Monday, November 02, 2009

Overt overpopulation...

They really don't realise what a complete fuck-up they've made, do they? Home Secretary Alan Johnson has admitted that "the government has made mistakes in handling immigration" but as usual it's not quite as honest as you'd think he added that he accepted

"that governments of both persuasions, including this one, have been maladroit in their handling of this issue"...

Eh? What a lying hoon, this Labour government is THE one and only problem, no other: NET immigration quadrupled between 1997 and 2007. It has been well over three years since I posted on the Overwhelming open-door onslaught and Overcrowding or overeacting and what seems clear is that it certainly wasn't overreaction: nothing has changed and the numbers are clear: from 1991 to 1997 average net immigration was growth of just under 41 thousand per year (a high of 77 thousand in 1994 and in two of those years there was actually a slight decrease) In 1998 there was a leap of 200% and it hasn't dropped since (average of over 180 thousand for the ten years from 1998)!! What you say AJ is too little, too late. Last year we heard that NET immigration to the UK was 237,000; at the time Frank Field said,

"Today's figures will come as a shock to ministers. Net migration is much higher than expected. This means immigration has directly added a million people to the UK's population in just the past five years."

Of course we know WHY you're saying this now: this issue has well-and-truly raised it's head above the parapet after the SHOCKING [but half expected and generally presumed by those of us "of the right"] revelation last week that immigration was encouraged by Labour for political gain. So says Andrew Neather who was a Home Office adviser and speechwriter for Tony Blair. Looking at the figures there is NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER. All the increasing wooly-arsed Woolas could say was "this government has reintroduced border controls..."

The latest projections for growth confirm that immigration is "driving [the UK] population to new heights. If nothing is done, we will have an extra 10million people within 25 years - and nearly 70 per cent of them as a result of new immigration.". The words of Sir Andrew Green, Chairman of Migration Watch UK. "We must halt this conspiracy of silence over our immigration crisis": Read more.... And even more in Sir Andrew's letter to The Guardian last week: "The real threat of immigration" where he mentions an important fact: if the UK wants

"to stabilise our population at 65 million we need to reduce net immigration to zero."

...but of course that doesn't mean that there should be NO immigration as twits like Alan Johnson try to make out ("no sensible argument for immigration to cease altogether") it "means that immigration should be reduced to the level of emigration, which is currently about 100,000 a year." Still not enough for many but certainly a step in the right direction.

UK population trends Apologies for the vertitable "link fest"...

Bookmark and Share


Paul said...

I read your post when you put it up and have given it a couple of days to think about.

Of course it's a disgrace and the problem is mainly down to immigrants from non-EU countries or those who find their way here through the back door i.e those who acquire EU nationality from third party states. I don't know why we can't have a points based skills system, the perceived long term impact on wages and the environment is already the short term reality.

Span Ows said...

I'm sure the points based "skills" system is a natural follow-on from the general points based system that was introduced. Despite what I wrote in the blogpost I was genuinely surprised at the revelations of Neather, I know nothing was "official" but it does boggle the mind that petty fools with power can be so utterly stupid, very cut off your nose to spite your face.

Chris M said...

We have overshot the carrying capacity of the planet. By drawing down ecological capital, instead living off the returns of that capital, short term growth can be accomplished at the cost of reducing future carrying capacity, with generally disastrous results.