Yes, hence why 7/7 and 21/7 WEREN'T their biggest draws - they tried to capitalise on it and there was media outrage that couldn't be avoided after they did that vile leaflet with the bus telling people to 'start listening'...

 

And they won't challenge the Lib Dems for third party any time soon. The BNP don't stand a chance in hell of getting a seat at the next election, whereas the Greens are guaranteed at least one, and might even end up with three...neither will catch up the Lib Dems at all. And you can bet that the second the BNP get a seat there will be major responses. When you've got front page news exposing the faults of the BNP day in day out support will inevitably drop...

 

Or increase, every paper slagged off Griffin after Question Time even racist papers like The Sun and Daily Mail ridiculed Griffin and support for the BNP INCREASED as shown by that survey by the Telegraph so again you are under estimating the BNP, If I had my way the BNP would be BANNED but they won't be so the best thing to do is starve them of the oxygen of publicity, not feature them on the news or in the papers, not interview Griffin, totally isolate them and turn them into pariah's, the oxygen of publicity is what makes the BNP grow

 

2010 is too early for them election wise as they don't have a lot of money so probably won't get a seat but in 2014 it will be very different if they have the money to field a candidate in every constituency, watch them get 10 seats or so in parliament in 2014 if politicians stick their fingers in their ears and shout "lalalalalala i can't hear you" about immigration instead of doing something to tackle it

Edited November 1, 200915 yr by B.A Baracus

Pity English people, in the middle ages, didn't have anywhere to go and claim asylum from religious persecution etc, or move for economic reasons. Are we not stifling other countries development by allowing migration, thereby condemning them to remain in Third World poverty for longer?

Because in a couple of years time it will be 15% unless the issue of immigration is sorted out, it is the single most important issue facing this country

The most important issue? You are joking aren't you?

 

Fail to tackle the global economic difficulties and more people will want to move to wealthy countries such as ours.

 

Fail to tackle climate change and tens of millions (if not hundreds of millions) of people will be looking for somewhere else to live as their current home becomes uninhabitable or even submerged under water.

 

If we don't tackle global problems such as these, then immigration may become the most important issue as a consequence.

There is no longer a stigma attached to voting for the BNP, a recent poll showed 22% would consider voting for the BNP and I would imagine that unemployment is running at about 7% of the country so how do you explain the other 15% ?

The same question was asked a few years ago. The result was that 21% of people would consider voting BNP. That change is statistically insignificant.

7/7 and 21/7 were the biggest recruiting sergeants the BNP has ever had and there is now deep suspicion of young muslims which plays into the hands of the BNP, I know someone who leaves a train or underground carriage if they see a young muslim in it as they fear they will be blown up, other things that play into the BNP hands are the Luton incident with the homecoming of the soldiers where they were abused by muslims, the ever increasing role of stupid political correctness plays into BNP hands too as does unchecked immigration and the current free for all, parties need to do research into what is driving people into the arms of the BNP and base their policies accordingly, just putting it on unemployment and jealousy is simplistic and putting a band aid on a burst artery

 

Most people are smart enough to realise that 7/7 and 21/7 would likely never have happened had we not invaded Iraq or Afghanistan, Spain had the sense to pull out after the Madrid bombing and after the Spanish voters kicked out the liar Aznar (who tried to pin the blame on ETA rather than admit the bombing happened as a direct result of Spanish involvement in Iraq), and, er, well, have Al Qaeda actually been back to Spain since....? And frankly, you certainly dont have to be a Muslim to feel rather offended by parades, etc, being put on for soldiers returning from those theatres of conflict.... I myself got REAL p!ssed off about the way B-Liar and Broon hijacked the WW1/2 commemorations on 11 November to include Iraq/Afghanistan... It's totally inappropriate because of how people generally feel about Iraq/Afghanistan, and I can certainly see how it could be construed by Muslim communities as pouring salt into the wound.... It's not the first time an unpopular war has caused reactions such as this - look at the Vietnam war, you had the same thing, with soldiers being targeted by militant protestors... I actually have more sympathy for those who served in Vietnam, the vast majority of them were conscripted by the US Govt.... You cant say the same for our lot in Iraq or Afghanistan, they're volunteers....

 

The most important issue? You are joking aren't you?

 

Fail to tackle the global economic difficulties and more people will want to move to wealthy countries such as ours.

 

Fail to tackle climate change and tens of millions (if not hundreds of millions) of people will be looking for somewhere else to live as their current home becomes uninhabitable or even submerged under water.

 

If we don't tackle global problems such as these, then immigration may become the most important issue as a consequence.

 

Immigration crosses into every area mate, an already overcrowded and stretched to capacity small island means mass immigration has an effect on every part of life

 

Busier roads

Erosion of green belt for the need for extra housing

Greater demands on the NHS

Larger class sizes in schools

More demands on public transport meaning fuller trains and buses

Extra burdens on the benefits bill

An increase in the black economy meaning more unscrupulous employers hiring often illegal immigrants

Increased levels of crime

 

Those are just a few off the top of my head

 

The country is overcrowded as it is and getting more and more overcrowded as people are living longer so the immigration issue is incredibly important

Edited November 2, 200915 yr by B.A Baracus

Most people are smart enough to realise that 7/7 and 21/7 would likely never have happened had we not invaded Iraq or Afghanistan, Spain had the sense to pull out after the Madrid bombing and after the Spanish voters kicked out the liar Aznar (who tried to pin the blame on ETA rather than admit the bombing happened as a direct result of Spanish involvement in Iraq), and, er, well, have Al Qaeda actually been back to Spain since....? And frankly, you certainly dont have to be a Muslim to feel rather offended by parades, etc, being put on for soldiers returning from those theatres of conflict.... I myself got REAL p!ssed off about the way B-Liar and Broon hijacked the WW1/2 commemorations on 11 November to include Iraq/Afghanistan... It's totally inappropriate because of how people generally feel about Iraq/Afghanistan, and I can certainly see how it could be construed by Muslim communities as pouring salt into the wound.... It's not the first time an unpopular war has caused reactions such as this - look at the Vietnam war, you had the same thing, with soldiers being targeted by militant protestors... I actually have more sympathy for those who served in Vietnam, the vast majority of them were conscripted by the US Govt.... You cant say the same for our lot in Iraq or Afghanistan, they're volunteers....

 

I don't dispute any of that at all, you and me have always sung from the same hymnsheet when it comes to the Iraq/Afghan war but I was merely looking into the fact that the tabloid muslim bashing from Luton and 7/7 and 21/7 was of great benefit to the BNP

The reason the BNP are in the position they are is because there are racist people in the country, and there are people embittered by not having a job / having a low-paid job and so are looking for scapegoats. The suggestion that we should overhaul immigration policies solely to accommodate the slimmest of minorities is absurd.

That's it in a nutshell mate.... Spot on... It's pure JEALOUSY on the part of most of these types... They see successful Black and Asian people who have EARNED their right to have good jobs in white collar professions, and the green eyed monster just comes out and says "what gives these bloody p@kis and n*****rs the right to have that job...?".. This is, in the main, the very same people who sit on their arses all day, scrounge off the dole and watch Trisha and Jeremy fukkin' Kyle..... :rolleyes: I've yet to meet a well-educated and intelligent Nazi....

 

ill respond to both these posts together...

 

nope, i dont agree that the bnp exist solely because of racism in this country.. yes racists are a high majority in the bnp but other 'middle english/britain' are considering a protest vote for the bnp because of 1) unfettered immigration at a time when unemployment is high and 2) the perception that traditional british values, way of life, is being eroded by the effect of immigration. everyone knows the bnp are a bunch of no-hopers, racists and political (very) lightweights, which is why a 'safe' protest vote for the only party that appears to be sticking up for traditional british culture WILL get votes. example of erosion... 'baa baa black sheep', and my daughter working in birmingham informs me that the christmas decorations dont mention 'christmas'.. through fear of offending non christians... now IF this is correct, its WRONG.

 

 

Just putting the rise of the BNP down to sour grapes of unemployed is very simplistic, I know a few people who are middle class professionals including a millionaire IT tycoon who have said they can see where the BNP are coming from, I don't think it is just knuckle dragging skinheads and the unemployed it runs much deeper than that, 7/7 and 21/7 were the biggest recruiting sergeants the BNP has ever had and there is now deep suspicion of young muslims which plays into the hands of the BNP, I know someone who leaves a train or underground carriage if they see a young muslim in it as they fear they will be blown up, other things that play into the BNP hands are the Luton incident with the homecoming of the soldiers where they were abused by muslims, the ever increasing role of stupid political correctness plays into BNP hands too as does unchecked immigration and the current free for all, parties need to do research into what is driving people into the arms of the BNP and base their policies accordingly, just putting it on unemployment and jealousy is simplistic and putting a band aid on a burst artery

 

craig is right, it IS over simplistic to just blandly blame bnp support on racists... and this is what i want this thread to concentrate on... not just glibbly blame racists because i believe theres more too it then that. as mentioned previously.

 

Actually, the beauty of the Normans lay in their ability to recognise the use of continuity to their aims...they've left quite the legal legacy which would seem to hark back to the times of Edward the Confessor but Henry I only did so in a superficial manner...I would hardly say the 'unrest' that is prevalent culminated with the civil war between Stephen and Matilda. With William the Conqueror, fair dos that it came mainly as a result of the conquest itself, but William Rufus didn't face much in the way of unrest after the first few years of his reign (due to the effectiveness of his measures), and the unrest that Henry I faced came as a result of his conflicts with Robert Curthose and his ambitions to reclaim Normandy...the Conquest left a massive legal and financial legacy, although not superficially :P

 

yep.... agreed....

 

 

It's the single most important issue in the eyes of the few racist idiots who are already voting for the BNP. Almost anyone would cite the recession as far more of an important issue.

 

Again, why would the BNP's support keep increasing? They're not going to get better conditions than this year, so it's illogical to suggest that their support is going to keep increasing as the recession ends and people get bored of the expenses scandal.

 

sorry but i dont agree fully... yep there are racist idiots who will vote bnp no matter what, but the people i know who are thinking of voting bnp as a protest are doing so because of the reasons i previously gave ie, deterioration of traditional culture and unchecked immigration. their support isnt increasing because the hard line racists are already members, come the next election i reckon there WILL be a sharp rise as they pick up protest votes ... ie not from supporters but from people wanting to put two fingers up to the main parties.

 

 

Yes, hence why 7/7 and 21/7 WEREN'T their biggest draws - they tried to capitalise on it and there was media outrage that couldn't be avoided after they did that vile leaflet with the bus telling people to 'start listening'...

 

And they won't challenge the Lib Dems for third party any time soon. The BNP don't stand a chance in hell of getting a seat at the next election, whereas the Greens are guaranteed at least one, and might even end up with three...neither will catch up the Lib Dems at all. And you can bet that the second the BNP get a seat there will be major responses. When you've got front page news exposing the faults of the BNP day in day out support will inevitably drop...

 

i think the only way support for the bnp will fall (or should i say potential votes) is if the main parties take up and win back the support from potential protest votes....

 

 

Pity English people, in the middle ages, didn't have anywhere to go and claim asylum from religious persecution etc, or move for economic reasons. Are we not stifling other countries development by allowing migration, thereby condemning them to remain in Third World poverty for longer?

 

actually, thats a good point...

 

Immigration crosses into every area mate, an already overcrowded and stretched to capacity small island means mass immigration has an effect on every part of life

 

Busier roads

Erosion of green belt for the need for extra housing

Greater demands on the NHS

Larger class sizes in schools

More demands on public transport meaning fuller trains and buses

Extra burdens on the benefits bill

An increase in the black economy meaning more unscrupulous employers hiring often illegal immigrants

Increased levels of crime

 

Those are just a few off the top of my head

 

The country is overcrowded as it is and getting more and more overcrowded as people are living longer so the immigration issue is incredibly important

 

id add increase tax burden to pay for it too.... ok even IF every migrant was working legally and paying tax, it would be a very long time before their taxes paid for the increase infrastructure needed to support mass migration.

You're forgetting something in your last point - the illegal immigrants aren't making benefit withdrawals, so their tax burden isn't anywhere near as much as you'd think - it's like I said earlier in this thread, I have many issues with illegal immigrants (mainly concerning their rights and the treatment they get, and the fact that we can't tax their earnings...) but I don't think you can make an economic argument against them really. They're here serving our economy with few/no withdrawals from government investiture - they earn their employers masses of money, and the multiplier effect is overstated in terms of illegal immigrants so it doesn't really matter that they make withdrawals from the monetary system by sending money home...

You're forgetting something in your last point - the illegal immigrants aren't making benefit withdrawals, so their tax burden isn't anywhere near as much as you'd think - it's like I said earlier in this thread, I have many issues with illegal immigrants (mainly concerning their rights and the treatment they get, and the fact that we can't tax their earnings...) but I don't think you can make an economic argument against them really. They're here serving our economy with few/no withdrawals from government investiture - they earn their employers masses of money, and the multiplier effect is overstated in terms of illegal immigrants so it doesn't really matter that they make withdrawals from the monetary system by sending money home...

 

point taken, but i was refering to migrants per se and not only to illegals.

Immigration crosses into every area mate, an already overcrowded and stretched to capacity small island means mass immigration has an effect on every part of life

 

Busier roads

Erosion of green belt for the need for extra housing

Greater demands on the NHS

Larger class sizes in schools

More demands on public transport meaning fuller trains and buses

Extra burdens on the benefits bill

An increase in the black economy meaning more unscrupulous employers hiring often illegal immigrants

Increased levels of crime

 

Those are just a few off the top of my head

 

The country is overcrowded as it is and getting more and more overcrowded as people are living longer so the immigration issue is incredibly important

 

The Green Belt was already being eroded by planners allowing out of town Industrial Estates and Supermarkets.... That was happening LONG before the current influx of migrants from the EU mate....

 

I dont buy that immigrants are responsible for any kind of significant increases levels of crime.... Immigrants for Bangladesh or India, for example, are very deferrential to authority.... The people I see causing most crimes are British born Chav scum..... I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'd sooner have hard working immigrants in the country than I would chavs, anyday..... If that means stranding these fukkers on some kind of "Lost"-style island somewhere in the pacific, so be it..... Chavs are a cancer on this society. Immigrants are beneficial....

The Green Belt was already being eroded by planners allowing out of town Industrial Estates and Supermarkets.... That was happening LONG before the current influx of migrants from the EU mate....

 

...so 3 million immigrants have had no effect on housing then? :lol:

You're forgetting something in your last point - the illegal immigrants aren't making benefit withdrawals, so their tax burden isn't anywhere near as much as you'd think - it's like I said earlier in this thread, I have many issues with illegal immigrants (mainly concerning their rights and the treatment they get, and the fact that we can't tax their earnings...) but I don't think you can make an economic argument against them really. They're here serving our economy with few/no withdrawals from government investiture - they earn their employers masses of money, and the multiplier effect is overstated in terms of illegal immigrants so it doesn't really matter that they make withdrawals from the monetary system by sending money home...

 

thinking about this, actually i can! they are taking jobs off legal workers who would pay tax, and are as a result probably claiming off the state...

I dont buy that immigrants are responsible for any kind of significant increases levels of crime.... Immigrants for Bangladesh or India, for example, are very deferrential to authority.... The people I see causing most crimes are British born Chav scum..... I've said it before and I'll say it again, I'd sooner have hard working immigrants in the country than I would chavs, anyday..... If that means stranding these fukkers on some kind of "Lost"-style island somewhere in the pacific, so be it..... Chavs are a cancer on this society. Immigrants are beneficial....

 

... and i dont buy the proposition that you always churn out suggesting the all migrants are hard working, law abiding, decent citizens and all unempoyed people are 'scum'... in fact you would never consider calling an unemployed ethnic 'scum' even though the population has its fair percentage of ethnic layabouts! your notion that all chavs are just lazy bone idle layabouts isnt actually correct. i know some unemployed young men both black and white who are 'chavs' but thanks to a poor start in life (abandoned by mother) and consequent lack of decent education would like to work...

 

it aint all black and white m8... lifes just shades of grey.

thinking about this, actually i can! they are taking jobs off legal workers who would pay tax, and are as a result probably claiming off the state...

THEY aren't taking them, they're being given them by the managers...hence not an argument against them, but one against hiring them :P

THEY aren't taking them, they're being given them by the managers...hence not an argument against them, but one against hiring them :P

 

A Somalian who comes here after having survived on a bowl of rice a day is not going to expect minimum wage, someone from Bangladesh who has no idea what clean water is till he reached Heathrow is not going to demand minimum wage so in a credit crunch it is tempting for a company to risk taking on an immigrant to save costs instead of a national on minumum wage+

I have stayed out of this discussion so far, as I don't have any strong opinions one way or the other. What I do think is this: Is immigration into the UK a bad thing - NO. Is uncontrolled immigration a bad thing - Well yes it can be. The facts are we are a small island, so there really is a limit to how many people you can sustain within the land mass. ( Its a bit like how many people can you squeeze into a mini) Can we build more houses - Yes of course we can. But where, nobody wants new large housing schemes built anywhere near them. I suppose we can always start building huge tower blocks like in New York to give them a place to stay, as there is a finite limit to building individual houses on the ground. Do we really want to build skyscrapers in our cities?

 

The truth is the areas where mass immigration is happening is in the major cities in England, and the south east.

Where I live, I would say there is hardly any immigration, apart from some Eastern European migrants who work in fruit picking, and on the farms etc. We have virtually no immigrants from Africa, Asia, Etc. Up here in Scotland our land mass is about 2/3 the size of England, but we have less than 1/10 of the population of England, so there is plenty of room up here. However 2/5 of the land is not habitable (mountains etc), plus it appears most immigrants from Africa & Asia have no desire to live in such a cold, wet & windy Country ( and who can blame them).

 

One thing that may be true about the perception of immigration is that the older generation (over 40) are more likely to be suspicious either through fear of the unknown or a bit set in their ways. This generation which includes a few posters here have lived in the UK where in the 60/70's immigration was on a much lower scale. There is no doubt in the last 10 years it has increased dramatically. The younger generation (under 40) are more used to living with immigration and probably have more contact, therefore they have integrated better than the oldies, so they see it as less of a problem.

 

As far as the BNP are concerned, I have no time for them. They are a one policy party and have virtually no chance of any support outwith the large northern towns of England in my opinion.

 

Where the Government made serious errors was not to plan properly for the large numbers who came and settled. To not build houses, schools, hospitals for these increases in population shows a serious lack of insight , all they have done is put serious strains on the current infrastructure. Some parts are bursting at the seams. And this is the crux of where the BNP are gaining some support, however mislead. If you are white, living in the north of England, can't get a job because you are possibly not that well educated, and some moron says "Its all the fault of Johnny Foreigner" they don't have the intelect to see through them as a bunch of shysters.

 

Where immigrants come here and work & pay taxes I see no problem. Do all immigrants work & pay taxes - NO. What we need is a balanced immigration policy, where we agree to let an ageed amount per year. If we had done that for the last 10 years, I believe the BNP would have been strangled at birth.

 

Anyway, enough of my ramblings, this is what our current Home Secretary thinks,-

 

Johnson admits migration mistakes

 

Home Secretary Alan Johnson has admitted that the government has made mistakes in handling immigration.

 

Labour and Conservative administrations had been "maladroit" in dealing with the issue, he said in a speech.

 

Mr Johnson said parts of the UK had been "disproportionately" affected by immigration, with some areas seeing a "strain" on jobs and public services.

 

But the UK was now "more successful" at tackling migration than most countries in Europe and North America, he added.

 

'Ignored too long'

 

The Home Office said last week that up to 40,000 immigrants who should have left more than six years ago could still be in Britain.

 

The government introduced a points-based system last year to control the entry of non-EU citizens to the UK.

 

But the government has been repeatedly criticised by opponents, who say it has failed to stem the increase in immigration since 1997.

 

Mr Johnson told an audience at the Royal Society for the Arts in central London: "Whilst I accept that governments of both persuasions, including this one, have been maladroit in their handling of this issue, I do believe that the UK is now far more successful at tackling migration than most of its European and North American neighbours."

 

He added: "The legacy problems with unreturned foreign national prisoners and asylum seekers may have accumulated under previous administrations, but they continued to be ignored for far too long on our watch."

 

Learn language

Mr Johnson rejected "fashionable" criticisms that mainstream politicians "shied away" from talking about immigration.

 

He said: "I want to talk about immigration today, tomorrow, next week and on any occasion I can."

 

The "moderate majority" had not had their views heard on the issue, he said.

 

At the same time as accepting genuine refugees, they wanted Britain to return home illegal immigrants, failed asylum seekers and foreign national prisoners.

 

Mr Johnson said there was "no sensible argument" for immigration to cease altogether.

 

But people who come to live in the UK should learn the language, obey the laws and pay tax, he added.

 

Source: BBC News

THEY aren't taking them, they're being given them by the managers...hence not an argument against them, but one against hiring them :P

 

ok ... caught out on a technicality! :P lol.

... and i dont buy the proposition that you always churn out suggesting the all migrants are hard working, law abiding, decent citizens and all unempoyed people are 'scum'... in fact you would never consider calling an unemployed ethnic 'scum' even though the population has its fair percentage of ethnic layabouts! your notion that all chavs are just lazy bone idle layabouts isnt actually correct. i know some unemployed young men both black and white who are 'chavs' but thanks to a poor start in life (abandoned by mother) and consequent lack of decent education would like to work...

 

I've seen plenty of people with "bad starts" in life pull themselves up, work hard, get an education and get into employment.... Can you honestly say that ANY of these people who you talk about are having a worse start in life than someone born with a disability, or someone who found themselves with an unplanned pregnancy at 14 or 15...? I dont think so... And yet, I see people such as THOSE attending university as Mature students to get an education, whereas these layabouts just dont seem to be bothering themselves (and why should they really, there's certainly no incentive to work for such pitiful low pay that's for sure)....

 

There's a difference between the unemployed who want to work, and those who are Chavs and cant be bothered so instead choose criminality.... Chavs aren't a "race" unto themselves you know..... Chav transects all ethnicity and creeds..... And you simply cannot deny the facts that the vast majority of crimes and anti-social acts ARE committed by the "indigenous" Chav Class.... My point was a counterpoint to Craig's false assumption that immigrants have been responsible for the alledged rise in crimes (recorded rates have actually been falling, so the whole point is debatable anyway tbh...), when the fact is that most of the sort of "petty" end of crimes that wind up people the most are being perpetrated by and large by our own homegrown chav lot.... And anyway, read my post again, I pretty much accentuated the "Hardworking" part of my point... Which means, I'd chuck out the immigrants who take the p!ss and languish on the dole year in year out with no effort on their part to find a job, because, well, then they'd be just as bad wouldn't they...?

... well well well, this was posted on another site last night, its the first time ive seen it, but it is absolutely SPOT ON.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

October 26, 2009

The conspiracy to transform Britain

Daily Mail, 26 October 2009

 

So now the cat is well and truly out of the bag. For years, as the number of immigrants to Britain shot up apparently uncontrollably, the question was how exactly this had happened.

 

Was it through a fit of absent-mindedness or gross incompetence? Or was it not inadvertent at all, but deliberate?

 

The latter explanation seemed just too outrageous. After all, a deliberate policy of mass immigration would have amounted to nothing less than an attempt to change the very make-up of this country without telling the electorate.

 

There could not have been a more grave abuse of the entire democratic process. Now, however, we learn that this is exactly what did happen. The Labour government has been engaged upon a deliberate and secret policy of national cultural sabotage.

 

This astonishing revelation surfaced quite casually last weekend in a newspaper article by one Andrew Neather. He turns out to have been a speech writer for Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

 

And it was he who wrote a landmark speech in September 2000 by the then immigration minister, Barbara Roche, that called for a loosening of immigration controls. But the true scope and purpose of this new policy was actively concealed.

 

In its 1997 election manifesto, Labour promised ‘firm control over immigration’ and in 2005 it promised a ‘crackdown on abuse’. In 2001, its manifesto merely said that the immigration rules needed to reflect changes to the economy to meet skills shortages.

 

But all this concealed a monumental shift of policy. For Neather wrote 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.

 

This has been achieved. Some 2.3million migrants have been added to the population since 2001. Since 1997, the number of work permits has quadrupled to 120,000 a year.

 

Unless policies change, over the next 25 years some seven million more will be added to Britain’s population, a rate of growth three times as fast as took place in the Eighties.

 

Such an increase is simply unsustainable. Britain is already one of the most overcrowded countries in Europe. But now look at the real reason why this policy was introduced, and in secret. The Government’s ‘driving political purpose’, wrote Neather, was ‘to make the UK truly multicultural’.

 

It was therefore a politically motivated attempt by ministers to transform the fundamental make-up and identity of this country. It was done 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 for ever 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.

 

Spitefully, one motivation by Labour ministers was ‘to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date’.

 

Even Neather found that particular element of gratuitous Left-wing bullying to be ‘a manoeuvre too far’.

 

Yet apart from this, Neather sees nothing wrong in the policy he has described. Indeed, the reason for his astonishing candour is he thinks it’s something to boast about. Mass immigration, he wrote, had provided the ‘foreign nannies, cleaners and gardeners’ without whom London could hardly function.

 

What elitist arrogance! As if most people employ nannies, cleaners and gardeners. And what ignorance. The argument that Britain is better off with this level of immigration has been conclusively shown to be economically illiterate.

 

Neather gave the impression that most immigrants are Eastern Europeans. But these form fewer than a quarter of all immigrants.

 

And the fact is that, despite his blithe assertions to the contrary, schools in areas of very high immigration find it desperately difficult to cope with so many children who don’t even have basic English. Other services, such as health or housing, are similarly being overwhelmed by the sheer weight of numbers.

 

But the most shattering revelation was that this policy of mass immigration was not introduced to produce nannies or cleaners for the likes of Neather. It was to destroy Britain’s identity and transform it into a multicultural society where British attributes would have no greater status than any other country’s.

 

A measure of immigration is indeed good for a country. But this policy was not to enhance British culture and society by broadening the mix. It was to destroy its defining character altogether.

 

It also conveniently guaranteed an increasingly Labour-voting electorate since, as a recent survey by the Electoral Commission has revealed, some 90 per cent of black people and three-quarters of Asians vote Labour.

 

In Neather’s hermetically sealed bubble, the benefits of mass immigration were so overwhelming he couldn’t understand why ministers had been so nervous about it.

 

They were, he wrote, reluctant to discuss what increased immigration would mean, above all to Labour’s core white working class vote. So they deliberately kept it secret.

 

They knew that if they told the truth about what they were doing, voters would rise up in protest. So they kept it out of their election manifestos.

 

It was indeed a conspiracy to deceive the electorate into voting for them. And yet it is these very people who have the gall to puff themselves up in self-righteous astonishment at the rise of the BNP.

 

No wonder Jack Straw was so shifty on last week’s Question Time when he was asked whether it was the Government’s failure to halt immigration which lay behind increasing support for the BNP.

 

Now we know it was no such failure of policy. It was deliberate. For the government of which Straw is such a long- standing member had secretly plotted to flood the country with immigrants to change its very character and identity.

 

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 ’seriously consider’ voting for the BNP.

 

That nearly one quarter of British people might vote for a neo-Nazi party with views inimical to democracy, human rights and common decency is truly appalling.

 

The core reason is that for years they have watched as their country’s landscape has been transformed out of all recognition — and that politicians from all mainstream parties have told them first that it isn’t happening and second, that they are racist bigots to object even if it is.

 

Now the political picture has been transformed overnight by the unguarded candour of Andrew Neather’s eye-opening superciliousness. For now we know that Labour politicians actually caused this to happen - and did so out of total contempt for their own core voters.

 

As Neather sneered, 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 views the white working class, supposedly the very people it is in politics to champion. Who can wonder that its core vote is now decamping in such large numbers to the BNP when Labour treats them like this?

 

Condemned out of its own mouth, it is New Labour that is responsible for the rise of the BNP — by an act of unalloyed treachery to the entire nation.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

melenie philips the daily mail..

 

oh hold on, we arnt allowed to recognise anything the daily mail puts are we? <_< cos everything writen is right wing tory bollox... yeah right <_<

 

that article supports what ive been saying throughout this thread...