Turn on thread page Beta

Labours-secret-plan-to-lure-migrants watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...-migrants.html

    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”.
    ...
    Voting trends indicate that migrants and their descendants are much more likely to vote Labour.
    ...
    However, 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.
    ...
    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.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    There needs to be a full inquiry into this. And then we need to have all the conspirators hung in The Tower for treason, it's what they deserve.

    This really shows the extent of the arrogance of the Labour party, and contempt for the country and people that they supposedly represented. Of course everyone always knew this all along, but it is only now that the extent of the betrayal has come to light.

    Might be nice to post the Telegraph view of this:

    This Government has presided over the biggest inflow of immigrants in our history. In the past 12 years, three million immigrants have made the United Kingdom their home. Our society has been transformed and that transformation will continue. In 2008, a quarter of all births in England and Wales were to foreign-born mothers: in London, it was half. Our population, boosted by this immigration, is expected to reach 70 million by the middle of the century, and many towns in England (already the fifth most densely populated large country on the planet) are experiencing immense pressures on housing and welfare services as a consequence.

    It has become commonplace to attribute all this to a catastrophic failure of policy by a Government that simply lost control of our borders. Now we learn that, to the contrary, it was all part of a plan – albeit a secret one – to change the social fabric of this country and make it, in the words of one official involved, "truly multicultural". A policy document written in 2000 was so incendiary that it had to be bowdlerised before publication. The Migrationwatch think tank has, under a Freedom of Information request, obtained the unexpurgated original. It reveals Labour's real agenda just as the floodgates were opening. The document notes that migration pressures would intensify, "but this should not be viewed as a negative"; trying to stem the flow would anyway "be very difficult (perhaps impossible)"; the Government had "both economic and social objectives for immigration policy"; the benefits included "a widening of consumer choice and significant cultural contributions"; entry controls, on the other hand, "can contribute to social exclusion"; and, most devastating of all, the previous policy of curbing immigration had "no economic or social justification".

    Here, at last, is the truth of what the Government really thought about immigration but never dared tell the electorate. There was also, for Labour, a handy political spin-off. Research by the Electoral Commission into the 2005 general election showed immigrants voted for Labour by overwhelming margins. Very convenient.

    This explains why Opposition politicians who dared raise the issue were howled down by Labour for "playing the race card". After these revelations, that must not happen in this year's election – Tories, take note. This whole shameful episode has now come back to haunt Labour, for it is their MPs who are at risk from the resurgent popularity of the BNP among white working-class voters. That is their problem; the strain imposed on our social fabric by this duplicitous policy is ours.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Ed West makes some good points as well:

    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/ed...-plain-stupid/

    It wasn’t just idealism on Labour’s part, either – there was a fair amount of cynicism, too. Ethnic minorities have historically tended to vote Labour; making Britain more multi-ethnic would mean more Labour voters. Since the early 1980s Labour has promoted a policy of multiculturalism which, in effect, meant promoting and funding self-appointed “community leaders” (often extremists or crooks) in return for the votes of “their” community. And one of Jack Straw’s first move when he became Home Secretary in 1997 was to make it easier to bring spouses into the country, a demand of short-sighted Bangladeshi and Pakistani community leaders. According to Labour MP Chris Mullin’s diary, Labour MPs back in 2004 were disgusted by the abuses of the asylum and immigration system, but could say nothing because “there is the added difficulty that at least 20 Labour seats, including Jack Straw’s, depend on Asian votes”.

    It is almost impossible to exaggerate what a revolution Britain has undergone in the past dozen years, a demographic change not just unprecedented in our history, but in almost any country’s. This island was quite fantastically undiverse until recently – before the Second World War between 70 and 75 per cent of British DNA had been British for 13000 years, and later migrations made a neglible impact, with even the largest and most culturally influential, the Anglo-Saxon invasion, comprising only about 4 per cent of British DNA. Last year a quarter of births in England were to foreign mothers.

    But what Labour has done is not only borderline treason, it’s also very, very stupid, and against their own interests. Multi and bi-racial societies do not vote along class lines, as the monocultural British always have done: they tend to vote along tribal lines. Look at the Deep South, Northern Ireland and Lebanon and ask yourself – where are their multicultural centre-Left socialist parties? Labour has gained a multi-cultural following but, as we saw at the Euro elections, lost much of its traditional power case to the previously laughable British National Party, now the new tribal party of working-class white Britons. Labour’s great gift to the British people is the poisonous legacy of tribal politics.
    Offline

    14
    Conspiracy theorist, sound crazy.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by maze.e)
    Conspiracy theorist, sound crazy.
    And why is that then? What are you denying is true?
    Offline

    14
    (Original post by Time Tourist)
    And why is that then? What are you denying is true?
    Tories will be Tories....leaking information and blowing it out of proportion.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Heh, I'm not surprised. And to think, the left have had the nerve to complain about my use of the terms "multicutural experiment" and "social engineering" when I've argued with them before! It really is true that the lunatics have taken over the asylum.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by maze.e)
    Tories will be Tories....leaking information and blowing it out of proportion.
    A document has finally been released under freedom of information that clearly shows Labour wanted mass immigration to further their "social objectives", and last year a former Labour advisor said it was clear Labour had an open door policy to "make the UK truly multicultural" and to "rub the rights nose in diversity", so, which part of this are you denying?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by maze.e)
    Conspiracy theorist, sound crazy.
    Erm - which part of this is an official policy document did you not see?

    Did your eyes glaze over at the freedom of information request section? Do you not understand what that means? You write to the organisation and if it meets certain criteria such as not being too expensive to obtain the information, they have to legally release it.

    This is an insight to Labours policies. Your denial is utterly pathetic.

    Face it - Labour ****** over the working class by importing immigrants en masse. It's nothing about the people who Labour are supposed to represent, rather Labour is about Labour - as is clearly demonstrated by importing immigrants to vote for Labour. There's the rather touchy subject of Jack Straw's constituency.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    The Fabian ideal coming to life.

    A wolf in sheeps clothing indeed!
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    The great Norman Tebbit on this case:

    Well, well, well. So it looks as if there was a conspiracy after all. Or at the very least there was a conspiracy to cover up what looks very much like a conspiracy. As The Daily Telegraph reports today, it is due to the diligence of Migration Watch that we can now read the uncensored version of the paper drawn up to guide a discussion between the Home Office and the Cabinet Office in 2000.
    What is really significant is the nature of the parts which had earlier been censored in the cover-up operation. They refer to the Government’s social objectives for migration policy. Now what would they be? We get a hint of that in another of the censored passages, which refers to “significant cultural contributions”.
    There was even a section so secret that it was deleted in total. No wonder, for it sneered at the idea of reducing immigation to the irreducible minimum as “an objective with no economic or social justification”.
    It was established by an all party House of Lords Select Committee that there have been no worthwhile economic benefits from the Government’s unlimited immigration policy. Now it is clear that, all along, it has been driven not just by half baked economics but by a determination to achieve “social benefits”.
    We are left to guess what those may be, but I doubt if it was all about more foreign takeaways in the high street. All the evidence is that immigrants from the Third World are more likely to vote NuLab than Conservative. So is that what it was all about? Was it the most cynical dirty act of vote-rigging in our history. Was it part of an effort to change the very nature of British society? Or was it both? And is that why it was all done in secret while Ministers were claiming to have an effective policy to limit immigration? We can only assume that the secrecy was because they knew perfectly well they would never have got that one past the British voters.
    There is only one other puzzle about all this. Just why did it not feature right at the top of David Cameron’s questions to the Prime Minister today?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Wait a political party adjusting its policies to gain more votes...
    Thatcher wanted to create more property owning middle classes to get more votes. Labour wanted a greater immigrant population to get more votes.
    Same principle, different people.

    It is right to bring the issue up but I think most of us are mature enough to realise it is no reason to act with self righteous shock.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    :blah: :blah:

    Will social conservatives ever give up on "social engineering" conspiracy theories?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Democracy)
    :blah: :blah:

    Will social conservatives ever give up on "social engineering" conspiracy theories?
    Another one... Democracy so which facts here are you disputing? A paper have been released through the freedom of information act.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thepoodle)
    Wait a political party adjusting its policies to gain more votes...
    Thatcher wanted to create more property owning middle classes to get more votes. Labour wanted a greater immigrant population to get more votes.
    Same principle, different people.

    It is right to bring the issue up but I think most of us are mature enough to realise it is no reason to act with self righteous shock.
    Yes with the minor difference that one is unprecedented and irreversible cultural and demographic change that was implemented by subterfuge because Labour knew they could never get away with admitting their real reasons for such high levels of immigration - because no one wanted it.

    The other was more people owing property...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    So they wanted to get any living person into this country, regardless of health or education, just so they could obtain votes and **** the economy? Wow, they're amazing...I definitely want them to run the country in the future...

    Would you rather this or the exact opposite that turns the bad stuff into good stuff??
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    We've known about this for years, what's new?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Why don't they just actively declare support for the BNP? Because that's what all this New Labour crap is encouraging.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    :rofl: at the left in this thread denouncing the document as a "conspiracy theory" without providing any credible argument. Unsurprising, considering their usual method of shouting down anyone who confronts their idealistic activities.

    If you recorded Gordon Brown on CCTV admitting to this, they would still probably say "lol noes itz obvs photoshooped, you racizt, tory conspiracy theorizt!11ONE!!1"
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Democracy)
    :blah: :blah:

    Will social conservatives ever give up on "social engineering" conspiracy theories?
    So which part of the govt report is false then?? Was it a blurrey image? Typical no borders left - Pathetic.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 28, 2010
Poll
Cats or dogs?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.