Carrying on with the BNP theme, what do posters make of this. I quess
it would depend on whether one thinks multiculturalism is good or bad.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Ex-Government-Adviser-Andrew-Neather-Says-Mass-Immigration-To-UK-Was-Deliberate/Article/200910415414170?lpos=Politics_Second_Home_Page_Article_Teaser_Region_5&lid=ARTICLE_15414170_Ex-Government_Adviser_Andrew_Neather_Says_Mass_Immigration_To_UK_Was_Deliberate_

Labour ministers deliberately encouraged mass immigration to diversify
Britain over the past decade, a former Downing Street adviser has
claimed.

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.
Mr Neather worked as a speechwriter for Tony Blair and in the Home
Office for Jack Straw and David Blunkett.

"Mass migration was the way that the Government was going to make the
UK truly multicultural," he wrote in in the London Evening Standard.
"I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense
that the policy was intended - even if it wasn't its main purpose - to
rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of
date."

In message <f42073aa-71b3-40f3-b893-37f6d3b10a0a@b18g2000vbl.googlegroup
s.com>, jonah  writes
>Carrying on with the BNP theme, what do posters make of this. I quess
>it would depend on whether one thinks multiculturalism is good or bad.
>
>http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Ex-Government-Adviser-Andrew-
>Neather-Says-Mass-Immigration-To-UK-Was-Deliberate/Article/200910415414
>170?lpos=Politics_Second_Home_Page_Article_Teaser_Region_5&lid=ARTICLE_
>15414170_Ex-Government_Adviser_Andrew_Neather_Says_Mass_Immigration_To_
>UK_Was_Deliberate_
>
>Labour ministers deliberately encouraged mass immigration to diversify
>Britain over the past decade, a former Downing Street adviser has
>claimed.
>
>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.
>Mr Neather worked as a speechwriter for Tony Blair and in the Home
>Office for Jack Straw and David Blunkett.
>
>"Mass migration was the way that the Government was going to make the
>UK truly multicultural," he wrote in in the London Evening Standard.
>"I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense
>that the policy was intended - even if it wasn't its main purpose - to
>rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of
>date."

I wouldn't be surprised. However I think it is more about the labour
market than multicultural. The population is ageing and there are too
few young people which means in a few years a lot fewer tax payers
supporting a much larger retired community (that are living longer)

Swine flue is something that would help solve the situation by removing
the older population with other medical problems that cost a lot of
money. By raising the retirement age the fit ones can continue
working... or am I just too cynical?

When retirement age was set people only lived a few years past 65 to mid
70's now many live in to their 90's  The pensions are funding an extra
decade or two more then intended.


-- 
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills  Staffs  England     /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

jonah wrote:
> Carrying on with the BNP theme, what do posters make of this. I quess
> it would depend on whether one thinks multiculturalism is good or bad.
> 
> http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Ex-Government-Adviser-Andrew-Neather-Says-Mass-Immigration-To-UK-Was-Deliberate/Article/200910415414170?lpos=Politics_Second_Home_Page_Article_Teaser_Region_5&lid=ARTICLE_15414170_Ex-Government_Adviser_Andrew_Neather_Says_Mass_Immigration_To_UK_Was_Deliberate_
> 
> Labour ministers deliberately encouraged mass immigration to diversify
> Britain over the past decade, a former Downing Street adviser has
> claimed.
> 
> 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.
> Mr Neather worked as a speechwriter for Tony Blair and in the Home
> Office for Jack Straw and David Blunkett.
> 
> "Mass migration was the way that the Government was going to make the
> UK truly multicultural," he wrote in in the London Evening Standard.
> "I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense
> that the policy was intended - even if it wasn't its main purpose - to
> rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of
> date."
> 

I would have to believe that the move to swamp England with 3rd world 
debris has it origins much longer than 10 years ago.

The move to swamp USA with the same started in the mid 1960's, largely 
through the efforts of now [thankfully] deceased Ted Kennedy.

Chris H wrote:

> In message <f42073aa-71b3-40f3-b893-37f6d3b10a0a@b18g2000vbl.googlegroup
> s.com>, jonah  writes
>>Carrying on with the BNP theme, what do posters make of this. I quess
>>it would depend on whether one thinks multiculturalism is good or bad.
>>
>>http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Ex-Government-Adviser-Andrew-
>>Neather-Says-Mass-Immigration-To-UK-Was-Deliberate/Article/200910415414
>>170?lpos=Politics_Second_Home_Page_Article_Teaser_Region_5&lid=ARTICLE_
>>15414170_Ex-Government_Adviser_Andrew_Neather_Says_Mass_Immigration_To_
>>UK_Was_Deliberate_
>>
>>Labour ministers deliberately encouraged mass immigration to diversify
>>Britain over the past decade, a former Downing Street adviser has
>>claimed.
>>
>>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.
>>Mr Neather worked as a speechwriter for Tony Blair and in the Home
>>Office for Jack Straw and David Blunkett.
>>
>>"Mass migration was the way that the Government was going to make the
>>UK truly multicultural," he wrote in in the London Evening Standard.
>>"I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense
>>that the policy was intended - even if it wasn't its main purpose - to
>>rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of
>>date."
> 
> I wouldn't be surprised. However I think it is more about the labour
> market than multicultural. The population is ageing and there are too
> few young people which means in a few years a lot fewer tax payers
> supporting a much larger retired community (that are living longer)
> 
> Swine flue is something that would help solve the situation by removing
> the older population with other medical problems that cost a lot of
> money. By raising the retirement age the fit ones can continue
> working... or am I just too cynical?
> 

Swine flu, unlike the seasonal variant, seems to disproportionately affect 
younger people rather than the over-60s, which is why when I go to get my 
annual jab in a few weeks' time I don't expect (as a 66 year old) to be 
offered the swine flu jab as well.

> When retirement age was set people only lived a few years past 65 to mid
> 70's now many live in to their 90's  The pensions are funding an extra
> decade or two more then intended.
> 
> 

The fact is that, since Robert Maxwell showed how companies could raid 
occupational pension schemes and get away with it, they have all been 
systematically underfunding them in order to pay ever greater amounts of 
pension and bonuses to senior executives. Thus, people who paid into these 
funds all their lives have been denied the full value of their pensions. 
Also, the insurance industry has for many years made hay by virtue of the 
fact that by law people were forced to convert their pension pots on 
retirement into annuities that gave a very poor return, with no option to 
take their savings and invest elsewhere until only recently.

In addition, since Thatcher the link between pensions and inflation has 
ceased to exist, such that the State has also underfunded state pensions. 
Not to mention, of course, Gordon Brown's stealth tax on pension funds, 
which reduced the value of British pension funds from 1997 by £100 billion.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1531448/Browns-raid-on-pensions-
costs-Britain-100-billion.html
http://bit.ly/Ndmsp

-- 
Facts are sacred ... but comment is free

On 26 Oct, 09:51, Jesse  wrote:
> jonah wrote:
> > Carrying on with the BNP theme, what do posters make of this. I quess
> > it would depend on whether one thinks multiculturalism is good or bad.
>
> >http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Ex-Government-Adviser-Andre...
>
> > Labour ministers deliberately encouraged mass immigration to diversify
> > Britain over the past decade, a former Downing Street adviser has
> > claimed.
>
> > 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.
> > Mr Neather worked as a speechwriter for Tony Blair and in the Home
> > Office for Jack Straw and David Blunkett.
>
> > "Mass migration was the way that the Government was going to make the
> > UK truly multicultural," he wrote in in the London Evening Standard.
> > "I remember coming away from some discussions with the clear sense
> > that the policy was intended - even if it wasn't its main purpose - to
> > rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments out of
> > date."
>
> I would have to believe that the move to swamp England with 3rd world
> debris has it origins much longer than 10 years ago.
>
> The move to swamp USA with the same started in the mid 1960's, largely
> through the efforts of now [thankfully] deceased Ted Kennedy.

The way I see it is that I have always know the UK to have some ethnic
minority
communities, which is fair enough, but now the situation has become
totally obscene.
Many areas have have become like little separate nation states.

Now I love a curry, chinese and have not been adverse to splitting a
bit of mahogany in the past.
I have been to India and love the Hindu culture. I am even married to
someone who is part native Canadian
and have lived in a first nation community.

This is not going to effect me personally, but I would not want my
grand children to wake up to the call of prayer
in their own homeland, neither do I want then to walk in fear at night
because if they were to get mugged by ethnics the police and courts
will do nothing.

I know this may seen harsh and will offend some liberals but when the
time comes when they are given the choice of putting their hands on
the Koran and having their foreskin hacked off, or living in
Dimmitude, which will happen at current trends, maybe they will think
again and wish they could be transported back to a different time.

"jonah"  pointed to ...

> 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.

To fill gaps in the labour market certainly, and that's not been hidden from 
anyone ( and has been and is Tory policy as well ), but to further 
multi-culturism is a harder call to make.

Even Neather says, "I remember coming away from some discussions with the 
clear sense that the policy was intended - even if it wasn't its main 
purpose - to rub the Right's nose in diversity and render their arguments 
out of date", so that's just his feeling rather than any absolute proof of 
definitive intention, and even seemingly admits it wasn't the main purpose. 
It may well be that a secondary effect of this filling the labour market 
would be to score political points and annoy some opponents but that's very 
different to doing it to achieve that or actually bring diversification.

It's akin to arguing Tories choosing to use private couriers over Royal Mail 
to save costs, while knowing that would also be a snub to a unionised 
industy, made their decision to snub the Royal Mail.

Blurring intent and conseqence gives all the hallmaks of a conspiracy theory 
with a weak basis in fact, and sounds more like mud slinging than anything 
else. One could equally say Tory policy on immigration is also actually 
about diversification; just that it hasn't been confirmed by a 
whistle-blower yet.

The only way to give the claim legs is to prove Labour had a policy of 
ethnic diversification without reference to this particular allegation, and 
to show that immigration policy wasn't driven by a desire to fill the labour 
market.

"jonah"  wrote ...

Somewhat pertinent to the debate are Neather's own comments ....

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23760648-how-i-became-the-story-and-why-the-right-is-wrong.do

<quotes>

When I find that not only have I become the story, in the row over Labour's 
immigration policy, but that my views have been twisted out of all 
recognition, I have to respond.

As a ministerial speechwriter in a former career, in 2000 I penned a key 
speech for the then immigration minister Barbara Roche, which mooted changes 
to make it easier for skilled workers to come to the UK.

Multiculturalism was not the primary point of the report or the speech. The 
main goal was to allow in more migrant workers at a point when - hard as it 
is to imagine now - the booming economy was running up against skills 
shortages.

But my sense from several discussions was there was also a subsidiary 
political purpose to it - boosting diversity and undermining the Right's 
opposition to multiculturalism.

I was not comfortable with that. But it wasn't the main point at issue.

Somehow this has become distorted by excitable Right-wing newspaper 
columnists into being a "plot" to make Britain multicultural.

There was no plot.

</quotes>