In 1997 ‘New’ Labour produced a manifesto that outlined:

We will champion an open-border policy and allow permanent settlement of upwards of five million people from Third World countries. We intend to allow access to our labour markets to all citizens of the new EU accession countries, even though we know that other European countries won’t. We acknowledge that as a result of this unprecedented exercise in diversity, approximately five million indigenous workers will lose their jobs or see their wages depressed so that they would be better off on benefits. Since the new arrivals are in greater need than our own citizens, housing will be allocated on a needs basis, meaning that our own citizens will be discriminated against. The new arrivals from the Third World will dramatically increase the amount of TB, hepatitis and HIV cases. The NHS will be pushed to breaking point and the quality of schooling for your children will be adversely affected because of the multitude of languages spoken in the schools. Entire areas will become Islamised and de-facto sharia law applied in those areas. Rape and the grooming of vulnerable white girls will be a necessary and acceptable consequence of this policy. Anybody who tries to exercise his British rights (built up over a thousand years) and has the courage to speak out will be deemed a racist. If enough people are courageous and speak out, we will pass legislation that outlaws incitement to racial and religious hatred. Incitement in our terms means entirely valid criticism of a seventh-century tribal cult as evidenced in its written texts. We expect society to fragment and disintegrate. We also as a result of diversity will increase inequality by allowing the rich employers to get richer and the poor employees to get a lot poorer (unemployed) and utterly dependent upon government to survive. We expect the middle classes not to notice or speak out because by and large they will not be affected (until much later). We do not expect the British to protest our sweeping reforms. We will wholeheartedly embrace a policy of managed decline and your children will have to pay for our mistakes for the rest of their lives.

‘New’ Labour did not produce the above manifesto for public consumption. They were elected to power where they remained for thirteen years and implemented the above manifesto in full. They could only do it with the largest and most unprecedented credit bubble in the history of the world. The economic and social results are outlined below.

Britain is a nation addicted to a highly toxic and addictive trinity of welfare, immigration and debt that interrelate, intersect and mutually reinforce each other. We are fast approaching a tipping point where the end result is monetary collapse, with welfare implosion and ethnic conflict that would not be out of place in the Balkans.

The last Labour government pursued an immigration policy to make Britain a truly multicultural society with the parallel intention of creating a pool of Labour voters. This policy designed to “rub the Right’s nose in diversity” had the consequence of importing cheap immigrant labour that decimated the bargaining power of indigenous unskilled and semi-skilled workers.

It is not insignificant that the last government had to introduce a minimum wage (April 1999) and working/ child tax credits (April 2003) to supplement the earnings of the low paid, as families could no longer afford a reasonable standard of living on what has been termed a living wage. These two flagship welfare policies were enacted at exactly the same time as the virtual unrestrictive migration to Britain of cheap labour, very often from the Third World.

Simultaneously, the availability of low interest rates and ‘light-touch’ regulation allowed the state and individuals to amass ever-increasing amounts of debt at lower rates, very often secured by mortgages on the seemingly ever-increasing value of residential housing. This apparent economic prosperity fostered an illusion that all was well and sustainable.

If the economy and house prices expanded, cheap finance could be had and payments could always be met. When the bubble burst in 2008, Britain was left with zombie firms and households (only supported by bank forbearance), unaffordable personal consumption, a lack of investment and an interest rate on savings that was negative after inflation.

It quickly became evident that many British workers were better off on welfare and in-work benefits than working full-time. Workers particularly from Eastern Europe did the jobs that British workers were subsidised not to do because the benefits system made it unprofitable. Moreover, this had profoundly damaging effects on the social fabric of working class communities as they became a new underclass impervious to the need to work and the rise of the chav (‘council house and violent’) mentality. The breakdown of the family and in particular the demise of marriage as a bedrock of society left the unenviable consequence that one in four children grow up in a family where neither parent has ever worked.

In modern times it has become the norm to attribute the irresponsible behaviour of individuals to society and not the individual themselves. The responsible in society are therefore subsidising the irresponsible to act irresponsibly. Since this is positively reinforced through welfare and the impossibility of earning a similar or greater amount through work, this will continue unabated. When a nation insulates its citizens from responsibility by providing cradle-to-the-grave welfare and medical treatment it cannot do anything other than produce a permanently irresponsible adolescent citizen.

The unintended consequence of the Left’s welfare policy was to provide incentives to be feckless and reward immoral behaviour. Those on welfare have found that should they start work they would effectively be paying a tax rate of 85% (i.e. working for 15p for every pound earned after the removal of benefits) which removes any incentive to work. In a study cited in Chris Philp’s, “Work for the Dole: A proposal to fix welfare dependency“, 59% of welfare recipients agreed that welfare payments were too high and discouraged work.

At the same time the in-work benefits disproportionately provide advantages for Islamic communities who are for the most part self-employed in cash industries. Cash industries allow the much easier under-reporting of taxable earnings and therefore the over-claiming of in-work benefits. This has a knock-on effect of financing much larger families than the indigenous population which then makes them more eligible for public housing. All of this is financed by British taxpayers to effectively Islamise their own country.

Britain has become a divided ‘community of communities’ under the umbrella of multiculturalism.  Multiculturalism was modelled on everyone sharing broad values of being British within their own cultural framework. It was not expected that tribal forms of behaviour would survive in their historical form when they came face to face with the advantages of modernity and Western Civilization.

The struggle for race equality was perceived to be facilitated by multiculturalism, but it left in place cultural norms such as stoning and ‘honour’ violence abhorrent to a civilized nation. Conversely, the laws put in place to prevent incitement to racial and religious hatred and to promote race equality actually makes the propagation of Islam illegal in Britain. The Quran, Hadith and Sira all outline either organised discrimination against or execution of non-Muslims, women, homosexuals, adulterers, blasphemers and apostates. There are very few prohibitions concerning violence in Islam and many promoting violence against non-believers.

The British people had never been consulted on the unprecedented transformation taking place in their country. The coalition government has indicated that they will bring non-EU immigration down to the tens of thousands by 2015. When Enoch Powell made his “Birmingham Speech” in April 1968 immigration was running at 50,000 a year. In his “second” speech in November 1968 Powell outlined:

The English as a nation have their own peculiar faults. One of them is that strange passivity in the face of danger or absurdity or provocation, which has more than once in our history lured observers into false conclusions – conclusions sometimes fatal to the observers themselves – about the underlying intentions and the true determination of our people. What so far no one could accuse us of is a propensity to abandon hope in the face of severe and even seemingly insurmountable obstacles. Dejection is not one of our national traits; but we must be told the truth and shown the danger, if we are to meet it. Rightly or wrongly, I for my part believe that the time for that has come.

It is time for the British people to abandon the mainstream parties who have deceived and manipulated them into second class citizens, a minority in their capital city and a minority by 2064 (on current projections) in the rest of the country.