The Voice Of Immigrationism
"I own 3 care homes. 40% of my staff are from abroad. Why? Because the local staff a) want too much money to make the business worthwhile 2) they are always going sick 3) don’t want to actually do anything when they are at work 4) do not want to train to provide higher standards of care 5) don’t like to do some of the jobs within the home. Overseas staff give none of this headache - and a lot of them are very highly educated.
Local brickies, plasterers, labourers, tilers etc all want paying a lot. The overseas people come in and do it for half the money - and do a job 10 times better.
Without people spending money and companies employing people the economy grinds to a halt and then government loses tax money to invest in healthcare etc. There you go. 1st reason.
Another good thing is they bring cultural diversity. A redneck hillbilly hermit may not want diversity but those of us who value self-improvement and knowledge welcome it.
Oh and by the way, you want old people looked after? Most asians would never dream of sending their parents to a care home - no matter how ill they were - so your comment shows you to be much more selfish than you want to appear . Also, have you not read all the news over the last few years about how badly some folk are treated in care homes?
No, didn’t think so." -
Commentor 'Gooner', over at Tim Worstall's.
This individual seems to think that in comparison to foreigners, the native British working class are lazy, grasping, stupid, unbiddable and unloving. In comparison to a foreigner, a member of the native British working class is more likely to abuse a person in their care. Foreigners are automatically more competent than the native British working class. The hallmark of 'self-improvement and knowledge' is acceptance of the diversity agenda, otherwise known as The Insider's Plan For The Annihilation of What's Left of Western Civilisation; if one does not subscribe to this agenda, presumably one is incapable of self-improvement and disinterested in knowledge - indeed, one can be casually dismissed as a 'redneck hillbilly hermit'. The right to private profit supercedes the stress caused to others by public policy (or the lack thereof) which benefits businesses over individuals - another example of us jumping back 200 years in time.
Whichever granny farmer wrote this gives every appearance of being an anti-British racialist who hates the native British working class with what can only be described as fervour; yet this has been the voice that has been allowed to drive the immigration agenda for 40 years.
We are told that the cradle Communist David Aaronovitch is now reconstructed. We accept this because he sometimes writes sensible things, and seems like a good chap. The British are like that; they naturally trust what those in authority tell them, because they assume that their leaders are acting in their best interests. That's a consequence of having had centuries of stable government.
Using the bully pulpit of the column in 'The Times' which somebody deemed his opinions worthy of, he writes,
"The BNP has never been, and never will be fashionable. It represents anti-fashion, the reaction of the unconsulted and unconsidered (as they like to think of themselves). The difficulty is that, in Britain, the slightly angry silent majority is never going to embrace an organisation that is seen as less than respectable."
Having been a member of fringe parties, presumably he knows of what he speaks; however, he fails to grasp just why the BNP is seen as being less than respectable; or perhaps he knows very well indeed. Members of the BNP do not think of themselves as being 'unconsidered and unconsulted' without good cause; the United Kingdom, the country of which they are citizens, has never had any significant debate on immigration. Their country has been irrevocably altered without their consent, and the failure of any mainstream political party to address their concerns has driven them into the arms of one whose views are sniffily dismissed as 'less than respectable', by those who changed their country without giving them their voice.
In 2005, the Conservative Party campaigned half-heartedly under the slogan 'It's not racist to discuss immigration'. As slogans go, it was nowhere near as catchy as 'It's Morning in America', or 'Yes, We Can'; but such was the Tories' fear of being dismissed as 'less than respectable' by, say, former Communists that they didn't even really seem to try to engage the public on the issue.
That's been the problem with the immigration debate all along - those who shout loudest are the ones most likely to get heard. British culture, the acme of deference and circumspection, was always going to be the loser in this fight.