A fact completely unconnected with why Labour allowed immigration to increase so much

"Research into voting patterns was conducted for The Electoral Commission in May 2005, just after the last election. The “Black and Minority Ethnic Survey”, conducted by MORI, asked which party respondents had voted for in 2005. Of Caribbean and African voters, 80% had voted Labour, 2-3% Conservative and 5- 11% Liberal Democrat. Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshis voted 56%, 50% and 41% for Labour. The equivalent figures for the Conservatives were 11%, 11% and 9% while Liberal Democrats came in at 14%, 25% and 16%. Mixed and other categories were similar to the Asians."

Thanks to Migration Watch for bringing those figures to my attention.


Somehow I think that Stephen Glover is rather less willing to give the Labour government the benefit of the doubt:

"Using immigration to turn Britain into a nation of Labour voters is so shameful I can hardly believe it

...

Migrants, and to a slightly lesser extent their descendants, are much more likely to vote Labour than for any other party. It seems that one shameful motivation behind New Labour’s open-door immigration policy was to alter the social composition of this country so as to improve the chances of the party being reelected.

...

Remember that in large parts of England Labour has long been losing ground. In 2005, the Tories actually won more votes in England than Labour. As the party’s traditional bases in Scotland and Wales begin to weaken, so it needs more people in England who will naturally vote for it. As they don’t exist, they must be found.

Even as I write these words I can scarcely believe them. That a political party should have put its narrow, selfish interests above those of the country on so enormously important a matter is deeply shocking. To me it is a thousand times more shocking than all the MPs’ expenses fiddles about which we have learned recently."

You can read more about this matter here, here, here and at other places under this search.