in opposition to it.
In the BBC article Blunkett describes the ‘local’ population as being made up of “Pakistani backgrounds, Somali, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Yemeni and traditional white working class”.
After sixty years of so called ‘enrichment’ he could be speaking about any city or large town in Britain, couldn’t he? It’s noticeable that from Blunkett’s list, the only group not dignified with a national identity is the “white working class”. Leftists of Blunkett’s ilk find it devilishly difficult to say “English” or “British” when referring to the, er…..English and British.
The Blunkett article contains an audio clip where, right at the end, during an interview with BBC Radio Sheffield, he refers to the “indigenous population”. It’s unclear whether Blunkett is referring to the actual indigenous British people or to any old Tomas, Dayo or Hamed, whose family may have rocked up a couple of days, weeks or decades ago?
Clearly those who played a part in the last Labour government’s nefarious policy of not only permitting, but also facilitating uncontrolled mass immigration have not changed their attitude one iota. When they make their faux admissions of having ‘messed up’, they feel no contrition for what they have done; when they refer to the needs of the ‘indigenous population’, they are not referring specifically to you or I, they are speaking on behalf of the ‘multicultural community’; and when they speak out about the dangers of social unrest, they clearly have an eye on the need to keep the British people pacified, while mass immigration continues unabated.
By Richard Deacon © 2013
# # # #
LEMMYHEAD
- Edit
Blunkett can’t say he didn’t see this coming.
LEMMYHEAD
- Edit
The cry most often heard from the immigrant is that they do the jobs the British won’t do. Translated that means immigrants do the jobs that the indigenous people can’t afford to do. It is immigration that has kept the minimum wage so low that the indigenous people who have homes and families to keep cannot afford to take these jobs. It’s fair to say that most British people would not want to clean toilets for £160 per week. Offer the same job at £4,000 a week and I suspect many would take it.
We hear much talk about slavery. The immigrant has simply swapped the word slave for the grander title of low paid. This has been at the cost of the indigenous peoples. After many years of suffering (far more than slaves endured) the British working man could afford to keep a home and family on one wage after the Second World War. Immigration brought this to an end. Most homes now need two wages to survive. A thousand years of blood, sweat, toil, war and tears given away in a little over a generation.
Steve
- Edit
A lot of the jobs I have done are what white people supposedly won’t do, now that most of the working class jobs have been eaten away, it’s now the turn of the complacent middle classes who are seeing their kids who have fantastic qualifications finding it very difficult to get even starter jobs never mind a career.
The political elite can largely support their kids in internships that lead to a lifetime in a privileged bubble.
Remember Cameron went to India & told them they can come here & stay if they get £20,000 jobs at the end of their education, how many would that allow in, a million?
How can our young compete with that?
Steve
- Edit
“Labour Attitude to Immigration Unchanged”
You could equally say the same about the Conservatives or the Liberals & pretty much the whole mainstream.
I heard a new twist on the “we need more housing” mantra on TV the other day.
Apparently it’s because we are all living longer!
frederickdixon
- Edit
This is an excellent article which brings home the malignancy and hypocrisy of Labour. I remember hearing in about 2000 that immigration had quite suddenly reached new heights and that was some years BEFORE the flood began from eastern Europe.The following year the Times published an article by the journalist Anthony Browne called “Is Britain Losing its Britishness?” which was the first time that the mainstream media drew attention to what the Blair regime was doing, and that is what started the present ongoing debate about the current phase of the immigration invasion (knocking out of the headlines the previous phase which was “bogus asylum seekers”). One might have expected something effective to have been done in the intervening twelve years….
It was only some years later that I learned that the three apparatchiks with direct responsibility for opening the floodgates at the beginning of this century were Straw Home Secretary), Barbara Roche (Immigration Minister) and one Jonathan Portas (a political advisor) – none are of Anglo-Celtic ancestry.
Shaun
- Edit
Labour’s immigration “policy” has always had one objective: the genocide of the White race! Ever since they wrote the British Nationality Act in 1948 the Labour Party have tried their best to create the conditions for the Negro-Asian-European hybrid race that the EU’s founder, Count Codenhove Kalergi, taught would be the “ideal” future population of Europe.
I see through them all. They are, in Peter Hitchen’s words, a collective of “trendy bourgeois lefties” who have no contact with reality. The current slime ball Labour leader, Edward Milliband, has promised to continue immigration if he worms his way into power, and they should be thankful that the anti-White culture these creeps have created doesn’t show them for what they are: genocidal monsters!
Anyway, I reckon the Labour Party will only be given one more chance by the native English, so they are going to do their best to destroy our country as much as they can, while they can. I’m not religious, but I wish them all hell. I really do.
Steven
- Edit
Indeed. That has been the Labour Party’s aim all along to anyone with the IQ to see it. Their treason though has been replicated by that sham called the Conservative Party. Thanks to previous Tory government’s not doing enough to stem the flow, Labour will likely have the last laugh and win the next election outright and subsequent ones because of the increasing vote share cast by immigrants and their offspring. No doubt the fear of this was one reason Tory Enoch Powell wanted his party to get seriously tough on the issue.
Francis
- Edit
“Anyway, I reckon the Labour Party will only be given one more chance by the native English, so they are going to do their best to destroy our country as much as they can, while they can. I’m not religious, but I wish them all hell. I really do.”
When Labour gets in they will do everything they can to get as many non-whites in as possible so they can permanently move the issue of immigration away from closed borders.
Anonymous
- Edit
It is more than a little ironic that a party titled ‘Labour’ should promote immigration, since it is in the interests of labour to have immigration not just minimized but reversed. (The reasons are fairly obvious: the smaller the workforce, ceteris paribus, the greater the competition for employees by employers, which compels them to raise wages, improve working conditions and seek ways of using their workforce more efficiently – thus resulting in benefits not just for the working class, but for society in general.)
Unfortunately, a political logic works in the opposite direction: migrant (and especially non-white) communities are considerably more likely to vote for the centre-left – and this can often make the difference between victory and defeat (as we have seen in the 2012 elections in the USA and France, where whites voted primarily for the centre-right.) So, the interests of the working class, and the interests of a left-wing political party – are actually at odds on the issue of immigration.
Francis
- Edit
In the 2012 American elections a greater proportion of White People voted for Rommney than whites voted for Reagan in 1980. The first past the post system in the UK makes it even more accute. I would not be surprised if Labour’s ‘New housing’ projects aimed for non whites are done in swing seats. A few thousand non whites in swing seats round the country and Labour would be set for a while.
Unrepentant
- Edit
For those unfamiliar with it, I would seriously suggest reading Simon Heffer’s article: Labour Is Malignant, Not Incompetent; Telegraph; 2 Apr 2008.