Some immigration facts

Two charts from the IPPR's investigation into Britain's Immigrants that I think are interesting. The first shows how the 1997-2010 Labour government opened Britain's borders in a deliberate move to massively increase immigration into the UK; both to 'rub the right's noses in diversity' and to create a Labour voting bloc that would ensure permanent Labour government. The second shows the differences between the nationalities of immigrants in terms of willingness to work.

Coming to a street near you

The murder of the Army drummer Lee Rigby on the streets of London last year was portrayed by the 'liberal' media as an aberration, a on-off. The Standard reports that another attack almost happened a couple of days ago:

'A man was charged today with plotting a terror attack on the streets of  London.

Brustchom Ziamani, 19, appeared in court charged with engaging in conduct in preparation of terrorist acts.

He was arrested on the street in Camberwell on Tuesday with a bag containing a hammer and a knife, a court heard. Both were wrapped in an Islamic flag, prosecutor Mark Dawson told Westminster magistrates court.

Jobless Ziamani, who appeared in court wearing a Call of Duty T-shirt, stood throughout the hearing.

He was arrested by Scotland Yard counter-terror detectives.

The prosecutor said there was  material that showed the defendant’s belief in jihad and his desire to go  to Syria to fight, but he did not have the means to do so. Ziamani, of Camberwell, understood to be a Muslim convert of Congolese origin, was first arrested in June and bailed.

Police seized his computer and examined three discs of material.'

This won't be the last attack (or attempted attack) by Islamists on the streets of London, Birmingham and elsewhere in the multi-cultural morass that the last Labour government created in their attempt to rub the right's nose in diversity.

Only one in five white Britons votes for Labour - Politics - News - London Evening Standard

'...  two thirds of non-white voters supported Labour, which received the backing of just one in five white British voters.

The analysis suggests that the migration of ethnic minority voters to the capital's inner suburbs is behind recent Labour victories there. '

Now do you see why Labour massively increased immigration whilst in government? Forward planning, they're not as stupid as you might think. They are as evil though.

More here http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/only-one-in-five-white-britons-votes-for-labour-9604547.html

Labour manifesto 'should include thing about killing all the rich people'

'As polls showed the Conservatives closing the gap, left-leaning think tanks told Miliband to be ‘more straightforward’ about threatening Britain’s wealthiest with firing squads.

In an open letter published in the Guardian, they said: “Go on, just do it. Everybody hates rich people, so it’ll be really popular.“

Also, promise to make all the nice things cheaper. Dead millionaires and cheap nice things. That’s how you win elections.”'

I think this is satire but with the Labour party who can tell...

More here http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/labour-manifesto-should-include-thing-about-killing-all-the-rich-people-2014032485000

Million migrants who don't even have a British passport could decide next election | UK | News | Daily Express

Labour's plan clear yet?

'Commonwealth migrants from 54 states including Australia, Canada, India, Pakistan and Nigeria can join the electoral roll on arrival in the UK as long as they have an address here.'

More here http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/425124/Million-migrants-who-don-t-even-have-a-British-passport-could-decide-next-election

Labour weren't stupid when they allowed massive immigration into the UK, they were calculating.

"Be quiet then while I speak"

The ever delightful Sion Simon



Thanks to Guido Fawkes for reminding me quite how vile Sion Simon is.

Peter Mandelson and immigration

Lord Mandelson said:

‘In 2004 when as a Labour government, we were not only welcoming people to come into this country to work, we were sending out search parties for people and encouraging them, in some cases, to take up work in this country.’

Remember that between 1997 and 2010, net migration to Britain totalled more than 2.2 million, that's more than twice the population of Birmingham.
Also remember that the annual net immigration figure quadrupled under Labour from 48,000 people in 1997 to 198,000 by 2009.

It was Andrew Neather who let the cat out of the bag when he revealed why the Labour government deliberately opened "up the UK to mass migration" - It was at least in part due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity".

Remember that in this piece I reported the very senior civil servant who said ‘When I was at the Treasury, I argued for the most open door possible to immigration [because] I saw it as my job to maximise global welfare not national welfare.’

Also remember this about the effect of immigration on jobs.

'The myth peddled by Blair's acolytes – that high levels of immigration generated significant economic benefits for the existing UK population – was demolished in 2008 by a House of Lords select committee. It concluded: "We do not support the general claims that net immigration is indispensable to fill labour and skills shortages. Such claims are analytically weak and provide insufficient reason for promoting net immigration." Reinforcing this point, the government's Migration Advisory Committee recently confirmed that immigrants do "displace" some British workers – ie, take their jobs, most likely those at the bottom end of the pay ladder.' 

Nobody should let any Labour  spokesman get away with any comments on immigration, when in power they deliberately engineered a massive rise in immigration, a rise they didn't control because they didn't want to control it. Now as British cities are increasingly split into mono-cultural ghettos and inter-race tensions rise, we are simply reaping the fruits of Labour's policies.


As an aside here's a brief summary of the numbers of people who immigrated to the UK through history:
Hugenots - 40,000-50,000 in 17th century
Indians - 80,000 pre First World War
Africans - Around 15,000 pre First World War
Germans - Around 50,000 pre First World War
East European Jews - 120,000 pre First World War and maybe another 25,000 pre Second World War
Others fleeing Nazi Europe - 50,0000

Let's compare that with immigration post 1997.
Total net migration to the UK rose sharply from 1998 onwards, with levels being above 150,000 in all but one year since 1999. That's 150,000 a year but that's net of Brits leaving the UK.  So an average of 150,000 net is equivalent to half of the immigration to this country across 300 years. Remember that the next time you're told that we've always had immigration into the UK. Also remember that when you hear David Cameron hailing as a success cutting net immigration to under 100,000 a year.

John O'Farrell was sorry that the Brighton bomb didn't kill Margaret Thatcher. Was his disappointment eased by the injuries incurred by my wife? – Telegraph Blogs

Norman Tebbit poses a good question, one that Ed Miliband will surely fail to address.

 'John O'Farrell was sorry that the Brighton bomb didn't kill Margaret Thatcher. Was his disappointment eased by the injuries incurred by my wife?'

So come on Ed Miliband where do you stand on prospective Labour MPs being on record stating that they previously wished Lady Thatcher dead?

Does this photo give us a clue?

BBC News - Duncan Smith condemns tax credits as 'not fit for purpose'

"In the years between 2003 and 2010, Labour spent a staggering £171bn on tax credits, contributing to a 60% rise in the welfare bill," Mr Duncan Smith said.

He also accused previous Labour governments of boosting tax credit payments ahead of the last two general elections in "an attempt to gain short-term popularity".

"It knew what it was doing - this was a calculated attempt to win votes," he said.

An interesting article on BBC -
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20873180

As yet no Labour response, but one will be up soon I am sure. I wonder how they will deny what is demonstrably true? This Labour policy of giving state money to as many people as possible rather than reducing taxes, always struck me as a way of buying votes...

Three wise monkeys?

It would seem that of the last Labour misgovernment, one was blind in one eye (Gordon Brown) and one had partial deafness (Jack Straw). So that's 'see no evil' and 'hear no evil'. Somehow I don't think I'll find a 'speak no evil' amongst that lot.

All you need to know about Ed Miliband

Posing with a youth wearing a t-shirt bearing the slogan - 'Thatcher - A generation of Trade Unionists will dance on Thatcher's grave'. I thought Gordon Brown's moral compass was broken, well it looks as though Ed Miliband hasn't even got one.

This photo is not a new one, in fact I may have posted it before. The furore over the “Ding Dong Thatcher’s Gone” party packs for sale at the TUC conference this week reminded me of Ed Miliband's previous attitude to such sentiments.

Ed Balls' and Ed Miliband's role in the sale of much of UK gold must be recalled and they must be reminded of it - £10bn cost so far

'In 1997 Gordon Brown decided to consider disposing of part of this nation's Gold reserves. With Gold in a prolonged bear phase, happily the treasury consulted the advice of key figures in the financial markets, commodities and gold analysts not to mention their friends at the Bank of England

To a man they said, by all metrics and technical analyses, Gold was coming to the end of a bear phase, and to sell, especially at a time when the coffers were relatively healthy would be folly. So Brown, the man who said to parliament and the nation that he knew better than the market, ignored them.

Treasury documents released under a freedom of information request in 2010 showed that Ed Balls and Ed Miliband were both copied into correspondence on the gold sale, while working as Special Advisers to Gordon Brown at the time. Ed Balls is cc-ed in to the correspondence on pages 5, 12, 13, 14, 16, and 17 of the documents released by the Treasury. Ed Miliband is also cc-ed on p. 14 of the releases.

As the Times reported at the time, ‘Key Treasury advisers including Ed Balls and Ed Miliband, were copied in to the correspondence', as were David Miliband and Shriti (now Baroness) Vadera, for whose green shoots of 2009 the nation still waits.

It has been argued that there was something about Gold - the fact that it remains a sedentary instrument, producing nothing, acquiring value for its own sake - that offended Brown and Balls' political sensibilities. At the time, the Treasury said it wanted to "achieve a better balance in the portfolio" by increasing the proportion of reserves held in foreign currency. With nearly 50 percent of the net foreign currency reserves invested in Gold, the exposure to a single asset was too great, it said.

So the idea was to sell Gold and to put the money to 'better use'. To this end one is minded of the child who, finding a tin of paint, is minded to make Daddy's Jag look nicer. Gordon decided to invest in interest-bearing Bonds by dint of the fact that they would produce an income. Work for the nation or some such nonsense. You can hear the crash of endowment investors' heads smashing against desks across the land. As one wag put it, "Brown seemed to only have one eye on the market, and it wasn't the good one."

Defenders of Brown, and therefore the two Eds, posit the bizarre argument that it was done with the best of intentions, that there was sound fiscal reasoning behind wanting a more secure diversified portfolio etc etc. Furthermore, that at the time the price was realistic and that no-one can tell the future, and so on.

But woeful ignorance of the markets and incompetence is not the real sin here. What is, and remains forever unforgivable, is the breathtaking arrogance with which Brown and Balls completely ignored expert advice not only that Gold could well be at the bottom of a bear cycle, but also as to how NOT to conduct a sale of that size.

And let's not be politically partisan about this. This from the lefties at Liberal Conspiracy: "When it comes to the matter of how the Gold was sold, it really does seem that Brown didn’t know how to best sell gold – and more damningly – didn’t try to find out the best way either. By announcing the sale in advance it is reckoned that he depressed the market by around 10%. Record numbers of investors took up “short” positions on Gold in anticipation of the sale."

That arrogance alone cost the nation something in the region of £350m and it really does beg the question why Brown behaved in such a fashion. Ed Balls still hasn't explained that one away.

According to the BBC's Robert Peston, the sale was 'the least well-timed investment decisions of this or any age. Gordon Brown’s sale of 395 tonnes of our gold in 17 auctions between July 1999 and March 2002 achieved in those disposals, $275.6/oz.

At the time Peston revealed, "The $3.5bn of revenue raised in the sales was invested in interest-bearing assets denominated in dollars, euros and yen to the extent of 40%, 40% and 20% respectively. So to calculate the true net loss to the taxpayer, I would have to adjust for the yield on these assets and movements in the value of those currencies. And I don’t have enough information on precisely what was bought and when to make that calculation." Indeed.

However, since then, estimates put the net proceeds of Brown's trading efforts on the plus side at £3bn, so at today's price, around $1600/oz, the nation is still nursing a net loss of just under £10bn and climbing.'

That's Jonathan Bracey-Gibbon from an article in The Commentator.

The failure of the 'Conservative' Prime Minister and his 'Conservative' Chancellor to try and hold the last Labour government to account for the stupidity or wilfully destructive nature of many of their decisions appals me. The Labour government were blaming the 1979-1997 for all the ills of the country for most of the 1997-2010 period. The Labour government were aided in this by the BBC who were happy to blame the Conservatives for everything that was wrong. Since 2010 the BBC have happily reset the clocks to zero and all problems are due entirely to Torry toffs being out of touch.

'At last we know the truth: Labour despises anyone who loves Britain, its values and its history'

Take a read of this recent Melanie Phillips article; can you disagree?

'Of all the issues of concern to the public, immigration is possibly the most explosive - and the one about which the most lies are continuing to be told.

During the period that Labour has been in office, mass immigration has simply changed the face of Britain. The total number of immigrants since 1997 is pushing three million.

Ministers claim that immigration policy has been driven principally to help the economy. They have always denied that they actually set out deliberately to change the ethnic composition of the country.

Well, now we know for a certainty that this is not true. The Government embarked on a policy of mass immigration to change Britain into a multicultural society - and they kept this momentous aim secret from the people whose votes they sought.

Worse still, they did this knowing that it ran directly counter to the wishes of those voters, whose concerns about immigration they dismissed as racist; and they further concealed official warnings that large-scale immigration would bring about significant increases in crime.

The truth about this scandal was first blurted out last October by Andrew Neather, a former Labour Party speechwriter.

He wrote that until the new points-based system limiting foreign workers was introduced in 2008 - in response to increasing public uproar - government policy for the previous eight years had been aimed at promoting mass immigration.

The 'driving political purpose' of this policy, wrote Neather, was 'to make the UK truly multicultural' - and one subsidiary motivation was 'to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date'.'

Do read the whole article and for more about Andrew Neather try reading here.

What is about it about some Labour politicians and Israel?

Just this week we have had the news of Ken Livingstone reaffirming his stand to invite and embrace, when London mayor in 2004, the Islamist cleric Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, who condoned suicide bombing against Israeli target. Since then Yusuf Al-Qaradawi has said the following:

"Throughout history, Allah has imposed upon the (Jews) people who would punish them for their corruption. The last punishment was carried out by Hitler. By means of all the things he did to them – even though they exaggerated this issue – he managed to put them in their place. This was divine punishment for them. Allah willing, the next time will be at the hand of the believers."

The man Ken Livingstone embraced and still refuses to condemn has also condoned Palestinian attacks on Israelis. In 2005 defending bombings against Israeli civilians, al-Qaradawi said on BBC's Newsnight that:

"An Israeli woman is not like women in our societies, because she is a soldier."
"I consider this type of martyrdom operation as an evidence of God's justice."
"Allah Almighty is just; through his infinite wisdom he has given the weak a weapon the strong do not have and that is their ability to turn their bodies into bombs as Palestinians do".

I have also read that Ken Livingstone's embracee also considers pregnant women and their unborn babies to be valid targets on the ground that the babies could grow up to join the Israeli Army.

So that's Ken Livingstone, just an isolated senior member of the Labour party? Well no, there's also Paul Flynn who in December accused the British Ambassador to Israel of having "divided loyalties" because he is Jewish. Would Paul Flynn accuse a British Ambassador to a Muslim country of having "divided loyalties" because he is a Muslim?

But that's just two? Unfortunately not. Take a read of this piece from Harry's Place (posted last October) which lists the various Labour MPs who were scheduled to appear alongside Raed Salah. Who is Raed Salah I hear you ask?

' * He has claimed that Jews baked “the blood of children” into their “holy bread” – the ancient and vicious blood libel.
* He has claimed that 4,000 Jews skipped work at the World Trade Centre on 9/11 and suggested that Israel carried out the 9/11 attacks.
* He has cited so-called Franklin Prophecy: a Nazi forgery in which Benjamin Franklin supposedly warns America about Jews
* He attended the launch of the Mavi Marmara and incited violence on board. At the launch ceremony and on board Mavi Marmara passengers chanted a notorious extremist slogan, commemorating a massacre of Arabian Jews: “Khaybar! Khaybar! Oh Jews! The army of Mohammed will return!”.
* He chuckled at the memory of taunting a Jewish teacher with a Swastika in a friendly chat with fellow extremist Azzam “Kaboom” Tamimi on Al-Hiwar TV, a TV channel based in London that serves the Muslim Brotherhood .
* He wrote an antisemitic poem which used various theological references to Jews, including: “The Creator meant for you to be monkeys and losers … you are the bacteria of all times”, which clearly refer to Jews generally.
* He has admitted funding Hamas, for which he served two years in prison. Hamas leaders have hailed him and rallied to his cause. Recently the terrorist group named a football pitch after him.
* He has been named as a trustee of the Union of Good, a Hamas funding organisation, and has worked closely with Interpal, the British charity that serves Hamas.
* His hosts in the UK have included some of the country’s worst extremists, such as Daud Abdullah and Ismail Patel, and a fellow speaker on his ill-fated tour was to be Ahmad Nofal of the Jordanian Muslim Brotherhood. Nofal too has been banned from the UK.
* He claims that homosexuality is a “great crime” which signals “the start of the collapse of every society”.'

Which Labour MPs were due to appear alongside Raed Salah before the event was cancelled due to his arrest?
Jeremy Corbyn, Yasmin Qureshi and Richard Burden, along with Martin Linton who whilst no longer an MP does run Labour Friends of Palestine.

What is odd is that the Labour leader, Ed Miliband, a man who on occasions appears in the British Jewish press expressing his support for Jews in Britain and for Israel's right to exist in peace, has not uttered a word of reproach to these Labour politicians. Instead Ed Miliband, thought it appropriate to honour two of them and some others at the Labour party conference:

"I want to pay tribute to Simon Danczuk, to Andy Slaughter, and to Richard Burden, first of all, as well as Martin Linton, who is here, for the work they do."

So Ed Miliband are you going to take a stand now against these senior members of the Labour party that you allegedly lead? Not sure? Here's your party's candidate for London Mayor again...

So Ed Miliband is that a sentiment that you can go along with? So Ed Miliband is that the sentiment of someone you are happy to be Labour's candidate for London Mayor?

As for the Jewish Chronicle, the Jewish Weekly News and the rest of the Jewish press in Britain; the next time Ed Miliband tells you of his support for the Jewish community, ask him about how he squares that with his support for Ken Livingstone, Paul Flynn, Jeremy Corbyn, Yasmin Qureshi, Richard Burden, and Martin Linton.

What is going on in British universities?

What is going on in British universities? I ask because this 2010 Washington Times article popped up in my inbox.

'Nearly one-third of Muslim college students in Britain support killing in the name of religion, while 40 percent want to live under Islamic law, according to a secret cable from the U.S. Embassy in London that reviewed public polling data and government population predictions.

A survey of 600 Islamic and 800 non-Islamic students at 30 universities found that 32 percent of the Muslims believed in religious killing, while only 2 percent of non-Muslim students felt religious murder was justified, the cable said, referring to a poll conducted by the Center for Social Cohesion.

The embassy cable, released by the anti-secrecy website WikiLeaks, said the same survey revealed that 54 percent of Muslim students want to be represented by an Islamic-based political party.

The poll also showed that 40 percent of Muslim students endorse Islamic, or Shariah, law, which can impose the death penalty for religious heresy and adultery, often by stoning, or the amputation of hands for theft. Since 2008, Britain has allowed Muslims to follow Shariah law in civil cases, but not in criminal trials.

The embassy report, written in February, also noted that Muslims represent the largest non-Christian religious community in Britain. Although Muslims comprise only 3 percent of the British population of nearly 60 million, they have grown to 2 million from 1.6 million in seven years. The government projects the Muslim population will reach 2.2 million in the next census in 2011, the cable said.'

Does that figure of 32% worry you? It worries the hell out of me.

Who's to blame? Islamist preachers - yes. The last Labour government's insane immigration policy - yes. The BBC for fostering a poor Muslims culture - yes.