Artikkelen til Andrew Neather, taleskriver for Tony Blair, Jack Straw og David Blunkett, om at masseinnvandring til Storbritannia ikke skjedde av seg selv, men var et bevisst valg for å forandre den britiske nasjonens karakter, vil gi gjenlyd i lang tid fremover.
Det som har fremstått som uforståelig – hvordan en Arbeiderpartiregjering har tillatt en masseinnvandring som først og fremst har rammet partiets kjernevelgere – får nå en forklaring: man ønsket helt bevisst å endre landets karakter. Høyresiden skulle få gnudd nesen ettertrykkelig ned i søla, slik at de aldri skulle kunne reise seg mer. Masseinnvandringen ville gi Labour nye stemmer – hvilket viser seg å stemme, det ville videre endre samfunnets kultur, slik at de konservative verdier ikke lenger gjaldt som nasjonens.
Det Neather fremfører uten blygsel, er et program for avnasjonalisering. Det minner sterkt om hva professor Thomas Hylland Eriksen, Morgenbladet, Klassekampen, Aftenposten og den politiske eliten unntatt Frp, har forfektet i Norge: vi får et nytt fellesskap, Norge må kvitte seg med den gammeldagse nasjonalismen og bli moderne, dvs. flerkulturelt.
Den politikken som har vært ført i Storbritannia minner også sterkt om den som er ført i Norge. Hvis den har vært helt bevisst i Storbritannia, hvorfor ikke i Norge? Mange har advart mot konsekvensene, verdimessig, materielt, økonomisk, ut fra nasjonalt samhold, religiøst, ut fra den sosiale fred og samfunnskontrakten, uten å bli hørt.
Tvert imot har regjeringen foretatt seg ting som sett utenfra fortoner seg helt absurd. Forslagene om blasfemiparagraf og hijab i politiet er de klareste eksemplene. De tydet nettopp på en aktiv politikk for avnasjonalisering, slik Andrew Neather skisserer.
Selv skammer han seg ikke over politikken. Han mener den er riktig. Men statsrådene han arbeidet for, de hadde kvaler. De turde ikke fortelle velgerne hvilke premisser de la til grunn for masseinnvandringen.
I stedet svarte de med å brunbeise kritikerne.
Dette er et annet opprørende punkt: Først en bevisst politikk uten demokratisk forankring (her får vi bruk for Storbergets favorittord), som i neste omgang måtte skjules for velgerne (dvs. konspirasjon) og dernest en sosial og politisk utstøting av mennesker som våget å kritisere en ikke-bærekraftig politikk.
Politikken i Norge har fulgt samme mønster.
Det er det samme som å legge opp til delegitimering av demokratiet, og skape en tillitskløft mellom myndigheter og folk.
Andrew Neathers artikkel er tungtveiende fordi den kommer fra en insider og fordi den er skrevet i beste mening, dvs. ikke for å kompromittere en politikk, men som et beskrivende statement.
I den speilverden som det politisk korrekte samfunn er, forstår han ikke konsekvensen av det han skriver. Men det gjør mange andre. Melanie Phillips skriver om katta slapp ut av sekken:
The outrageous truth slips out: Labour cynically plotted to transform the entire make-up of Britain without telling us
By Melanie Phillips
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.