Blairite immigration propagandist smears UKIP

Former immigration minister Barbara Roche has claimed that “UKIP’s campaign needs to be exposed for what it is, a racist campaign.” It is, however, Ms Roche, who must be exposed

Who gains from immigration?
Vincent Cooper
On 2 May 2014 20:34

“UKIP’s campaign needs to be exposed for what it is, a racist campaign.” That statement comes from Barbara Roche, the former immigration minister who was at the heart of Tony Blair’s underhanded immigration policy that allowed over three million immigrants to come to Britain, entirely in defiance of democratic public opinion.

According to Andrew Neather, a Labour Party speech writer at the time, Barbara Roche, Tony Blair, and the whole Labour cabinet deliberately created mass immigration (much of it Third World and unskilled) “to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.”

So there we have it, the main purpose of Blair’s and Roche’s immigration policy was ideological, not economic. It also, of course, expanded Labour’s dependency clientele.

Now out of office, the same Barbara Roche continues to promote mass immigration to Britain as head of Migration Matters, a strongly pro-immigration propaganda organisation.

Roche’s Migration Matters Trust describes itself as a “cross party” grouping. As is so often the case, the expression “cross party” falsely suggests widespread popular support.

Barbara Roche is in fact the “chair” of Migration Matters, with two “co-chairs”, Lord Navnit Dholakia and Nadhim Zahawi, and the Director, Atul Hatwal.

Many would argue that Migration Matters is in fact little more than a pro-immigration leftist organisation that can be conveniently used by the mainstream parties who are running scared of UKIP.

Judging by Roche’s comments, UKIP appears to be the main target of her propaganda. But depicting Nigel Farage and the party as racist is simply the standard leftist way of closing down the immigration debate.

Barbara Roche is an unrepentant promoter of large-scale immigration (she rejects Labour’s public apology on immigration). On Radio 5 Live, she strongly suggested UKIP’s immigration policies were racist and attempted to justify more and more immigration on economic grounds.

Ms Roche claimed, for example, that the NHS would “grind to a halt” without immigrants. Such a claim is classic left-wing, dog-whistle politics.

Ms Roche ignores the inconvenient fact that immigrants are also patients in our hospitals and are therefore a cost. It is well established that immigrants disproportionately use public services, and on that basis alone it is likely there are more immigrants as patients in our hospitals than there are NHS immigrant workers.

On a more detailed look at the facts, MigrationWatch reports that a majority of births in London are to mothers born overseas. Statistically therefore, the majority of patients in London’s maternity hospitals would be foreign.

If London’s NHS maternity hospitals need immigrants, as Barbara Roche ludicrously claims, then they need immigrants to look after immigrants, a perverse problem caused by immigration, not solved by it.

Furthermore, a report in the Daily Telegraph quoted hospital consultants who stated that two thirds of AIDS patients in Britain’s hospitals came from abroad. Did Ms Roche factor the costs of treatment of these immigrants in her claims about the NHS?

Did Ms Roche include the astronomical costs of treating diabetes in the UK, predicted to rise to £17 billion per year by 2035, accounting for 17 percent of the NHS budget, figures likely, according to Diabetes UK, to “bankrupt the NHS”?

The question is relevant to immigration because, as a BBC report put it: “People from South Asia are six times more likely to develop Type 2 diabetes than the white members of the UK population.”

The BBC further reported that: “British people of South Asian, African or African Caribbean descent are significantly more likely to develop Type 2 diabetes than their European counterparts.”

To make these points is not to blame the immigrants. We mustn’t blame them.

But when high profile politicians such as Barbara Roche of Migration Matters make highly disputed public statements about the supposed economic benefits of immigration and accuse UKIP of racism for discussing the issues, then such points need to be openly discussed.

The truth about large-scale, uncontrolled immigration is that there are few, if any per capita benefits for the wider indigenous population.

A House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee reported:

We have found no evidence for the argument, made by the government, business and many others, that net immigration generates significant economic benefits for the existing UK population.

The same committee went on to make the important point that it is immigrants who benefit from immigration, not the wider community. London’s maternity hospitals with a majority of births to foreign-born mothers strikingly prove this point.

Barbara Roche can make her claim about the NHS “grinding to a halt” because she ignores all these inconvenient facts. The truth is that Barbara Roche is ideologically committed to large-scale immigration, irrespective of the economics.

Ms Roche had the same ideological commitment when she served under Tony Blair and allowed over three million immigrants to enter Britain, not for economic reasons (there were none), but “to rub the Right’s nose in diversity and render their arguments out of date.”

In truth, it is not UKIP’s campaign that needs to be exposed. UKIP, after all, represent majority opinion on uncontrolled immigration.

Rather, it is Barbara Roche of Migration Matters who needs to be exposed as a pro-immigration leftist who seeks to continue Tony Blair’s immigration policies. 

Vincent Cooper is a regular contributor to The Commentator

blog comments powered by Disqus