Saturday, October 24, 2009

A Plan Comes Together.

This is extraordinary if true:

Andrew Neather said the mass influx of migrant workers seen in recent years was not the result of a mistake or miscalculation, but rather a policy the party preferred not to reveal to its core voters.

He said the strategy was intended to fill gaps in the labour market and make the UK more multicultural at the same time as scoring political points against the Opposition.

Filling the gaps in the labour market is a legitimate reason for encouraging immigration, the other two are not. So multiculturalism wasn't simply a means to cope with large numbers of people from diverse background, it was an end in itself and large numbers of people from a diverse background were imported in order to allow multiculturalism to flourish. They weren't denouncing opponents of mass immigration in order to defend the new communities in Britain, they were bringing in new communities in order to be able to denounce their opponents.

So Labour not only deliberately encouraged mass immigration they simultaneous tried to ramp up racial tensions for political gain. I think we've managed to solve the great mystery as to how the BNP have managed to go from being a bunch of unpleasant weirdos who won a council seat every few years and then disappeared to being the most electorally successful racist movement Britain has had since at least the 1930s.

I think we've also discovered why Labour's core vote has been alienated-most studies of immigration show a small net economic benefit however the benefits are diffuse and the costs are concentrated among the poorest in society, in this case the working class voters who make up Labour's heartlands.

Update: I've just read Andrew Neather's original article, it isn't a mea culpa he is proud of all this! It sounds like a parody, but Neather is a real person so when he writes things like:

Their place certainly wouldn't be taken by unemployed BNP voters from Barking or Burnley - fascist au pair, anyone? Immigrants are everywhere and in all sorts of jobs, many of them skilled.

My family's east European former nannies, for example, are model migrants, going on to be a social worker and an accountant. They have integrated into London society.

But this wave of immigration has enriched us much more than that. A large part of London's attraction is its cosmopolitan nature.

It is so much more international now than, say, 15 years ago, and so much more heterogeneous than most of the provinces, that it's pretty much unimaginable for us to go back either to the past or the sticks.

He is being deadly serious.


Matthew said...

I don't see why allowing foreigners to live here because you believe they will enrich the economy is any more or less legimitate (you can disagree with either or both) than allowing them to live here because you believe they will enrich society.

Ross said...

Because there is a general consensus that higher economic growth is a good thing, there is no similar consensus that a multicultural society is a good thing.

If they had openly discussed it and consulted the voters then maybe it would be legitimate.

It was simply assumed to be a good thing with no discussion and no evidence at all.

Matthew said...

But there's no consensus that immigration boosts the economy, just as there's not one that immigration improves society.

Adam D said...

Everyone seems to have forgotten what was supposed to be a major cross-party report. It was only April last year.

Record levels of immigration have had "little or no impact" on the economic well-being of Britons, an influential House of Lords committee has said.

It says competition from immigrants has had a negative impact on the low paid and training for young UK workers, and has contributed to high house prices

Ross said...

Matthew- No but if the Labour Party made the argument that it would boost GDP and won an election then the electorate has at least acquiesced in the decision.

No one was ever asked if they thought multiculturalism was a desirable aim.

Adam D- That was the sort of thing I was thinking of when I said there was probably a small economic benefit.

Gladys Pew said...

I would like to kill him actually.