How any Labour MP can honestly write an article criticising a
government for trying to confront the immigration problem, when it was his party who,
during their 13 years in office, systematically went out of their way to encourage
hundreds of thousands of immigrants to settle in Britain, simply destroys the meaning of irony!
Jonathan Reynolds , writing in this week’s Reporter in his ‘View
from Westminster’ says he understands the benefits immigration can bring’ and
yes, when immigration is controlled, then I wholeheartedly agree.
But that has not been the case. Following on from years of ‘benefits
for votes’ the British public has been force fed the myth that immigration is a
cultural and economic benefit, and this may well be the case with managed
immigration when skilled and educated migrants fill job vacancies, and while
retaining recognition of their own heritage, integrate with the host society.
But this has NOT been the case with the uncontrolled, mass immigration that
Labour brought us.
Take a close look at Tameside and you’ll discover that those
coming to the UK have been fed the myth of multiculturalism encouraging them to
believe they can enjoy all the advantages of living in an advanced, Western
democratic, welfare state, while retaining unchanged and unchallenged the
customs, culture and allegiances of the countries they've left.
For those from third world countries, free education, the
NHS, social housing, child benefits and all the other welfare entitlements
available in the UK must seem like heaven. To achieve the same in other western
countries immigrants have to work for it. For many coming to the UK it is
delivered gift wrapped. The UK’s “cradle to the grave” welfare society was
designed for the indigenous UK population. It is now available for anyone who
can make it to these shores.
However, political platitudes and spouting ‘the benefits of 'multiculturalism
and diversity’ to the family in the housing queue and who are desperate to find
unskilled work, or waiting for an operation on the NHS, or trying to get their
kids into the local school, diversity will mean nothing.
Viewed from Westminster, these politicians have absolutely
no idea what ‘diversity’ really means to most ordinary people.
Earlier this year we got what was almost an apology. Ed
Miliband admitted that the last Labour government was not “sufficiently alive
to people's concerns” over immigration and his party got “the numbers wrong”. -
No shit Sherlock!
‘Got it wrong’! - Between 1997 and 2010, more than 3.5
million immigrants came to the country - more than twice the population of
Birmingham – with the annual net figure quadrupling during their time in office.
But being a minister in the government responsible for the
state we now find ourselves in, did he apologise? No, not a bit of it, instead
he rolled out the same old clichés – ‘We must learn lessons’ and went on to
suggest that although he thinks that “for diversity to help our country, it
must work for all, not just a few!” he would in future consider limiting
immigrants' rights to benefits in the UK.
He omits to tell us of course, that as members of the EU and
the ECHR, he will not be in any position to do anything of the sort, even if he
wanted to.
The last Labour government was so 'sufficiently alive to
people concerns over immigration’; they arrogantly chose to ignore public
concern. People like me were branded as racists, xenophobes and bigots for daring
to express concern over the level of immigration under their watch. So now that
Labour has declared it is no longer racist to have immigration controls, presumably
that means that Labour is now racist and xenophobic?
Labour let immigration “spiral out of control” that has to
be a contender for the ‘understatement of the century’.
The record now shows
that Blair's Government deliberately allowed uncontrolled immigration in order
to "rub the noses of the Right in diversity". i.e. they were quite prepared to destroy the
culture and society of the UK just for pure party political purposes.
So, to re-cap, Labour was wrong on immigration... wrong on
Gold... wrong on war... and wrong on the economy. They’ve lumbered us with vast
PFI debts... borrowed to the hilt... ploughed billions into the wrong section
of the NHS... given us an education system that doesn't educate but rather teaches
our children - the 'normality' of same-sex relationships, the benefits of multiculturalism,
how to apply for benefits if you get pregnant, how to aspire to a university
education in spite of being as thick as a plank and better-suited to learning a
practical trade! And you can add to that, a police force that doesn't police, -
yet they assured us throughout all those years that everything was just fine. –
No more Boom and Bust!
Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw
and David Blunkett, said, Labour's relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan
to "open up the UK to mass migration" but that ministers were nervous
and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its
"core working class vote". http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.html
A simple start to
this situation would be to pass legislation which says, that unless any
Immigrant can provide legitimate proof of employment - they should not be let
in and unless anyone has contributed in tax for 5 years - they cannot claim
benefits.
I make no apology for
borrowing this passage from a famous book:
“Once we understand
the impenetrable stupidity of our public, we cannot be surprised that such
tactics turn out successful. Led by the press and blinded once again by the
alluring appearance of the new program, the bourgeois as well as the
proletarian herds of voters faithfully return to the common stall and re-elect
their old deceivers.”
“Scarcely anything
else can be so depressing as to watch this process in sober reality and to be
the eyewitness of this repeatedly recurring fraud. On a spiritual training
ground of that kind it is not possible for the bourgeois forces to develop the
strength which is necessary to carry on the fight against the organized might
of Marxism.”
“Marxism will march
shoulder to shoulder with democracy until it succeeds indirectly in securing
for its own criminal purposes even the support of those whose minds are
nationally oriented and whom Marxism strives to exterminate.”
Mein Kampf
Volume 2 Chapter 1
By the way, what on earth does 'diversity has to work for
all and not just for some' mean?
Hitler was in many respects a genius.
ReplyDeleteIf stupid is as stupid does, genius is as genius does.
ReplyDeleteHow can anyone who loves their country, ever vote for this party again. Betrayal is the closest you can get to describing what they have done, and Miliband in his speech only goes to show that he still does not get it. He can 'apologise' all he likes but he was part of that government who betrayed us. So why would anyone want to vote for him now who believes in our country and its survival for our grandchildren.
ReplyDeleteOver 13 years of Labour misrule under Blair&Brown they actively encouraged mass immigration, nodoubt to promote multiculuralism and benefit dependency. Notwithstanding Labour's own spokesman admitting multiculturalism had proved a very bad idea, we now have Miliband complaining that immigrants cannot speak English, when his government had 13years to solve the problem. How cynical is that,but the Labour hold the electorate in contempt anyway so nothing new there.
ReplyDeleteMore promises from Labour: The 1997 Labour manifesto stated that 'every country must have firm control over immigration and Britain is no exception'
ReplyDelete"For many coming to the UK it is delivered gift wrapped. The UK’s “cradle to the grave” welfare society was designed for the indigenous UK population. It is now available for anyone who can make it to these shores."
ReplyDeleteI'm sure I've pointed this out before, but since immigrants are far less likely to claim benefits than native Britons, framing your argument as one based on a negative economic impact of immigration seems strange, as this clearly isn't the case.
I agree that Labour's position on this (and most other issues really) is disingenuous, but immigrants pay far more (60%) into the country than they take out. So if we do indeed experience issues with housing and the adequate funding of public services, our politicians are to blame only for misspending the money the immigrants paid in, not for allowing them to enter in the first place.
Moreover, we need more immigrants, not fewer. As the ONS demonstrated last week, if net migration was reduced to zero, the debt to GDP ratio would be 40 percent higher. (http://niesr.ac.uk/blog/migration-and-public-finances-long-run-obrs-fiscal-sustainability-report/)
Anonymous,
DeleteBut it is not a case of unlimited immigration or none at all, the scale and pace of immigration are the keys as to whether the UK’s expansion can be managed successfully.
It is true that in the medium term, migration provides a larger pool of working age people which increases tax revenues. That’s all very well in the short term, but don’t forget, people get old and require ‘pensions’ and housing, they will have health issues, expanded families,’ that adds to infrastructure demand and education etc’
According to the Office for Budgetary Responsibility (OBR) If we take an immigration assumption of 140,000 a year we would add 14 million to the UK population in their 50 year time scale, which is nearly a quarter of our present population.
The government has a very sensible policy of bringing net migration down from more than a quarter of a million a year to the tens of thousands.
There’s also been a recent discovery showing that net foreign immigration between mid-1997 and mid 2010 (The Labour years) now totals very nearly 4 million. Allowing for the 1 million British citizens who emigrated in that period, net immigration comes to just over 3 million.
Don’t tell me that that figure has had no direct effect on the population of the UK; don’t forget that figure takes no account of illegal immigration!
"Immigrants pay far more into the country than they take out". How do we know? Where is the proof?
Delete"Immigrants are less likely to claim benefits". This is plainly wrong. Last week it was announced how the increase in the Uk population has been fuelled by immigration, both by the entry of new adults and the birth of children to immigrants. A child means a recipient of benefits whether direct or indirect (tax relief, medical care , education etc). Since many immigrant communities have a culture of large families it means that the provision of these indirect benefits goes disproportionately to immigrant communities.
Also there is a tendency for the East European new EU citizens to work for knock down wages. Where are the unions on this issue? Scab labour?
You argue that the immigrants will get old, and that's one of the criticisms that's been made, but as Portes points out in that link: "the OBR analysis definitely does not ignore the fact that immigrants get old and have children. That is fully incorporated into the population projections".
Delete"Don’t tell me that that figure has had no direct effect on the population of the UK" - and what effects would that be exactly? Providing that immigrants can pay their way (and in fact they pay MORE than their fair share) then what negative impact does it have?
@tonydj - "How do we know? Where is the proof?"
DeleteWell, the proof comes from UCL in London: http://www.cream-migration.org/publ_uploads/CDP_18_09.pdf
"A8 immigrants who arrived after EU enlargement in 2004, and who have at least one year of residence – and are therefore legally eligible to claim benefits -
are 60% less likely than natives to receive state benefits or tax credits, and 58% less likely to live in social housing"
"in each fiscal year since enlargement in 2004, A8 immigrants made a positive contribution to public finance despite the fact that the UK has been running a budget deficit over the last years"
The OECD (http://www.oecd.org/els/mig/imo2013.htm) conclude the same.
And of course, our own Department for Work and Pensions:
"In the long run, it is likely that the net fiscal contribution of an immigrant will be greater than that of a non-immigrant." - http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Guardian/documents/2007/10/16/Economic.pdf
...and the DWP again:
"As at February 2011, 16.6% of working age UK nationals were claiming a DWP working age benefit compared to 6.6% of working age non-UK nationals" -
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/196677/nat_nino_regs.pdf
Actually, the proof comes from just about anyone who has ever published a paper on this (with the obvious exception of MigrationWatch).
With regard to downward pressure on wages, this is less clear-cut. There's an interesting paper from Oxford University which concludes that: "immigration has a small impact on average wages of existing workers but more significant effects along the wage distribution: low-wage workers lose while medium and high-paid workers gain". However they also say that "short run effects of immigration differ from long run effects: any declines in the wages and employment of UK-born workers in the short run can be offset by rising wages and employment in the long run". So that second point is still up for debate. - http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/briefings/labour-market-effects-immigration
(I'll ignore the stuff about "a culture of large families" until you can provide any similar proof, because as I've already pointed out to Curmudgeon, the OBR has included the families in it's calculations.)
Quote "A8 migrants are defined as nationals of the Czech Republic, Estonia,Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia and Slovenia who have arrived in the UK since 2004"
DeleteYou don't even count all the immigrants, you cherry-pick European migrant workers, many of whom have already returned home.
@tonydj - Cherry-picking my arse. The UCL stat referred to A8 immigrants, the DWP stat referred to "non-UK nationals". Both stats stated that immigrants contribute more to the public purse than they take out. How about reading the bloody thing next time before commenting.
DeleteAnonymous,
DeleteYour reply to @tonydj - Cherry-picking my arse. The UCL stat referred to A8 immigrants, the DWP stat referred to "non-UK nationals". Both stats stated that immigrants contribute more to the public purse than they take out. How about reading the bloody thing next time before commenting.
Anonymous, in your comments to tonydj, you state that, according to various statistics, “immigrants contribute more to the public purse than they take out” and the stat’s as presented bear that out. However, you must agree that successive British governments have endorsed policies of mass immigration (EU treaties) which of course has increased the birth rate and a demand for new housing; the building of which has been virtually none-existent. This has in turn pushed up the cost to the nation far more than the added contributions from heightened immigration.
It is this constant drive to ramp up the population, together with extended life expectancy, the poor standard of state education (which has created many school-leavers totally unemployable) that has had a detrimental knock on effect on the labour market, welfare, public services, and housing.
There are millions of unemployed people in this country, and what is concerning is that among the ranks of the unemployed lay hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of very skilled and very talented people who are desperate to work and are willing to turn their hands to anything and everything.
The solution therefore is simple: reduce immigration and train people for businesses. This in turn will cut unemployment, reduce the welfare bill and look to local authorities to regain control over the building and distribution of social housing.
@Curmudgeon - Thanks for your considered and thoughtful response.
DeleteYou're correct in identifying housing as a major issue, but housing is a very complex problem, one in which immigration is only a small factor (let's not forget that the native population has also grown massively over the past century). As you can see in the latest DCLG stats (Table 209: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/live-tables-on-house-building) construction has taken a nose-dive since the seventies, with local authority building accounting for much of this decline.
We must ask ourselves why this is the case. The easiest thing to do is to look at who profits from the current situation. One major benefactor is those who already own property, landlords and individual home owners. The push for ever greater property prices is a wonderful thing to the Daily Express readers salivating at how much they're earning for sitting on their arses, and for buy-to-let landlords who can charge what they like in rent, knowing that someone will have to pay it.
So what can politicians do about this? Well, they COULD do a lot. However politicians don't want to do anything, as only bad things happen when the next election comes around. The FT recently described "Help To Buy" as "Help to Buy An Election" which I think sums up most government housing policy over the last few decades. This shortage of housing also accounts for much of the rise in the housing benefit bill, as landlords are reaping the rewards of overcharging and having the government pay the rents.
I'm not saying that immigration has no effect on housing, but our current problems would always be an issue, with or without it, because too many people benefit from high house prices, and so there's no incentive to build. In fact there's a perverse incentive to block housing developments. We have plenty of workers to build the housing, plenty of money available, and plenty of land (choked slightly by planning laws), but nobody is building and this is why.
I have no doubt that housing stock would have failed to keep pace with the increase in the native population even if immigration wasn't a factor. It's the ultimate get-rich-quick scheme for those doing well out of it.
I'm going to dismiss the bit about "unemployable" school leavers as I see no real proof of this. I left education ten years ago, five years into the Blair government and I like to think I'm a fairly successful, knowledgeable individual. However that's just my anecdote and that's partly the problem.
Educational performance across generations is notoriously hard to measure and some people take a somewhat rose-tinted view of their own time at school. Young people are facing competition for entry-level jobs which was unimaginable ten years ago, with older workers waiting longer to retire and other more experienced staff working in positions for which they are overqualified.
I agree with your comments about skilled people who are "desperate to work", as this really is true, there are no hordes of "scroungers" that the tabloids constantly bleat about (and even if there were loads of people who "didn't want to work", trying to force these people into jobs as the DWP is attempting to do makes little sense, when they'd be far better off using that cash to fund an apprenticeship for someone desperate for work).
However I think you often succumb to what in economics is called the "lump of labour" fallacy. In effect this states that there is a fixed amount of work to be done, and that for every one immigrant who comes to the UK, one job is taken away from a native worker. This of course is a gross simplification, as there is no fixed number of jobs in an economy, and that a single immigrant who sets up a business employing others is of overall benefit to the labour force.
I'll leave you with an eloquent little explanation of this by Hollie McNish: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJX5XHnONTI
Anonymous, I can assure you that I have never suffered from the misconception that there is a fixed amount of jobs in the economy.
DeleteFor every 3 people who become employed, whether they be native or immigrant, another job is created - because people who are working need services such as transport, sandwich bars, extra clothing, bottle of wine to recover equilibrium, etc.
It's long been a common myth, politically expounded amongst the gullible, that there are only so many jobs to go round, the jobs market isn’t fixed any more than the money supply is fixed.
However, the expansion must be private sector led.
@ Anonymous 07:38, Miliband certainly does 'get it' he knows exactly what he and his 'associates' want for Britain.
ReplyDeleteVote Labour for the big society,vote Tory for the one community.
ReplyDeleteWell they can stuff that cynical ploy because I do not subscribe to being stuffed into a melting pot of immigrants,radicals,criminals from abroad.
My roots and those of my ancestors were created over a 500 year period at least based on my accurate genealogical research and I do not want to be made to respect thousands of non english freeloaders and scam merchants by the politicians who themselves are also blatant freeloaders who lie permanently.
In a study published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, the team explains that in a study of nine rats, they observed continued brain activity even after the heart stopped beating and blood flow ceased.
ReplyDelete........................................................
So scientists produce information we should all respect based on 9 RATS.
Could this prove the TMBC RATS are not brain dead after all ?? but simply biding their time
Hello Hello Hello cop this
ReplyDeletefor a glimpse of what GMP
create,which involves its supporters and friends like the Tameside Advertiser Editor herself.
If this how local press investigates Tameside News
just start employing real objective reporters.
How much does such Police twitter site get for news releases such as these ??
https://twitter.com/GMPGorton
It gets even better than this this last poster if you check out the Police twitter sites.
ReplyDeleteWhy do we need the Labour Rags ie MEN,Advertiser,Reporter press,they just copy the Police reports.
http://www.gmp.police.uk/live/nhoodv3.nsf/SocialTwitterFeed/2DD85CA3C1C3D9F280257BC10028C46A
http://www.gmp.police.uk/content/division.html?ReadForm&Division=Tameside
On current demographic trends there won't be any indigenous British people left in a few years, whatever the state of the economy is.
ReplyDelete