Labour’s Hypocrisy on Immigration Is Breathtaking

EVERY time I pop to the shops, I’m reminded that the Britain of my childhood has gone for ever.

These days I’m as likely to hear Bulgarian, Polish or Romanian as English. And while I have no objections to any of these no doubt decent, hard-working, law-abiding people individually, I cannot help but feel the country I grew up in is no longer my own.The burgeoning popularity of Ukip suggests that I’m not alone. But until recently it wasn’t something you could admit in public without being called “racist”. This was one of the Labour party’s most successful and dangerous achievements in the wake of Enoch Powell’s 1968 Rivers of Blood speech.For four decades, Labour created a climate in which even to question the idea that mass immigration, “multiculturalism” and “diversity” were an unmitigated good was tantamount to being a member of the National Front.Typical of this was Labour’s response during the 2005 general election campaign to a speech by the then Conservative leader Michael Howard in which he said: “It’s not racist to talk about immigration. It’s not racist to criticise the system.

It’s not racist to want to limit the numbers. It’s just plain common sense.” According to Labour spokesman Peter Hain these were “scurrilous, Rightwing, ugly tactics”.

But will Hain, I wonder, condemn the comments by a senior politician earlier this week that “It isn’t racist to be worried about immigration or to call for immigration reform”?

Somehow I’m guessing not. Though the words sound remarkably similar to Howard’s the MP speaking them this time was none other than Labour’s Shadow Home Secretary Yvette Cooper. As breathtaking hypocrisy goes, this takes some beating.

Not only does it breach Labour leader Ed Miliband’s pledge last week that: “What we will never do is try to out-Ukip Ukip” but it is also an outrageous attempt to duck responsibility for a crisis which is of Labour’s making.

The increase in immigration since the late 1990s was significantly influenced by the government

House of Lords

Between the 1997 arrival of Labour’s Tony Blair as prime minister and the departure in 2010 of Labour’s Gordon Brown, immigration in Britain soared by 45 per cent – from around 327,000 immigrants per annum to 596,000.And those are just the ones officially recorded by the Office For National Statistics.Once you add illegal immigrants that figure may double to more than one million a year.

“The increase in immigration since the late 1990s was significantly influenced by the government’s Managed Migration policies.”

That’s a quote from a 2008 House of Lords economic affairs select committee telling us something that Labour is now very reluctant to admit: that the 2.3 million migrants added to the UK population between 2000 and 2009 didn’t arrive here as a result of some forgivable border control oversight.

They came as a direct consequence of Labour policy. We know this because of a Labour whistleblower called Andrew Neather – a former speechwriter to Tony Blair, as well as Labour home secretaries David Blunkett and Jack Straw – who later became a newspaper columnist.

In one of his articles he revealed that Labour’s wholehearted embrace of mass immigration had a “driving political purpose” – to “make the UK truly multicultural”.

Read the rest at The Express

Related posts:

  1. Ayn Rand’s books are deliciously anti-statist, but her philosophy is borderline Nazi
  2. Say what you like about Prince Andrew, at least he wasn’t caught posing in his underpants
  3. In praise of Lord Tebbit
  4. General Election 2010: My mate Dave…


Why Should Broke Britain Bankroll Immigrant Spongers?

Insidious Marxist assault

“Yoo hoo! It’s me again!!”

A couple of days ago I posted on the heartwarming story of Firuta Vasile, 27 – the Roma woman with four children who came to Britain five years ago, claims not to have been able to find work except as a Big Issue seller, and currently snaffles in excess of £25,000 in benefits, courtesy of the British taxpayer. And who has just snaffled another £2,500 in housing benefit having argued – through an interpreter, also funded by you, the British taxpayer, and with the support of a Welfare Benefits Adviser called Andy King – that this is no more than her fair entitlement.


What shocked me almost more than the story itself was the reaction from some of our menagerie of trolls.

Here’s one of our friends from across the water:

Vasile says that she looked for work, and the only work she could find was selling The Big Issue. Obviously it is not a proper job if it pays only £100 per week, and obviously she cannot pay all her family’s expenses on that … hence the housing benefit. Would it be better if she were doing nothing and receiving more in benefits?

To describe Vasile as a ‘greedy shyster’ really shows what a vindictive worm you are. How much do you earn?

And of course, having lifted yet another rock, you will watch as the lowlife crawls out from under it to advocate Final Solutions of one form or another.

Here’s another:

I am delighted that Firuta Vasile has won this victory for two reasons.

1. She and her family need the money.

2. It makes Delingpole even more angry.

and here’s one from a caring young lady called @mariannepowell on Twitter (apparently she campaigns for Roma rights in Budapest: well done, Marianne, love! Bet that makes you feel all warm and gooey inside, yes?) who Tweets:

Something vile from James Delingpole. Apparently we are living under ‘cultural Marxism’. Can’t say I’d noticed.

There are plenty more in this vein but you get the idea. Out there, in the world right now, not in lunatic asylums but on the streets with actual voting rights, are angry, quasi-articulate people who sincerely believe that:

1. Mentioning Roma in any vaguely critical context puts you one step away from endorsing Hitler’s death camps;

2. Criticising welfare tourism means you’re heartless and probably a Nazi;

3. The British exchequer is a source of limitless bounty. If there are any poor people out there in the world, it is entirely right and proper that they should partake of its largesse. To argue otherwise is morally indefensible.

I wonder how these people will respond to today’s Telegraph scoop that there are 370,000 economic migrants currently claiming the dole in Britain. Actually I don’t wonder at all. I’m quite sure they’ll think it’s great, in the same way some people think the foxhunting ban is great because of “what Thatcher did to the Miners” or that HS2 is great because it will teach poncy Southerners a lesson by destroying their countryside, or, most appositely, that unchecked immigration is great because it will smash the Tory fascist vote base for ever and dilute our filthy, reprehensible, hideously white Anglo-Saxon stock with people of all colours and creeds holding hands underneath a rainbow.

I wish that last bit was an exaggeration. But it’s not. As former New Labour speechwriter Andrew Neather has revealed, between 2000 and 2009 Tony Blair and his bien-pensant ministers (among them Jack Straw) cynically and very deliberately used immigration policy as part of their Kulturkampf against the right:

“I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense that the policy was intended – even if this wasn’t its main purpose – to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.”

The “deliberate policy”, from late 2000 until “at least February last year”, when the new points based system was introduced, was to open up the UK to mass migration, he said.

Some 2.3 million migrants have been added to the population since then, according to Whitehall estimates quietly slipped out last month.

On Question Time on Thursday, Mr Straw was repeatedly quizzed about whether Labour’s immigration policies had left the door open for the BNP.

In his column, Mr Neather said that as well as bringing in hundreds of thousands more migrants to plug labour market gaps, there was also a “driving political purpose” behind immigration policy.

He defended the policy, saying mass immigration has “enriched” Britain, and made London a more attractive and cosmopolitan place.

We need, I think, to be far more courageous and outspoken in resisting this insidious cultural Marxist assault on our values. Since Enoch Powell’s Rivers of Blood speech, the liberal-left has successfully created a climate in which any criticism of immigration is considered tantamount to racism. This is a grotesque mispresentation of reality. We are – even now, amazingly – for the most part a hugely tolerant nation. But we also have a very refined sense of “fair play.”

It is clearly not fair play when, at a time of severe economic crisis when many of us are feeling the pinch, that we should have our taxes raised and be forced to borrow more money on the international markets in order to fund immigrants who are here merely to leech off our generosity.

Like many of a libertarian persuasion, I have few problems with immigrants who have come here to work. I have major problems with immigrants who are here to sponge. As, I hope, does anyone out there with even half a brain or a scrap of moral integrity. (Guess that doesn’t mean you, trolls).

Related posts:

  1. Why Britain is stuffed: an unintentional masterclass courtesy of the BBC
  2. I’d rather my wife made land mines than worked in the wind farm industry
  3. If this is Britain’s energy policy, we’re toast
  4. Oasis are vulgar, over-hyped, under-talented and the face of yob Britain

Posted on 22nd January 2012Author jamesCategories Blog

2 thoughts on “Why should broke Britain bankroll immigrant spongers?”

  1. Nige Cook says:24th January 2012 at 12:13 amJames, this is an EUSSR story: if you watch the BBC news, they only report immigration problems of people coming in from outside the EUSSR, like hard-working Americans who can’t get work visas here. They won’t report problems of people coming from within the EUSSR for benefits handouts.This is your friend Cameron’s fault for staying in the EUSSR. We have no border controls against EUSSR benefit seekers from communist Greece, Spain, Greece, France, Greece, and former communist states like Romanian gypsies don’t go through the green channel and aren’t even recorded in statistics when they arrive, so there is no hard data, just anecdotal cases which Cameron easily ignores.

    Of course Britain is the soft touch. The irony is that Cameron – instead of telling the EUSSR to **** off and getting out of that new Warsaw Pact – is punishing British people by tightening up welfare for all here. If he had quit the EUSSR and stopped this benefit scam, the money would be available for the people already here. Instead, Cameron believes leaving the EUSSR is immoral. So he has to limit benefits to large British families and force them to move into cheaper areas to survive, instead of cutting the benefits drain by quitting the EUSSR and controlling immigration from Europe.

    I can’t watch the BBC anymore. They keep claiming that because there are no statistics kept on immigration from Europe anymore, there is no immigration from Europe. This is the delusion Cameron is in. Avoid keeping records, and then conflate the absence of data with the alleged absense of a problem. Socialists who claimed immigration controls from Europe are racist will, we can predict, next start complaining that the benefits cuts needed to the welfare state (due to immigration) are even more unfair.

    Of course Britain’s benefits culture, the most generous in Europe, is a magnet for these EUSSR immigrants. Nobody with more than a single brain cell could ahve failed to see this problem emerging from the EUSSR. We can’t afford it. Ultimately, benefits will be cut for all, just because Cameron doesn’t want to stop further abuse by those responsible for the drain, by ending our EUSSR membership. It reminds me of a mentally weak socialist school teacher, who refused to punish or deter disruptive students and instead kept the entire class in during breaks, in the belief that it was more “fair” punish everyone for the excesses of a few. This is Cameron in a nutshell. Political correctness on EUSSR membership, to help prop up a few losing big brand names whose chairmen he is friends with or whatever, who keep our “balance of trade” with the EUSSR a trade deficit, but insist that it is somehow vital for British jobs that we’re controlled by slimy eco-socialists in Brussels.

  2. Terrywiltorn says:26th January 2012 at 12:35 pmWell done JD. I have just read that Gloucestershire Police have closed 19 police stations and plan to cut more officers and even reduce neighbourhood policing! Perhaps if we started to look after the British tax payer and used the monies spent on immigrants being paid welfare, then, these cuts would not happen. On a similar note I hear that the Overseas aid budget will increase to some £11 billon in 2014! Why oh why do we put up with this?

Comments are closed.

Question Time: Is That Panel Really the Best They Can Do?

Nick Griffin is the greatest orator since Pericles. He has gravitas such as we have not witnessed since Winston Churchill’s “blood, toil, tears and sweat” speech. His rapier wit makes Oscar Wilde sound like John Prescott. He has the encyclopaedic knowledge of a Paul Johnson; the courage of Charles Upham VC and bar; the loveability of Stephen Fry; the dramatic power of Fiona Shaw in some exceptionally moving new play about a lesbian who is slowly tortured to death by homophobic society…

Actually not – though you wouldn’t guess it from the general, angst-ridden debate about who best should be fielded against the BNP leader on tonight’s Question Time.

Nick Cohen has the details:

By this weekend, nervy producers were hitting the phones as they began to realise the 1,001 ways the show could go wrong. One minute, they booked Douglas Murray. He runs the Centre for Social Cohesion, which examines neo-Nazi, Islamist and other extremism in Britain. But he is also from the right, and so, the BBC reasoned, could tell the audience that it was possible to worry about immigration without being compelled to vote BNP. Murray was more than ready to take Griffin on, but the next minute the BBC called back with second thoughts. If he were to say anything in favour of immigration controls, Griffin would look like he was the voice of consensus. As confused call followed confused call, Murray formed the impression the BBC did not know what to do.

Nor do the political parties. Originally, the Conservatives put up Michael Gove, one of their best debaters. Then they decided that, as a British Asian, Lady Warsi would be the ideal face of progressive conservatism and a living rebuttal of BNP prejudice. So she would, had she not run a nasty campaign against the sitting Labour MP in Dewsbury in the 2005 election. In white areas, she declared that she would campaign “for British identity and British citizens” and fight the menace of mass immigration. In Muslim areas, the flag appeared in leaflets in a blood-spattered montage of Tony Blair and George Bush and troops in Iraq, while underneath it she played to religious homophobia by claiming that Labour was allowing children to be propositioned for homosexual relationships.

Jack Straw is a more formidable politician, but as a series of leaks to the Observer in 2006 showed, he spent a part of his time as foreign secretary trying to “engage” with the Muslim Brotherhood, an organisation that, in its origins and policies towards women, Jews and gays, is not so different from the BNP. So assiduous did Straw’s attempts at “engagement” become, the British ambassador to Egypt warned him he was engaging for the sake of engagement, and that there was no prospect of Britain being able “to influence the Islamists’ agenda”.

Me, I think the whole panel is pretty low-grade and that this particular edition wouldn’t even be worth watching if it weren’t for the Griffin factor. Bonnie Greer is too palpably nice and reasonable; Baroness Warsi’s talent is overrated beyond measure; Jack Straw (see Cohen above) is a dhimmi; and Chris Huhne – Chris Who?

At least Griffin’s likely to say something interesting, which is, after all, the point of Question Time is it not? It’s about entertainment. Gladiator sport. It’s not – though it’s amazing how many media commentators appear to think otherwise – the official occasion on which all the main parties gather together to make it quite clear how much they abhor racism. Duh! We knew that already. Now tell us what you think about immigration and Islamism. Otherwise Nick Griffin’s going to win more votes still.

Related posts:

  1. I’m glad that the BNP’s Nick Griffin is appearing on Question Time
  2. Nick Clegg’s riot inquiry panel is beyond a joke
  3. The love/hate joy of Andy Murray
  4. President Perry or President Bachmann? It’s the only question remaining