Deconstructing Britain by replacing her people with the Third World.
So now we know what Labour’s immigration policy was really about. The”open door” was not simply held ajar in order to admit a freshworkforce that would help to fill gaps in the growing economy. Nor wasit just a gesture of hospitality and goodwill to those who were fleeingfrom repressive or inhospitable regimes in order to seek a better life.Both of those aims would have been credible – if controversial and notthought-through in all their consequences. And so would the longer-termview that dynamic, cosmopolitan societies are generally healthier andmore productive than in-bred, isolated ones, or that immigrants whotend to be ambitious for themselves and their families could help tocounter the passivity and defeatism that tend to be endemic in theBritish class system. …
Properly understood, it is political dynamite. What it states quiteunequivocally was that mass immigration was being encouraged at leastas much for “social objectives” as for economic ones. Migration wasintended specifically to alter the demographic and cultural pattern ofthe country: to produce by force majeure the changes in attitude that the Labour government saw itself as representing.
Tony Blair’s “forces of conservatism” speech; his improbablepresentation of Britain as a “young country”; the advocacy of amulticultural society which would have to reassess its own history,replacing traditional pride with inherited guilt: all of this could befacilitated by a large influx of migrants whose presence in thepopulation would require the wholesale deconstruction of the country’ssense of its own identity.