Left-leaning British politicians should face who the British really are

I do agree that Jeremy Corbyn was a tterrible candidate, and far too left for the nation, and deserved to be ejected. But remember the British have voted leftists into government before, such as Clement Atlee and Harold Wilson. The way this particular election went does not mean it will be this way for all time.

In retrospect Harold Wilson was part of the massive social movement in the 1960s when 1940s babies became adults after the much of the country had been in drab poverty for decades since WW2. He also had significant personal charisma and like the Beatles and Shakespeare's Henry V understood the importance of presentation, speech-making and form. It may take a similar national incident to put the left back in power. If Brexit is a catastrophe, if the NHS is sold off to American interests, that may do it in 10 years, maybe not.

A lot of left-wing politicians are very useful in government as they can affect change in creating policy and putting pressure on the right-wing elements of their partied but not as leaders, simply because the majority of voters do not have the same values. Corbyn is also quiet and low-key and does not have the power of personality of a leader, and leaders need to be of a type.

Why are only white countries expected to throw open their borders and become a minority in their own lands? Why don't leftists obsess over Japan and China being mono-racial.

r3, that ship sailed 70 years ago, when Britain began making citizenship in the UK available for anyone from its former foreign colonies. It was gradually whittled down until giving preference to people from white-majority countries, but in the meantime, a gazillion Indians, Pakistanis, Bahamians, Jamaicans and others had settled in the UK. However. even so, Britain is 81% white, so white people in Britain are nowhere close to becoming a MINORITY. That's just bullshit, but I imagine it plays well in certain large cities which have large black and Indian subcontinent populations.

R4 is pretending to be stupid, knows perfectly well that the "Left" of all persuasions turn a blind eye to and are silent about homogeneous cultures in East Asia, Latin America, the Middle East and Africa, while vociferously demanding "diversity" from Europe and North America.

Something else to consider is that the UK's working class left hasn't been decimated to the same degree it has in the U.S. Union organizing is still pretty big there. The UK has twice the percentage of unionized workers as the U.S.

The working class left doesn't have the same priorities as the well-educated professional class who dominate the left in the U.S. (and are increasingly trying to dominate the left in the UK). At best, they don't care about immigration. At worst, they're actively hostile to it because they think it hurts labor rights and union organizing. They also don't give a shit about most aspects of identity politics, which, in the U.S. at least, is about the only thing the mainstream left has to offer.

R3

[quote] Why are only white countries expected to throw open their borders and become a minority in their own lands? Why don't leftists obsess over Japan and China being mono-racial.

Indeed, your attitude is the one that left-wing politicians need to rake into account when they woo voters.

The fact is the average Briton doesn’t feel completely at home with non-white people unless the immigrants are highly assimilated and small-c conservative themselves, because seeing them on the streets makes them feel less at home.

The mainstream left has A. increase in minimum wage B. Cementing of access to affordable health care and coverage for pre-existing conditions, C. common sense gun control measures, D. gay marriage and gay rights, E. Violence against Women Act, F. Equal pay for equal work G. Right to organize labor in all industries H. Shoring up of pensions I. Shoring up of Social Security and Medicare J. Action on Climate change, CAFE standards for vehicles K. Action on maintaining and improving the Clean Air and Water Acts, and the strengthening the EPA. Sorry to call you out on being a total idiot and a fuckwad, r6, but there you have it.

R5

[quote] The “Left" of all persuasions turn a blind eye to and are silent about homogeneous cultures in East Asia, Latin America, the Middle East and Africa, while vociferously demanding "diversity" from Europe and North America

It’s a little different from how you phrased this. It’s not “woke” in terms of Shonda Rimes, but there are vocal and active groups in all these places advocating for decades about minorities of all kinds that have nothing to do with earnest thought police.

Most cultures in the places you mention are not homogenous, unless you are only talking about skin colour. The citizens are almost all united from various areas and tribes and have quite different values, and this is aside from people of different continents who immigrated or married in.

Their are groups in Israel that advocate very passionately for the better treatment of Ethiopian Jews in Israel, for fly-in fly-out workers in the Middle East, Iranians who support Jews in Iran, etc.

They have nothing to do with cancel culture.

R6 & R8 this thread is not about America stop making it about the red white and blue for once!

Little Britain is fine, Thank you kindly for your concerne.

[quote]Most cultures in the places you mention are not homogenous, unless you are only talking about skin colour. The citizens are almost all united from various areas and tribes and have quite different values, and this is aside from people of different continents who immigrated or married in.

R9 Complete deflection from (and more pretending to be stupid about) the fact that the "Left" turns a blind eye to homogeneous cultures based on race and belief system.

The left - and the right - are mostly involved in their own societies, r12, that’s the reason why you don’t see the the American Dems advocating for More Trans Women of Caucasia in senior Korean political governmental roles.

I've always felt that British people were generally pretty accepting and tolerant of others, and I do think that minority groups are treated better here than in most countries, but I have realised now that there is such a large proportion of backwards mentality people still, and it disgusts me to be honest.

I now actively hate this country and would love to leave it, I have already been making plans I just wish it was easier. It can fucking burn to ash for all I care. I don't identify with it at all anymore.

R13 EXCEPT when it comes to issues such as "refugees" and "migrants". Then the Left rises up and demands that Europe and North America accept them, and are righteously indignant at any hesitation. I can't remember the Left ever exhibiting that same degree of indignation at China or Russia or Dubai or Saudi Arabia or Turkey or Japan vis-a-vis "immigration".

There are internal movements in those countries that support migrants and refugees just as there are in the USA and Britain, r15.

The difference is that pretty much all liberal western democracies require immigration due to low birth rates thanks to the high cost of living and to support aging populations.

Actually the Right knows that immigrants are needed as their actual laws prove. The thing is they are “smarter” about it in terms of PR. In terms of how their policies are presented to the ordinary voters who may have mixed feeling about immigration, however, you wouldn’t know it.

There's also the fact we have a truly terrible voting system. The SNP received 1.2m votes and got 43 seats, the Greens won 850,000 votes and 1 seat, while the 3m votes between Labour and the Tories translated into a roughly 160 seat majority. It's a broken system.

The whole Europe is right wing now thanks to the cunt Angela Merkel.

[quote]There are internal movements in those countries that support migrants and refugees

[quote]The difference is that pretty much all liberal western democracies require immigration due to low birth rates

Which has NOTHING to do with the original assertion in R5 that the Left ignores Africa, Latin America, the Middle East and Asia when demanding "refugee"/"migrant" intake.

Let's just get it out there. White people are done with muslims and others who don't share their values moving to white countries to colonize and take over. It's over. You ain't seen nothing yet.

It didn’t take very long for racists who’ve never even been to the UK and only get their news from YouTube to turn this thread about the UK election into calls for a race war.

Trying to run an election about a single main issue without having a position on that single main issue isn't a very good idea when your personal ratings are already historically negative. Was there a strategist in the house? Well deserved thumping to a liar and a buffoon.

R19 ... Er, no it doesn’t.

I bet OP doesn't even know what Boris Johnson's immigration policy is. He wants to have people from all over the world to migrate to the UK, to replace the white Europeans from the EU who will no longer be coming but whose labour is required.

Like the US they have been dumbed down and ignorant fucks vote against their own interests.

Culture matters

Are you talking about the British, or the English, OP?

It will be interesting to see how Scotland and Northern Ireland take the consequences of this election, which are likely to be dire.

Reading Kennth Rose's journals from around the time that Britain joined the EEC, many people he spoke with were against it at the time. "We didn't fight the battle of Waterloo for this!" etc. The English have never in their history seen themselves as part of Europe, and they really should never have joined in the first place. Anyone could see that it wouldn't end well.

The majority of English = Tolkien's hobbits. Sit at home in their cozy holes drinking tea and ignoring the wider world.

Where do you think is likely to be better, R14?

[quote]The majority of English = Tolkien's hobbits. Sit at home in their cozy holes drinking tea and ignoring the wider world.

That sounds rather pleasant, R28. I'm not surprised people would try to hold onto it (even though I know it's a stereotype).

r28, the British had historically more contact with non-European cultures than any other nation. As an island nation, not really able to feed itself, beginning in the 1700s it expanded into one the world's preeminent colonial empires. Those colonies were conquered by armies and navies made up of the common-folk of Britain, so it's balderdash to pretend that they have always sat at home drinking tea and trying to avoid contact with foreigners. HOWEVER, there's been no end to propaganda over the past 20 years or so, decrying the end of the English way of life and the imminent threat of being overrun by others. Britain is 81% white, and white people in Britain are in no danger of being overrun by anybody, but people believe what they are told over and over, even when the information is false.

[quote]but people believe what they are told over and over, even when the information is false.

Especially when that "false information" is fed to them by their government, their media and the EU.

The historically powerful navy and colonial successes is part of England's (Britain's) own nation building to employ her sons and feed her people and display her values. It fed into the (hobbit-like) sense of national identity. We can do this for ourselves!

Part of why Britain is one of the greatest artistic successes of a nation is because the people are by and large provincial in attitude: the greatest British storytelling, playwrighting, music and art is usually local and the work of the those of or those with keen insight into the working classes and the bourgeois middle classes. Dickens, Shakespeare, Woolf, The Beatles, Vaughn Williams - they are revered as iconic, acclaimed art. Some started rich, some started poor, but all had the knack of striking a cord with ordinary people who wanted to be entertained. That is the test of their success decades and centuries now. They entertained the middle classes and aside from being or not being critical favourites at the time, they were all popular hits and remain so now .

Hmmm. That was an interesting thesis, r33, but I don't think it's really supportable. The vast majority of Shakespeare's works were about nobility, although he threw in some roles of commoners, usually as comic relief. Fielding, Richardson, Jane Austen, some of Britain's greatest novelists, wrote primarily about the landed class, not common laborers. I would say the same about Virginia Woolf and EM Forster, and going back in time, Spencer, Pope, Donne. Milton, Coleridge, Byron. Literature is Britain's greatest cultural legacy and it was primarily focused on the landed class. Dickens was an outlier in that regard. Britain's classical music and its visual artists are not particularly noteworthy in the world scheme of things. The Beatles, yes, but it's a little early to put Britain's other popular music icons into any sort of permanent pantheon of culture.

They‘re island people - what do you expect?

R33, the British (I am British) are not really among the greatest artistic nations beyond the modern novel and pop music (from the 1960s to the 1990s). Take a trip to the National Gallery - it's all Italians, French, Dutch and some Germans. Where's our Beethoven, if we're so great? Vaughn Williams is ok, but he's hardly in the top ranks and it's just him and a handful, barely, of others. The Beatles couldn't wait to get out of Liverpool. Shakespeare was the result of an expanding, outward-looking, modern and, dare I say it, diverse for the day England. The subjects of his stories were pretty much all from abroad, i.e. Europe, and his plays were the product of the metropolis not the provinces. I don't think provincialism led to any great art and our success in literature is more because English is a global language (first because of the empire, now because of America).

[quote] The whole of Europe is right-wing now thanks to that cunt Angela Merkel.

THIS. Not all of Europe of course, but a huge part of it. Unbridled, unvetted, unchecked globalism led to anti-globalism/protectionsim. Cause and effect, across all of Europe and even the wider world.

Western Europe and the US colonized and fucked up a lot of other countries and continue to have a close relationship with many offthem. It's no surprise that immigrants come from those places. Japan is different, since it was never colonized. In its case, the silence about its closed borders is a relic of the Cold War. Japan was seen as an essential bulwark against the Soviet Union so it was given a pass on a LOT of shit.

Moreover, a lot of countries said to be monocultural are not. It's just that Americans are too stupid to realize it. For instance, China has dozens of officially recognized ethnic groups that speak totally unrelated languages and Turkey is home to a shitton of refugees and has been forever. Russia is also multicultural.

[quote]Unbridle unvetted, unchecked globalism led to anti-globalism/protectionsim.

Decades of misguided migrant policies, exacerbated by indifferent, deaf politicians more concerned with power than populace and an agendaed media that ceased to do its public watchdog job.

[quote]a lot of countries said to be monocultural are not.

But they are. China is 95% Han Chinese. Turkey is 99% Muslim. Turkey is using those "shitton of refugees" as a very effective bludgeon again Western criticism of brutal Turkish policies. China's "ethnic groups" are not demanding that China subsume its values and culture.

[quote] The British don’t like foreigners, they like little Britain

The British more or less like RICH or successful foreigners. They don't like POOR, potentially under-qualified, often unchecked foreigners who will increase competition for public schools, public healthcare and public housing, and create their own little community-ghettos in central London. Almost everyone in Europe is the same (except for super-PC Scandinavia & Germany).

The Italians on the Southern Coast, turning back migrant ships from North Africa.

The Poles, declaring that migrants from the ME & colonial Africa are "the West's war & colonial problem" and that Poland's (almost all-white) society shouldn't be burdened too much with taking in such migrants. They want to send them to Western Europe instead. (The Poles are actually right - but they also don't hide that, regardless of anything else, they would still prefer to maintain their historically homogenous society.)

The Hungarians, trying to build a bigger border fence (wall) so that migrants can't get in.

The Finns, giving most support to a right-leaning, anti-immigration party called "True" Finns.

The French provinces, where they don't even like to hear international tourists speaking to them in the 'lingua franca' (English) - only in French.

Every country wants super-professional, diligently-checked migrants. But no country (except from guilt-ridden Germany & over-PC Scandinavians) wants a barrage of RANDOM people who often weren't even checked properly and who didn't pass a "labour market test" (the work-suitability test that even Americans have to pass when applying for a job in Britain).

*except for, that is

[quote]The vast majority of Shakespeare's works were about nobility, although he threw in some roles of commoners,

You're missing my point. He made work that ordinary people loved. His writings and themes resonated with them.

They are like most Americans, small minded, ignorant, selfish jerks.

Englanders have wanted to leave the EU for decades. There's many, many reasons for wanting to leave the EU than just immigration. England wants to be able to have their own laws and not be dictated to by the EU morons who no one voted for

How would you like your country to have certain laws that are written by unelected bureaucrats from other countries? The EU had carte blanche to tell England they had to have certain types of traffic laws, trading laws, forcing them to advertise in metric system (which most Englanders did NOT want to do) and many other things such as laws that allow illegal alien terrorists, hijackers, murders, rapists and pedophiles the right to appeal deportation numerous times (legal fees paid by the British taxpayers) until they are finally able to overturn the deportation ruling

Tell me how you would like that? Say a few men hijacked a plane, held guns to the pilot's head, were finally arrested after a few days and were then ordered to be deported, BUT then some unelected bureaucrats from bunches of other countries decided these hijackers can repeatedly appeal (at your expense) until they get the result they want?

Do you want this man as your neighbor?

You want this guy to move next door to your mother?

The English like whoever the fuck Rupert Murdoch tells them to. (Except Liverpool).

Here another one. The Eu is trying to give rapists and pedophiles the right to be in their victims lives. Victims that they impregnated

How would you like that if your sister was raped, impregnated and told "tough shit on you" the rapist/pedophile/sexual abuser has the right to be in his child's life? The EU has determined that is the rapist's "Human Right" to do that

[quote] white people in Britain are in no danger of being overrun by anybody

The people on London Bridge might disagree, R31... Also:

[quote] "London is now home to more than 8.6 million people, the highest the city’s population has been since 1939. What’s more, 44% of London now consists of black and ethnic minorities, compared to only 28.9% in 2001.

[quote] "London has always attracted immigrants, but they’ve often come one group at a time, The Economist notes. That began to change in the 1990s, as conflicts in Africa and the Middle East, the Soviet Union’s collapse, EU expansion, and growing emerging market wealth drove more foreigners to Britain. Between 2001 and 2011, London’s white population decreased by 6%, while the “Black other” population (not African or Caribbean) increased 110%, according to the 2014 Greater London Authority report. Overall, black and ethnic minorities grew 55.5% over the decade.

[quote] The growth could have a major impact on politics. A recent report from the Migrants’ Rights Network and the University of Manchester estimates that around 4 million foreign-born residents will be eligible voters in this year’s [2015] May elections. Though they don’t vote uniformly, there are a few issues immigrants tend to agree on. For instance, the report suggests that migrant voters ... care more about issues of immigration..."

But this touches only on ethnic-minority migrants - there's also been a big migration of foreign SUPER-WHITE workers to Britain. But Brits and e.g. Slavs don't always get along... So it's not a "race" issue - people from Albania are the exact same "race" as Brits. It's a foreign-diaspora issue. For example, many Albanians (a new member of the EU since 2014) migrate from post-war-torn areas and are prone to crime - as they often grew up in it. It shouldn't be Britain's duty to absorb and rehabilitate foreign crime-gangs.

When I go to European countries I want to find homogeneous cultures. I don't want multiculturism and diversity. I have it here at home. I find it completely dismaying seeing McDonalds and hijab ghettos increasingly prevalent. I do NOT not want to find US cities in Europe. When I go to London I want to see everywhere British twits and when I go to Paris I want to find elderly Parisian shopkeepers who don't want my money simply because I'm American. And when I go to Italy I want to go to Italian run restaurants that charge you twice for your entrée.

R50 That lifestyle is not what Europeans want though. They don’t exist to cater to your desires. Without foreign investment and multi national corporations many European countries would not have a middle class. As much as Irish people for example might also miss the days when the countryside was dotted with thatched roof cottages, in those days people were dirt poor and emigrating in droves. Multinationals and with them gentrification, Starbucks, McDonalds etc.. have given rise to a middle class in Ireland. Without them the private sector would be paltry. The picturesque areas that attract American tourists have no employment and haemorrhage young people.

The young people in nondescript British towns also need to move to London or have big corporations move in if they want to get out of the council estates. Many are a-okay with this as there aren’t any twits or any quaint Britishness (of the kind that attracts American and Asian tourists) in a council estate in The Wirral.

[Quote] The fact is the average Briton doesn’t feel completely at home with non-white people

They didn't feel at home in the colonies they were exploiting either.

[quote] As much as Irish people for example might also miss the days when the countryside was dotted with thatched roof cottages, in those days people were dirt poor and emigrating in droves. Multinationals and with them gentrification, Starbucks, McDonalds etc.. have given rise to a middle class in Ireland.

Lol, the Irish countryside is STILL dotted with thatched-roof cottages. Regarding business, the Republic of Ireland is reportedly the number 1 tax-haven in the world. You don't need that many migrants from e.g. the Balkans to operate a tax-haven - you just need foreign billionaires' money from China, the US, etc.

As for foreign multi-national corporations - that's a double-edged sword. On the one hand, it creates more job places (good). On the other hand, it often drives to bankruptcy the country's small businesses / puts a damper on domestic entrepreneurship, often by price-undercutting them (bad). E.g. Aldi intentionally sets low food prices and operates AT A LOSS or negative profit margin to itself for a few years, just to run other (domestic) companies into the ground. Then, when all competition is vanquished, it can hike up food prices, hitting consumers who don't have much choice anymore. And multi-nationals often try to avoid taxes by manipulating jurisdictional laws - so that the gov't can't always collect full taxes from them (they often have to get it via court order). Problems with collecting or delayed taxes from multinationals leads to problems with financing urgent social programs.

"The British don’t like foreigners" - Boris Johnson was born in New York.

R53 It’s not actually. I’m sitting in rural Ireland right now. Most of the few old farm cottage houses are empty and dilapidated where they exist and farmer’s children all move away for work. It’s very rare to see a thatched roof now. I’m in County Offaly and haven’t seen one in years around here.

[quote] That lifestyle is not what Europeans want though.

But generally most Europeans don't want to work forever for foreign companies like McDonalds and Starbucks either. Same as no American grows up, aspiring to be a middle-manager for life in a Chinese transnational company. Many Europeans want their own (small or big) business eventually: their own high-street shop, their own little company, their own big company. But that path is becoming harder and harder - because competition (including from foreign companies) has increased exponentially. Domestic insolvencies are on the rise:

[quote] "The number of British businesses collapsing into bankruptcy hit a 4-year high last year as one in every 213 companies fell into liquidation. Official figures released on Friday [2018] show that 17,243 companies entered insolvency last year, a rise of 4.2% on the year before and the highest since 2013. The data emerged after British construction giant Carillion collapsed earlier this month, becoming the UK's biggest corporate failure in a decade and putting the construction sector under further strain. Duncan Swift, of restructuring trade body R3, said intense competition and discounting in the run-up to Christmas added strain to retailers already fighting to attract customers..."

Some of my colleagues went to work for a foreign (Japanese) bank - they said it was a very odd experience. The corporate culture is quite different: overly reverential to bosses, overly passive among employees, and more sexist towards females. It might work for the Japanese - but it's not the right work environment for most Europeans. I have friends working for US law firms in London - they said the corporate culture is far more aggressive than what Europeans are used to. There are all these nuances that make it hard sometimes to work for foreign companies. But given how dominant they are in the market (in addition to already existing domestic competition), starting up one's own company (e.g. an organic corner-shop) is almost painful - because you don't just have to fight with domestic giants, you now have to fight with foreign giants from 20 different countries too. So basically most domestic workers are doomed to be stockists or middle-managers in these giants, without much support or incentive for their own entrepreneurship.

Correct R56 but it was also next to impossible for a working class European to own their own company 50 years ago so it’s 6 of one and half dozen of another.

For example, there are far fewer Brits these days getting council housing. Most working class people 50 years ago bought their homes out from the council for a very reasonable price. Entrepreneurship wasn’t a choice then and it isn’t now. If people want to ever own property then middle managers in a multinational is the best of a bad set of options.

There has never been a time when class mobility was easy and most people could become well off business owners and their never will imo. The vast majority of people have to be worker bees.

Would it have killed you to have at least posted a picture or link OP? Would it? I mean would that have really been that hard? Would it? Why don’t you try to think more of others next time before you post? Can you give us a straight answer? At least be honest for once in your life and tell us why you were so inconsiderate?

Great Britain will become like what Japan is today: an insular, nationalist, racist, former Great Power that finds it has to adjust to life as a small, wealthy Nation with no more global ambition or role.

Most British people don't have global ambitions, R59.

Im not in the UK, but it seems like it is the sharp increase in immigration the last 15 years that has been so noticeable. And most are eligible for benefits.

People react to what they see. They can't see the net increase in the economy due to immigration - because they don't know what the economy would be like without it. However, they do see a large number of non-English speaking people coming into their towns and schools who are receiving benefits that the English people are paying for.

The EU immigration caught everyone by surprise - the numbers fleeing to the UK were 3x to 4x of what they anticipated. London had, at one time, more Poles than any city outside of Warsaw. And they are not assimilating well - so people feel like they have to bend over to accommodate the new arrivals.

When the economy is failing most working and middle class people, of course you're going to wonder what they fuck is going on.

[quote] but it was also next to impossible for a working class European to own their own company 50 years ago

A small food-stall or off-licence or fishmonger can be a small company, R57. It was definitely possible for working-class Europeans 50 years ago - it's much harder now because there are 5 Yugoslavian shops on the same street now, plus an Aldi (giant from Germany), plus a Whole Foods (giant from the US), on top of all the other domestic competition. The reason to incorporate is to limit your personal financial exposure in case of insolvency.

[quote] There has never been a time when class mobility was easy and most people could become well off business owners and their never will imo.

No one said most people could become well-off business owners. But the US model seems to have a bigger concentration of healthy domestic businesses - and it's even exporting them. For example, most US cities have a Whole Foods (domestic organic store, started out as a small shop in Austin, TX). London has that and Planet Organic - another company started by a US (Mississippi) entrepreneur. But why should US entrepreneurs dominate this UK market? Where are the domestic UK entrepreneurs' dedicated-organic-food stores? I've seen them, but they're struggling in the face of competition from the behemoth American Whole Foods (which is now, moreover, backed up by the even more behemoth Amazon).

But there's nothing about 'health food' that is intrinsically American. How would Austinites feel if a Newcastle (northern England) chain came in and pushed out much domestic shop competition, making the ex-owners of Whole Foods, etc work as middle-managers for the Brits? I don't think even the liberal Austinites would be too happy about the Brits turning the table on them.

Your odds of finding small independent shops in the UK are slim, the only 'thriving' businesses are Nail Salons which are essentially used to launder money.

Ha.

[quote]Emily Thornberry told a Labour MP in a pro-Leave seat: "I’m glad my constituents aren’t as stupid as yours," Caroline Flint reveals on @RidgeOnSunday.

R63, doesn't really matter if they're small independents or small shops that grow to become bigger chains. What matters is that the UK market is far more saturated by non-domestic competition than the US market. UK's biggest coffee chain (Costa) - subsidiary of American Coca-Cola Co. Starbucks (2nd biggest coffee chain) - also American. Caffe Nèro (UK's 3rd biggest coffee chain) - also set up by an American entrepreneur.

And regarding American-founded Caffè Nero - it has not paid ANY corporation tax in the UK since 2007 (despite getting revenue of £2 billion).

[Quote] Nail Salons which are essentially used to launder money

Come again? How and for whom?

R65 Every toy gangster's girlfriend/wife has a Nail Salon. If they want to legitimize any cash they have made from drug deals it gets passed through the salon. We have 6 on one high street close to me.

They never seem to have any customers and are rarely open.

Sorry meant R66

I think it ironic that some of the UK Brexiters here are decrying the sort of capitalism that originated in.....wait for it......BRITAIN. Britain devised and exported the notion of corporations, set up to maximize profits for their shareholders, it devised and exported the notion of sending in its own businesses into other countries, it devised and exported the notion of taking a region's raw goods, or buying them up cheaply, then turning those raw goods into a manufactured product and exporting it back to the country of origin at a huge markup. Read the history of the British forbidding the people of India from making their own textiles or producing their own salt. If the British are unable to compete in the modern corporate world, well then TOO FUCKING BAD. That is not the fault of the EU and it's not the fault of the US, no matter if that is the propaganda line being sold to them at the moment.

I just don't see how importing half of Pakistan to Britain could be beneficial to the British.

It's their country, they are allowed to do what they want. They're are a lot of cities that have turned into complete and utter shitholes because of immigrants. But there are many other reasons they wanted to leave the EU and they are posted above. They want to be able to write their own laws and have their own justice system and not have to have laws written by a bunch of unelected bureaucrats from the EU

I always think of what would happen in the US if we had an EU-style model. Americans taking orders from foreign bureaucrats. There would probably be an American Revolution 2.0 in about five minutes.

[quote] I think it ironic that some of the UK Brexiters here are decrying the sort of capitalism that originated in.....wait for it......BRITAIN"

R69, Britain also historically picked up from preceding societies and developed the notions of economic protectionism: promoting local companies over foreign ones, increasing customs tariffs on goods from abroad that are in direct competition with domestic goods, etc. A healthy degree of protectionism for domestic workers is also a part of world-wide capitalism - otherwise what's the point of having a country at all. Later this was abandoned in favour of a more open-border experiment.

Like most first-of-its-kind experiments, it had unforeseen consequences. Well, technically they were predictable, but people were too enthusiastic about the experiment to stop and prepare for them. E.g. Britain did not foresee the number of people from ex-Soviet states (that joined the EU later) who would dash across the entire continent to live here (exceeded expectations), or that multi-nationals would dodge tax completely (Caffe Nèro). If an experiment doesn't go as planned - you either terminate the experiment or adjust it. Adjusting things in the bureaucratic quagmire of 28 states that is the EU is nearly impossible, because a lot of things need a unanimous vote.

[quote] If the British are unable to compete in the modern corporate world, well then TOO FUCKING BAD. That is not the fault of the EU and it's not the fault of the US

No one said it was the "fault" of the US - it was the fault of the UK for not enforcing more protectionist measures and e.g. punishing US companies for avoiding paying tax in the UK.

As for "if you can't compete, too fucking bad" - that's ironically CONTRARY to the entire economic policy of the European Union. Do you know why the EU budget provides for more payments to Eastern European members (making them "net recipients" of the budget)? Because, when joining the EU, the Easterners argued that if they completely opened up their borders to Western EU states, as part of a "single / common market" (free movement of goods, capital, services, and labour) - then all their domestic businesses would tank, because they can't fully compete with the West on such conditions (without protectionist customs tariffs). For example, I lived for a few years in Slovenia - the protectionist measure they had there was that if you're a foreigner and wanted to open up certain types of businesses there, you could only set up the company if you partnered up with a local co-founder, on half/half terms.

The EU could have told them: hey, you wanted Capitalism - so float or sink, "if you can't compete with the West, then too fucking bad". But instead, the EU gave them many preferential terms - basically compensating them (via payments from the overall EU budget) for any estimated hit their economies would take from joining the open-border common market. But even with such payments, some of the new EU joiners are still not very happy and claim they don't get enough payouts. That's a very strange kind of "capitalism". So it is the fault of the new EU - when the UK joined initially, the EU was not supposed to be a wealth distribution fund / compensation fund from the West (including British taxpayers) to the East. That was not the original plan or design.

I'm mystified by the posters above who say that the EU makes laws originating from people who are un-elected. The EU has a Parliament, and Britain has always had a full delegation to argue for or against EU-wide laws that benefit or damage it. The US is party to a number of treaties in which the laws of another country can supercede US law - and according to our constitution, a ratified treaty becomes part of the law of the US. Just as an example, the EU has the right to refuse GMO products from the US, milk raised using growth hormones, and a number of other products that don't satisfy EU regulations. And, by the same token, the US can refuse products (such as raw pork products from Italy and Spain) which don't satisfy US regulations. I don't really see the difference between that and some of the stuff that Britain is whining about.

To read some of the responses above, people would be convinced that half of the population of Britain is now made up of Eastern European immigrants. In fact, only 3.6 million immigrants from the EU live in Great Britain. That is about 5% of the population. It is estimated that 40 million immigrants from Latin America live in the US. That is well over 10% of the population. Another 10 million hail from Europe, Asia, and Africa, making up 17% of the total population of the US. We are coping. Just to be clear, Britain's birth rate is well below replacement rate, so without these immigrants, Britain's population would be declining, and fairly rapidly. Also during this period, a great many British people migrated to other EU countries too. Just to note a few impacts of declining fertility rate, one has only to look at Japan, where the price of real estate has plummeted from its high in the early 90s. Many people have lost a huge amount of money by betting on the equity of their homes and lands there, and are facing meager retirements as a result.

[quote] I'm mystified by the posters above who say that the EU makes laws originating from people who are un-elected. The EU has a Parliament

Of course they’re elected [italic]formally[/italic], R75 - but they’re not full-mandate representatives of most EU countries [italic]in practice[/italic]. Why? Because EU Parliament elections are often not advertised widely; policies that the EU Parliament is supposed to tackle in the upcoming year are often not discussed in the media (not even on the Euronews channel) - people/voters are left in the dark. The EU Parliament is one of the most powerful bodies on the European continent (setting wide-ranging EU Directives & Regulations which must be implemented into law by member-states) - but EU voters are not even kept informed or updated what the issues on the agenda are. It’s like voting in the dark.

Many EU citizens don’t even know WHO their past or current EU representatives are. EU voters are often disaffected or confused by EU’s non-transparent bureacracy. Voter turnout has been reportedly falling every year across the EU. 2019 being the ONLY rare exception (the only instance of EU voter turnout rising in its history ever), because ironically media coverage of Brexit was the only thing that finally reminded people that the EU Parliament exists and has elections happening, lol:

[quote] “Turnout has been falling steadily since the first elections in 1979. Turnout has constantly fallen in every EU election since 1979. In 2009, the overall turnout was at 43%, down from 45.5% in 2004. In Britain the turnout was just 34.3%, down from 38% in 2004.”

[quote] To read some of the responses above, people would be convinced that half of the population of Britain is now made up of Eastern European immigrants.

It’s about the RATE / speed at which their migration happened, R75. It’s one thing if people had moved to a country slowly over a protracted period (after going through at least some market-suitability checks) and spread out individually (a trickling pattern). It’s a completely different case when they all suddenly move in a short period of time and settle in certain places as concentrated groups (a wave pattern). It’s also about the DYNAMIC RATE: the number of Eastern Europeans migrating kept [italic]increasing[/italic] year on year (until 2019, for obvious reasons).

It’s not right to compare it to the US in this aspect - the US has 40 times more land than the UK has and many towns and cities are more spread out, so while group concentrations are noticeable, they’re not felt as acutely as in the UK due to its far smaller size and higher population density:

[quote] “The 2011 census found that Boston [UK] is Britain’s most Eastern European town. At least 10% of the people who live in this medieval market town are [now] from Poland and its neighboring countries. But those numbers account only for those who filled in the census forms. The real migrant population could easily be DOUBLE that. Britain’s Eastern European migrants have settled in very different places from the historic waves of Jewish, South Asian or Caribbean migrants. Those groups went to the big industrial towns and cities. But Britain’s new Polish and Baltic waves have come to the small towns and the countryside, to agricultural communities like Boston where the ethnic structure has been stable for hundreds, if not a thousand years. These small towns are … unused to [sudden] large concentrations of foreigners… [bold]Boston’s official immigrant population GREW 467% between the 2001 and 2011 censuses.[/bold]

[quote] Another 10 million hail from Europe, Asia, and Africa, making up 17% of the total population of the US. We are coping.

Again, it’s not right to compare the US and the UK in this regard, R75. You are “coping” in 2019 because since the 90s the US has one of the most stringent immigration policies in the world - most legal migrants are at least checked / vetted before they’re allowed to migrate there. For many types of US migrant visas, you often need to prove you won’t be an undue “burden” on US taxpayers (no criminal past, taxes in order, not financially destitute / ability to support oneself, certain level of academic or vocational education fitting for the job you’re planning to do in the US).

Whereas EU migrants coming to Britain don’t need to prove anything. Even their criminal history goes unchecked.

[quote] Just to be clear, Britain's birth rate is well below replacement rate, so without these immigrants, Britain's population would be declining, and fairly rapidly.

Britain doesn’t need to import RANDOM people just for the sake of importing RANDOM people. Britain specifically needs (1) qualified workers for SPECIFIC industry sectors and (2) responsible, vetted new citizens who have a good tax-generating, tax-paying history (who won’t dodge individual income tax and lie on their tax returns, which is an endemic problem in many poorer EU countries). The only way to ensure you sort the qualifed foreign workers from the tax-dodgers and foreign criminals is through a [italic]border-control system of checks[/italic]. Which is impossible in the EU format because it’s all “open borders, welcome anyone who knocks on your door, without checking them”.

For example, after Albania joined the EU in 2014 - there’s been a spike in Albanian-gang crime in Britain and other EU countries. Albania is known for its deep problems with the drug trade - and now its crime-ring members, as “EU citizens”, have absolute freedom to settle in different EU countries (without any background checks) and carry on their activities there. There have been unprecedented spikes in London in knife crime, acid-attack crimes, etc. When the EU has so many problematic, risky new members - you NEED border checks and safeguards, you NEED a visa system to sort out normal migrants from crazy criminals. But the EU doesn’t want a safeguard visa system - it wants an unmonitored mess:

[quote] Guardian: "Kings of cocaine: how the Albanian mafia seized control of the UK drugs trade ... from the ports of Europe to the streets of London, one criminal network is now at the top ... How Albanians came to conquer the UK’s cocaine market is a lesson in criminal savvy; the value of making friends with the world’s most dangerous mafias; and the absolute threat of violence.

[quote] "The Albanian effect has profoundly shaped the use, production and economy of cocaine. The drug is at its cheapest in the UK since 1990 and purer than it has been for a decade, which has caused record fatalities. [bold]The UK has the highest number of young users in Europe.[/bold] More broadly, far bigger and more frequent shipments of the drug have been seized entering the UK"

So by importing completely unvetted 'god-knows-who' migrants from 'god-knows-where' in the EU - sure, we'll get a bigger "population" on paper to replace the retiring Boomers. But a population more rocked by violent crime and drug addiction (which will decimate the population eventually) - because the EU doesn't offer any mechanism to vet the "new arrivals".

R69 So by that logic, don't vote for Democrats because you know, slavery once upon a time, was their thing.

[quote]When I go to European countries I want to find homogeneous cultures. I don't want multiculturism and diversity.

Jesus, what the fuck?

European countries should ban all immigration because some asshole American only wants to see white faces when he takes some shitty package tour?

They’re still blaming Jews and Israel.

[quote]The EU had carte blanche to tell England they had to have certain types of traffic laws, trading laws, forcing them to advertise in metric system

Best thing about them, to be honest.

Oh, hello, Jacob Rees-Mogg at r56, r62, r73, r74, r76-78 etc.! Taking another little break from our busy disaster capitalism programme in Parliament, are we? Perhaps not while reclining in full view this time, though -- just a tip.

We get it: the EU is at fault for the UK's decision to throw its doors open to all "new EU" migrants in 2004 (as the only EU country to do so, despite all member states having the option to restrict such migration). Also, it's the EU's fault that he UK has an offshore/"non-domiciled" tax system that permits corporations (and wealthy individuals!) of all nationalities to pay no or minimal UK taxes. And the EU's crackdown on such tax loopholes has nothing whatsoever to do with the reasons you and your Pound-shorting, offshoring cronies have pushed so hard for Brexit.

Right, then -- we common folk will just sit back and wait for the waves of economic and cultural gains from Brexit to wash over us, shall we?

R83, that poster is a dumb American who knows nothing about the EU or even about the UK (I guess that's a good description of Mogg). Don't forget Mogg incorporated his investment firm in Dublin so he can keep all the clients he will lose as a result of Brexit!

"For example, after Albania joined the EU in 2014..." - this is an excellent example of what a moron the anti-EU moron at r78 is. Albania is NOT A MEMBER OF THE EU!!!!

Let's also not forget that it was the UK that was pushing for the eastward expansion of the EU and the accession of the former communist countries. Also, after the accession of these countries to the EU in 2004 the UK refused to implement the 7-year moratorium on freedom of movement that practically every other country used. Moreover, there are tons of controls on EU nationals residing in other EU countries but the UK never used any of them, primarily because we actually need migration and also because we refuse to have ID cards and, e.g. registering EU nationals would require ID cards.

And now Boris says he wants an immigration system that welcomes people from all over the world! Racists rejoice!

Hello EU-sellout Tony Blair @ R83 :). We all know you wanted to become the President of the European Council, but must have hurt when Gordon Brown withdrew his support, eh? It was Blair’s EU-doormat ruling Labour party who went along with the EU’s 2004 rapid enlargement, without pausing to think of the consequences or to protect his own voter-base from them. Tony Blair (the “labour” leader who turned out to be a corporate globalist EU zealot and ME war-criminal) threw blue-collar British workers under the bus - and Corbyn is now paying for Blair’s hubris and mistakes.

[quote] 2016: “Tony Blair insists: EU immigration was not a mistake! Labour should ‘ARGUE’ with voters … , even if it means they vote for SOMEONE ELSE, says DEFIANT former PM”. It was not a “mistake” for Labour to open the borders to hundreds of thousands Eastern European migrants, Tony Blair has said, in a direct CONTRADICTION of Ed Miliband’s position. The former Prime Minister said his party must “argue” with voters … who are angered by its record on immigration – even if it means they vote for another party. Politicians must declare that free movement in Europe is a “good idea”, he said … But the Labour Party, whose London leadership is instinctively liberal, remains badly divided as to how to respond to working class voters’ disaffection over migration.

[quote] Mr Miliband has declared Tony Blair “got it wrong” when he allowed people from Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic to work in Britain without restrictions, while most EU states imposed transitional controls to slow the rate of migration. He has pledged to ban immigrants from claiming benefits for 2 years and to tackle rogue employers exploiting migrant labour. [bold]“We became too disconnected from the concerns of working people,” Mr Miliband has said.[/bold]

Ed Milliband was right. And Blair got his wish: while he was busy “arguing” with his own voterbase, they eventually got fed up and DID vote “for someone else”. Labour suffered one of the worst failures in its recent history. Good job, applause. Blair is like the gift that keeps on giving.

But I do agree with Blair on one thing at least:

[quote] “But in a robust defence of his record and the principles of free movement, Mr Blair said the migrants would have come later EVEN IF transitional controls had been imposed. “I don’t agree it was a mistake,” he said. “All we did was bring forward what would have happened ANYWAY [as full eventual Freedom of Movement was a the final goal of the EU framework].”

[quote] UK's decision to throw its doors open to all "new EU" migrants in 2004 (as the only EU country to do so, despite all member states having the option to restrict such migration).

No, R83, Britain was not the “only” country to do so - there were others. But the “option to restrict such migration” was not a permanent option for ANY EU member - it was [italic]temporary[/italic], for some years. It was never a “final fix”. Otherwise, the whole point of the EU (the 4 freedoms, including the Freedom of Movement of Workers) would be a contradictory farce. Blair chose to take the hit sooner rather than later - while British economy was still going strong in 2004. But he underestimated the desperation of the new EU members: “the flow turned out to be over 20 times the upper end of this estimate”.

The EU rules dictated that most of the transitional arrangements (restrictions) in some other EU member-states had to be given up by 2011:

[quote] “Member States may open their labour markets at any stage. AT THE LATEST, Member States MUST open their labour markets FULLY at the end of … 30 April 2011 for the EU-8 [new Eastern member-states] and 31 December 2013 for Bulgaria and Romania. For Romania and Bulgaria the current state of play is that their workers currently [before 2011] enjoy FULL rights to free movement in 15 (of 25) Member States (Denmark, Estonia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovenia, Slovakia, Finland, Sweden, Hungary, Greece, Spain, Portugal, Czech Republic).

[quote] [bold]Overall, the [temporary] restrictions ONLY apply to WORKERS: they do NOT apply to the SELF-EMPLOYED, NOR do they restrict the rights to travel and LIVE in another Member State.[/bold]

So even if Blair had had imposed restrictions on EU immigrants from the get-go - it would only stop employees, not self-employed sole traders or people who want to live in the UK on their savings (or undeclared criminal money). And even those temporary restrictions/protections against (some) workers had to be given up by 2011.

R84 = everyone who doesn't share my views is No True Scotsman!

Sure, and everyone who voted against Labour and the EU (even in traditional Labour seats) are all "dumb Americans" too, eh? Should have listened to Ed Miliband - he was one of the few who listened to his voters on this matter.

They are a nation of shopkeepers.

[quote] Albania is NOT A MEMBER OF THE EU!!!!

Albania, Bulgaria, Romania - who gives a heck. They’re all inter-connected impoverished nearby Balkan mini-states feeding into each other as ex-members of the exact same Eastern bloc. HOW do you think all these Albanians suddenly got into Britain? On a Tier 2 work visa as computer scientists? The problem spiked when all the other Balkan & Eastern states joined in the 2000s and 2010s - because all those neighbours near the Turkish border are deeply interrelated, housing each other’s diasporas.

[quote] “Vice squad officers estimate that Albanians now control more than 75% of the Britain’s brothels and their operations in London's Soho … They are said to be present in every big city in Britain as well as in many smaller ones including Telford and Lancaster, after having fought off rival criminals in turf wars.”

And, rejoice, R85, it will likely soon be a full official member because the European Commission President (Jean-Claude Juncker), the EU Council President (Donald Tusk) and EU siren, Angela Merkel, are all adamant that they must be “welcomed” in soon. 25 out of the EU’s ballooned-up 28 members want Albania & North Macedonia to join too.

[quote] also because we refuse to have ID cards and, e.g. registering EU nationals would require ID cards.

Britain [italic]has[/italic] ID cards, R85 - it's compulsory for anyone from outside the common Eurozone. E.g. a Tier-2 visa is issued as an ID card. My co-workers (from the US, Brazil, China, even Australia I think) have them. Even student visas are issued as ID cards.

[quote] And the EU's crackdown on such tax loopholes … you and your Pound-shorting, offshoring cronies have pushed so hard for Brexit.

R83, the EU’s so-called “crackdown” is a mess. First the EU Commission covered its ass and expressly insisted there weren’t any “tax havens” in the Glorious EU. Then, a year later, it declared there were “tax blackholes”… but does little about it. The bipolar EU changes its mind every year, lol.

[quote] “In 2017, the EU list [of tax havens] did not include any EU-28 jurisdictions. The EU Commission was [italic]criticised[/italic] for not including Ireland, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Malta and Cyprus ... Pierre Moscovici [European Commissioner for Economic and Financial Affairs, Taxation and Customs] explicitly stated [in] 2017: “Ireland is NOT a tax haven!” … Although he subsequently called Ireland and the Netherlands "tax black holes" [in] 2018”.

Republic of Ireland (EU member) - you in trouble, girl!

And, and, whatabout the CAP, r92! That's a mess too, and, um, it's strangling British farmers (never mind that they received 3.5 billion Pounds in EU subsidies in 2018)! And the EU is stealing all the money that we want to put into improving the NHS (and by improving, we mean handing the money to private providers to compete with the NHS)!

If you block the Brexiteer twit at r92 et al who can't tell the difference between Romania and Albania, but knows that everything is the EU's fault (except for the parts that are Tony Blair's fault) -- half of this thread, and all the nonsense, disappears.

[quote] but knows that everything is the EU's fault (except for the parts that are Tony Blair's fault)

R93, no need to put your own words in my mouth. Not "everything" is the EU's fault. But a considerable portion is :). It's a clunky, overly bureaucratic, contradictory, non-transparent, unaccountable system, staffed by "leaders" and "representatives" who most voters don't even KNOW anything about. And Britain is by far not the only EU country that points that out.

[quote] and, um, it's strangling British farmers (never mind that they received 3.5 billion Pounds in EU subsidies in 2018

Lol, even some UK Remainers are against the EU's problematic agricultural system:

[quote] The Guardian: "The one good thing about Brexit? Leaving the EU’s disgraceful farming system. I'm a Remainer, but there’s one result of Brexit I can’t wait to see: leaving the EU’s common agricultural policy. This is the farm subsidy system that spends €50 billion (£44 billion) a year on achieving none of its objectives. It is among the most powerful drivers of environmental destruction in the northern hemisphere. Because payments are made only for land that’s in “agricultural condition”, the system creates a PERVERSE incentive to clear wildlife habitats, even in places unsuitable for farming, to produce the EMPTY GROUND that qualifies for public money. These payments have led to the destruction of hundreds of thousands of hectares of magnificent wild places across Europe.

[quote] It is also arguably the most REGRESSIVE transfer of PUBLIC money in the modern world. Farmers are paid by the hectare for owning or using land; so the more you have, the more you get. While in the UK benefits for poor people are capped at £20k (outside London), these benefits for the rich are uncapped. Some landowners receive £1m or more. [According to the EU's bizarre agricultural subsidy policy,] you don’t even have to LIVE in the EU to take this money: you just have to OWN land here. Among the benefit tourists sucking up public funds in the age of austerity are Russian oligarchs, Saudi princes and Texas oil barons."

Actual British people haven't used the word "twit" since the 60s, R93.

I’m not even sure he’s a Brit or even a European.

R7 - maybe it's time for the "average Briton" to grow up and evolve a little. I know change can be difficult but choosing to stubbornly remain behind the times is solely the fault of those who refuse to move forward.

The Left has to redefine what it means to be the left. It is a task long overdue since the fall of the Soviet Union and the rise of oligarchic capitalism.

Pssst r72 that is happening, they just aren't mentioning it.

Most of you people need to read my column and watch my videos.

Why not Liverpool r47?

Oh fuck off R80.

Can you be a bigger racist asshole yourself? I said nothing about race. McDonalds and hijabs? Please sink in a wet cement sinkhole of your own ugliness.

[quote]The English like whoever the fuck Rupert Murdoch tells them to. (Except Liverpool).

Much much less so now after his paper hacked a dead girl's voicemail, he had to shut down said entire paper, and a long-running press scandal plus public inquiry ensued. Not before time. Most people know Murdoch is the sleazebag supreme.

[quote]Why not Liverpool [R47]?

Because 'The Sun' not untypically blamed Liverpool supporters for a football stadium disaster in which nearly 100 died. The entire City boycotted Murdoch's smear sheet, and because all he cares about is profit, he minded. Almost as though such a boycott could catch on elsewhere. We can dream.

Ages since I've read the Times. Murdoch has ruined it.

[quote]pretty much all liberal western democracies require immigration due to low birth rates thanks to the high cost of living and to support aging populations.

That well worn BS has been exposed for the ponzi scheme it is: more people = equals more aging people = equals demand for more people.

Who put the “gay-free zone” signs in certain London neighborhoods? It wasn’t a little old white Anglican lady who resembles one of [italic]Monty Python[/italic]’s pepperpots.

R106, gay free?

r107

[quote] To read some of the responses above, people would be convinced that half of the population of Britain is now made up of Eastern European immigrants. In fact, only 3.6 million immigrants from the EU live in Great Britain. That is about 5% of the population. It is estimated that 40 million immigrants from Latin America live in the US. That is well over 10% of the population. Another 10 million hail from Europe, Asia, and Africa, making up 17% of the total population of the US. We are coping. Just to be clear, Britain's birth rate is well below replacement rate, so without these immigrants, Britain's population would be declining, and fairly rapidly.

England is the size of Texas. America is gigantic and can absorb the people. It's very easy to build new homes in America. It's extremely difficult to build new homes in England. It's even insane just to add on to your home in England. And of course immigrants get preferential treatment when it comes to counsel housing

R109 pull the other one, Boris.

It would be nice if you provided evidence for your opinion, r109. But, alas, the evidence is not on your side.

Similarly, when I go to America as a tourist I don't want to be surrounded by guns, R50. Travel broadens the mind by teaching us we can't always get what we want.

R109, what? England is the size of Mississippi.

R111 immigrants may not get preferential treatment, but those who have lots of children do... and guess who have lots (and lots) of children? I look out the window of my east London flat and can see it for myself.

r114, statistics don't lie, and what my source provided was statistics. Your gut feeling tells you something, but it's wrong. However, the immigrants favor certain locales, and if their numbers are the majority in those areas, it stands to reason that their odds of being able to get council flats will also improve in those areas. However, you're again talking about 3.8 million people out of a total of 67 million people in the UK, most of whom will not be living in council flats and who are not at all evenly dispersed across the UK. In any case, the fault lies in the governments of Thatcher and successors, who opted to sell off vast amounts of public housing in Britain, and didn't replace it. Public housing was understood to be not only desirable but necessary in Britain, beginning in the 19th century, because large swaths of the country were off limits for building. Why Thatcher and her successors lost sight of that in the 1980s and beyond is a mystery.

R115 your statement is exactly why the Conservatives won. I am not wrong. Asking or usually instructing people to ignore the reality around them for so long and attempting to suppress any discussion of the change is fuelling the rise of the right across Europe and the UK Pushing the working class out of the east of London to make room for quite so many immigrants was never consented to by the electorate in any election that I recall. It’s not the immigrants fault either. I will admit to harbouring discomfort about the way the east has changed and is changing for gay people (this being a gay board after all), note the anti-gay stickers mentioned above.

Support for public housing is contingent on a largely culturally homogenous population. It might not be woke to say so, but this is also true.

My point is that public housing as a national priority lost out 20 years BEFORE the immigrant population of Britain began to rise so drastically.

R117 okay, fair point. My point is the way things stand, public housing will never again be a priority in the UK. I don’t personally agree with this or like it, but I’m a realist to a fault.

Neither will public housing be a priority in American cities ever again. The thought of a big public housing project in NYC, for example, is just laughable in this day and age. It's all about the billionaires now.