Rumours and truths

Remember this from back in October?

image

The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and “rub the Right’s nose in diversity”, according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

Dismissed, of course, as complete bollocks at the time.  The documentation has surfaced to suggest that it was in fact the case.

image

The release of a previously unseen document suggested that Labour’s migration policy over the past decade had been aimed not just at meeting the country’s economic needs, but also the Government’s “social objectives”.

The paper said migration would “enhance economic growth” and made clear that trying to halt or reverse it could be “economically damaging”. But it also stated that immigration had general “benefits” and that a new policy framework was needed to “maximise” the contribution of migration to the Government’s wider social aims.

The full document was made public only yesterday following a Freedom of Information request by Migrationwatch, a pressure group. A version of the paper was published in 2001, but most of the references to “social objectives” had been removed. In the executive summary alone, six out of eight uses of the phrase were deleted.

Labour has overseen an unprecedented rise in immigration, which has led to a rise of about three million in the UK population since 1997. Until recently, it accused opponents who called for tougher controls of playing the “race card”. Labour was forced to change its rhetoric amid concerns that the economic and social reality of immigration had alienated voters in its heartlands.

Gordon Brown pledged to secure “British jobs for British workers” as the recession led to a rise in unemployment and, just four months ago, he was accused of a U-turn when he insisted that it was “not racist” to discuss the issue.

The document released yesterday suggested that Labour originally pursued a different direction. It was published under the title “Migration: an economic and social analysis” but the removal of significant extracts suggested that officials or ministers were nervous over references to “social objectives”.

The original paper called for the need of a new framework for thinking about migration policy but the concluding phrase — “if we are to maximise the contribution of migration to the Government’s economic and social objectives” — was edited out.

Another deleted phrase suggested that it was “correct that the Government has both economic and social objectives for migration policy”.

Sir Andrew Green, the chairman of Migrationwatch, said the document showed that Mr Neather, who claimed ministers wanted to radically change the country and “rub the Right’s nose in diversity”, had been correct in his account of Labour’s immigration policy.

“Labour had a political agenda which they sought to conceal for initiating mass immigration to Britain,“ he said. “Why else would they be so anxious to remove any mention of social aspects?

“Only now that their working-class supporters are deserting them in droves have they started to talk about restricting immigration.”

Well there we have it. Prima Facie evidence that this government has intentionally disrupted the social fabric of the country.

Of course, Gordon Brown will be relishing the thought of forcing the Tories to talk tough on immigration.  Meanwhile, the BNP has been handed an awesome weapon to use in Labour heartlands.

It is a disgusting backdrop against which to hear Harriet Harman shitting on about equality.

Fuck ’em all.

Norman Tebbit has, as you might expect, words on this subject. As does Janet Daley.

AJ

Advertisements

About Al Jahom
Anti-social malcontent, misanthrope and miserable git.

One Response to Rumours and truths

  1. Ethan says:

    OK I’ll break the duck here.
    I think Nu Liebour should be fecking ashamed of themselves. They have screwed over the country big time. Totally shafted the working class and ruined the country.
    I’m amazed that still 30% of the country would still vote for these gobshites. If I were in cgharge I’d have them up against a wall and shot.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: