The four in five story that compares the NHS to like Lidl and Aldi

LIBERALS tell us that without the foreign doctors and nurses the NHS would implode. I have never believed this, but it makes a good story to tell when arguing against those who dispute the benefits of mass migration.

            

            The other day we were told that four in five new nurses recruited by the NHS are foreign. After reading this I thought; what on earth is happening to our state education system when we have to import Poles to make sandwiches (a 'skill' we no longer, it seems, posses), or work in department stores – and now we cannot even produce home grown nurses? These stories may have added grist to the liberal mill; but if they are true then the state of our liberal comprehensive educational system is more wretched than I first believed.

            

             But we now learn the "four in five" story can be explained by unscrupulous tailoring of the truth to benefit the pro-mass migrant cause; and it throws the ball back into the liberal court and demolishes the NHS foreign worker dependency argument. It is a canard and a deliberately created one. The idea that the one state provisioned institution that the British people have any great affection for would collapse if foreign workers did not become its rampart, was no doubt ment to persuade into a more welcoming frame of mind regarding mass-migration, the British people.

WE NOW LEARN that the NHS receives 100,000 training applications for 20,000 training places each year. We also learn that its costs £70,000 to train a nurse for three years – for the same amount the NHS can recruit three trained foreigners; 6,000 of whom were recruited last year.

            

            Nurses in their 40s who left to start families cannot find jobs to return to; on top of which the government has cut the number of nursing places from 20,829 in 2009/10 to 17,219 in 2012/13 – although it rose last year to 19,206[1]

            

            What this seems to be telling me is that the NHS is looking abroad, not because they cannot recruit at home, but because it is cheaper to recruit abroad …cutting out the need to train home grown candidates for the nursing profession. It has nothing to do with supply as our liberals believed it to be from the "four in five" story.

            

            This tells us that the NHS are recruiting nurses (as well as doctors directly from countries like Pakistan, and India), where they are desperately needed within their own countries. What do the liberal's feel about this? When the liberals get the wrong end of an argument, silence usually descends until provoked, by a new set of circumstances surrounding a new topic.

THIS COUNTRY can adequately supply its own nurses without the need to look abroad. We look abroad for economic reasons, and not for any perceived shortage. It is cheaper to buy abroad than it is to teach home grown nursing talent – just as it is to pick sprouts in a field in Lincolnshire.

WHEN IT COMES to mass migration and the liberal middle classes living in the better class of London residency; it is to their benefit that such migration occurs.

           

            In India during the years of the British Empire; those civil servants sent from the UK to help govern it on our monarchs behalf, left a country where their lower middle class status bought very little in terms of the employment of servants service their needs. But once in India servants were literally two a penny. Despite being minor civil servants comparable to a worker in today's benefits agency – once in India they were ranked well above what they would have been in the UK.

            

            So it is with mass-migration. The London liberal middle classes can now afford to employ servants from Europe, under the free movement of people's directive; as well as from other parts of the world. Oversees servants who could barely eke out a living, for instance in parts of Asia (the Philippines) came to London and received free board and lodging and a minimum wage, not a national one of course, but their employers concept of one.

            

             Mass migration has served the London Metropolitan elite very well, and they see no reason to halt its progress throughout the rest of the country; and anyone who opposes such an entrenchment within our culture is crowned a racist. It seems to me that it is not from the Right that Orwell's dystopian vision embedded in his novel Nineteen Eighty-Four will sprout; but from the Left, with their apocalyptic vision of a continental super state built upon multicultural foundations  -  foundations built not upon inclusion but diversity. For multiculturalism is all about diversity.

THE METROPOLITAN liberals love the importation of cheap labour. To them, it is like shopping at Aldi. Human labour has been cheapened by the free movement of peoples and globalisation. The London liberal elite opposes any attempt to stop mass-migration because it serves their needs. They of course will dress up any opposition in the rhetoric of racism.

            

            Liberals are the archetypical hypocrites when it comes their own self-interest. They will campaign and protest, and author letters to the press on behalf of the poor, or any other liberal cause. But when their individual needs conflict with their high minded liberal principles; it is their personal needs which will always overrule their 'idealism'.

            

            Mass immigration has no conceivable benefit to the country  -  only to employers and the middle class liberalista. Since the time of Enoch Powell when a mere 50,000 migrants entered the country annually;  we now have 500,000 entering, not including the illegals: and to pretend as do the liberals, that such numbers will have little impact on the NHS, education, housing, or the welfare state, contradicts the mathematics of volume on the  people of any society from such a large intake of migrants. The liberalista are living in the twilight zone from where they carry their back- pack of a liberal conscience. They believe themselves to be welcoming in employing immigrants (especially as cheap servants). In doing so they care little for the impact their "welcome" has on the indigenous population.

            

             The liberal conscience only concerns itself with immigration and not the white indigenous people whose lives are being disorientated and even laid low by the influx. The white working class are despised by the social liberals within the two main political parties in parliament. We are seen as plebs by the Tories and proles by Labour: we have no purpose to serve in their modern "democracy"; a term which is anyway facing extinction within the European Union.

            

              But neither pleb or prole is considered as insulting in this politically correct society as being comparable in any way to Nigger, Taffy, Jock, Paki, or Paddy. We are living in a nightmare of political correctness which allows and prohibits the use of inoffensive and offensive terms according to the liberal lexicon. Freedom of expression including using insulting use of language is part and parcel of a free form of elucidation within a democracy.

           

              Democracy should, and have in the past, tolerated (at least from the 1960s) all forms of argument and expression. By using the law to prohibit such forms of expression that the liberalista finds objectionable, they are conjuring up Orwell's  dark vision.

           

                       

           

           

---

[1] All figures are taken from the Daily Mail, a paper which is not on many liberals reading list, but let them contest them instead of sneering at the newspaper.