The Unz Review - Mobile
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersiSteve Blog
Lionel Shriver: "How Mass Immigration Drives the Housing Crisis"
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New Reply
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

In The Spectator of London, conservative-leaning American lady novelist Lionel Shriver writes about Britain:

How mass immigration drives the housing crisis

It’s the one reason for this worsening problem that blinkered liberals choose to ignore
Lionel Shriver

17 March 2018

… At a Radio 3 Free Thinking event last weekend, I all but came to blows with my panel’s ‘rational optimist’, who believes that continued human population growth will be both modest and benign. The moment I mentioned the inevitable pressures on Europe of mass migration, the poor gentleman exploded, as if I’d tripped the pin on one of those grenades cropping up on the dodgier streets of Sweden. Something about how we screwed up in Libya, and the needs of the NHS…

But let’s look at this housing business. It took half a century for the UK population to rise from 50.3 million in 1950 to 59.1 million in 2000. During that period, the foreign-born population rose from 4.3 per cent to 8.8 per cent — so a measure of that increase was already accounted for by newcomers. After an inflow historically unprecedented for this country, this brief century alone has seen the UK population shoot up to 65.6 million (as of January 2017), 14 per cent of whom were foreign-born as of 2016. We’re now adding another half-million every year. …

Oxford demographer David Coleman estimates that 85 per cent of the UK’s population increase from 2000 to 2015 is explained by migrants and their children. All these new people have to live somewhere. The pressure on housing, among many other social provisions, is intensified by the fact that on average foreign-born mothers have more children (2.06 in 2016) than women born in Britain (only 1.75). …

We’ve heard about Britain’s recent ‘mini-baby boom’, but its primary cause isn’t native-born women hitting up the NHS for IVF in their forties and having triplets. It’s not appreciably caused by immigrants from eastern Europe, either. As of 2011, mothers born in Poland averaged 2.1 children — while mothers born in Pakistan had 3.8, and mothers born in Somalia had 4.2. So even Brexit — assuming it actually happens, and actually curtails freedom of movement (ha! on both counts) — may not appreciably constrain foreign increase.

The housing crunch is further complicated by the fact that so many immigrants settle in the southeast, where residential shortages are keenest. The population of Greater London in 2017 was 8.8 million, a rise of 400,000 over the previous five years. Greater London housed only 7.1 million people in 1997, when Blair opened the gates to permanent visitors. That’s 1.7 million more residents in two decades — an increase of over a quarter, two-thirds of which occurred in only the last ten years. …

An astonishing 58.2 per cent of births in London were to foreign-born mothers. …

Hey, I know all about the fact that immigrants to the UK take up space, because I am a UK immigrant. …

Indeed, most immigration statistics are untrustworthy — because they’re too low. … Government has a) no idea how to track people with every motivation to keep off the radar, and b) every motivation itself to underestimate an unpopular social phenomenon, with a range of adverse consequences, that it cannot seem to control.

Do I sound bigoted? People can be bigoted, but facts can’t be. …

 
Hide 51 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
    []
  1. Cortes says:

    If you look at the linked article

    https://www.nrscotland.gov.uk/statistics-and-data/statistics/statistics-by-theme/vital-events/names/babies-first-names/babies-first-names-2017/list-of-detailed-tables

    you might note that Tables 4-6 don’t yet seem to be available despite us being in the second half of March… in previous years the tables were finalised and published earlier.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc.
    AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
    These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
    Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
    More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  2. J.Ross says: • Website

    Aha, Wikipedia says she changed her name at 15 out of tomboyism (althought Lionel is the least manly name that isn’t Chesney, Jeffrey or Percy. For somewhat related reasons George — a regally manly name — seems to be a perennial favorite nickname among English girls). If any SJWs are confused, pursuing your own idea is cool, and allowing Mark Zuckface to sort you into market-testing manipulation boxes cannot ever be cool, or a good idea. Tomboys are cool (and generally hot), and men claiming to be biological women (not merely existing at the bounds of a gender identity but claiming to be able to control reality) are uncool, sad, and insane, especially if their reality-controlling claims follow having killed someone with bad driving.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Reg Cæsar

    althought Lionel is the least manly name that isn’t Chesney, Jeffrey or Percy.
     
    Don't forget Lionel Tiger and his longtime partner Robin Fox.

    The two Percys I worked with were both black, and masculine enough. The name is like ballet with Eastern Europeans (according to Steve)-- to them, it exudes class, not effeminacy.

    Chesley sounds even worse than Chesney, but that's the name of a rare modern hero.

    https://cdn.waterstones.com/bookjackets/large/9780/0626/9780062677303.jpg
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  3. Major crush on Lionel. Something about a girl who can talk TFR statistics . . .

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    For her age, she's something of a miracle. She's almost a miracle anyway.
    , @Brutusale
    And trigger Muzzie snowflakes with keynote addresses...

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/10/as-lionel-shriver-made-light-of-identity-i-had-no-choice-but-to-walk-out-on-her

    I like the cut of her jib myself.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  4. Ed says:

    The sad part about Britain’s migration issue is that it didn’t need to occur. Even after the post war liberalization the number of immigrants was relatively small up through the Blair years. Up to that point immigrants were heavily South Asians many of whom were actually British nationals expelled out of east Africa.

    I don’t know the exact law Blair implemented or if he simply looked the other way but migration boomed under his watch to historic levels and from places that previously saw little migration to the U.K.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Doug
    Interesting. Never heard this before. Do you have any numbers?
    , @anonymous
    "The sad part about Britain’s migration issue is that it didn’t need to occur."

    Nor, I might add, did America's.
    , @Lurker
    It occurred because a group of people with enough clout wanted it to happen. But no, it certainly didn't need to occur.
    , @JollyOldSoul
    "I don’t know the exact law Blair implemented or if he simply looked the other way but migration boomed under his watch to historic levels and from places that previously saw little migration to the U.K."

    It's almost as if Tony Blair and his pals were evil sacks of shit with zero interest in the welfare of the British people. Small wonder that within about five years of leaving Downing Street his net worth - for a man who came from no money, with no experience outside of politics - was north of £70 million (~US$100 million). He's been bought off, and is now advocating for parliament to completely ignore the will of the British people and to stay in the EU anyway.
    , @Pericles
    It looks pretty deliberate by Blair and his gang. Of course, many leftist parties decided the same thing about that time: time to get a new set of voters. (A shame it also turned out the new voters wanted a new set of politicians, eh?)

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3466485/How-Blair-cynically-let-two-million-migrants-Explosive-biography-reveals-PM-s-conspiracy-silence-immigration-debate.html

    https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/immigration-legacy-tony-blair
    , @Thea
    One of his cronies Andrew N -something wrote an article for the Independent about how to point was to rub "Little Englanders'" noses in diversity.

    While I believe it more likely involved pay offs and profits, Blair's smug freinds do hate ordinary Englishmen.

    He & Bush are traitors of the greatest level and I feel nauseated that they continue to profit from stabbing their fellow countrymen in the back.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  5. TheBoom says:

    Always keep in mind that the concept of supply and demand (like per capita) is evil. It will be banished from our woke new world.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  6. It is all about supply and demand. Labour does not have a large enough supply of voters so they demand third world immigrants. And no white South Africans, thanks. Not even those whose ancestors are from the UK.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  7. Altai says:

    As of 2011, mothers born in Poland averaged 2.1 children — while mothers born in Pakistan had 3.8, and mothers born in Somalia had 4.2. So even Brexit — assuming it actually happens, and actually curtails freedom of movement (ha! on both counts) — may not appreciably constrain foreign increase.

    Uh, sure it would. In fact if fully enacted it would have a serious effect as she mentioned in her own article. Where do people get this idea that EU immigration isn’t a problem and doesn’t displace the native population? (Arguably legal low wage immigration is far worse than asylum seekers who can’t legally enter the labour force and who can’t get cheap loans etc) How long has she been living in London? Surely she’s noticed or is she one of these neo-cons who hope to continue the flow just without so many Muslims?

    Though maybe she’s just American and can’t tell Britons from non-British white people?

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    She understands the potential effects of Brexit and is mocking Donna QuixoMay, the woman who will save the EU elite from Brexit with a big scary pantomime bear. Shriver's point is about the babies had by people already here. In other words, implement hard Brexit yesterday, but beyond that, no jus soli, and, dream of dreams, actively rip people out. Even with newly respected borders, the numbers as they stand mean the elimination of Britons.
    , @JollyOldSoul
    "Where do people get this idea that EU immigration isn’t a problem and doesn’t displace the native population?"

    Obviously the best thing to happen would be for Britain to all but zero out non-European immigration, control its borders, and reduce legal immigration to a realistic amount.

    I have almost zero understanding of UK immigration law, but I would assume that right now, under the EU requirement of open borders, that if the UK has some designated number of allowable immigrants that immigrants from EU countries take up zero spots, since permission for them to immigrate isn't required. Once they need permission (after Brexit takes effect) their numbers will count against whatever limit there is, meaning that non-European immigration would fall.

    UK natives who know better please enlighten me if that is incorrect.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  8. Doug says:
    @Ed
    The sad part about Britain’s migration issue is that it didn’t need to occur. Even after the post war liberalization the number of immigrants was relatively small up through the Blair years. Up to that point immigrants were heavily South Asians many of whom were actually British nationals expelled out of east Africa.

    I don’t know the exact law Blair implemented or if he simply looked the other way but migration boomed under his watch to historic levels and from places that previously saw little migration to the U.K.

    Interesting. Never heard this before. Do you have any numbers?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    Interesting. Never heard this before. Do you have any numbers?
     
    The scale of the Blairite catastrophe is best seen here:

    https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/statistics-net-migration-statistics

    and see also the article here:

    Immigration Under Labour

    In the two decades since 1997, the Blairite Prime Ministers Blair, Brown, Cameron, and May have basically irretrievably destroyed a priceless asset that was created over the course of a millennium of island life. The main reason for recording and memorialising this truth is so that future generations living in these isles will know whom to blame and whom to hate for their condition and the strife they will undoubtedly have to endure.

    It might or might not be of interest to you, depending where you stand on one of the big Unz issues, to know that one of the pivotal figures in opening the floodgates was jewish: the immigration minister from 1999-2001 Barbara Roche, about whom Wikipedia notes;

    "In February 2016, a biography of Tony Blair, Broken Vows: Tony Blair -- The Tragedy of Power (serialized in the Daily Mail), by British author Tom Bower, described Roche's alleged part in the deliberate encouragement of mass immigration into the UK during Blair's time as Prime Minister of the UK.[7]

    The Daily Mail, in its serialization, commented thus on the book: "The most incredible revelations concern Barbara Roche, a little-known MP who was immigration minister between 1999 and 2001. During this period, she quietly adopted policies – with Mr Blair’s approval – that changed the face of the UK." and "She changed the rules to allow more work permits to be issued, especially to people who would previously have been considered asylum seekers. Stephen Boys Smith, who was then head of the Home Office’s immigration directorate, said: ‘It was clear that Roche wanted more immigrants to come to Britain. She didn’t see her job as controlling entry into Britain, but by looking at the wider picture in a “holistic way” she wanted us to see the benefit of a multicultural society.’"[7]
    "
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  9. J.Ross says: • Website
    @Altai

    As of 2011, mothers born in Poland averaged 2.1 children — while mothers born in Pakistan had 3.8, and mothers born in Somalia had 4.2. So even Brexit — assuming it actually happens, and actually curtails freedom of movement (ha! on both counts) — may not appreciably constrain foreign increase.
     
    Uh, sure it would. In fact if fully enacted it would have a serious effect as she mentioned in her own article. Where do people get this idea that EU immigration isn't a problem and doesn't displace the native population? (Arguably legal low wage immigration is far worse than asylum seekers who can't legally enter the labour force and who can't get cheap loans etc) How long has she been living in London? Surely she's noticed or is she one of these neo-cons who hope to continue the flow just without so many Muslims?

    Though maybe she's just American and can't tell Britons from non-British white people?

    She understands the potential effects of Brexit and is mocking Donna QuixoMay, the woman who will save the EU elite from Brexit with a big scary pantomime bear. Shriver’s point is about the babies had by people already here. In other words, implement hard Brexit yesterday, but beyond that, no jus soli, and, dream of dreams, actively rip people out. Even with newly respected borders, the numbers as they stand mean the elimination of Britons.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  10. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Shriver is also an avowed fan of The Camp of the Saints.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  11. “conservative-leaning American lady novelist Lionel Shriver”

    Huh? Isn’t “Lionel” a boy’s name? Following your link to

    https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/why-mass-immigration-explains-the-housing-crisis/

    and scrolling down a bit, we see the caption “Lionel Shriver” on the photograph of a bald-headed man with a white mustache and beard. I wonder whether Lionel is related to Ramblin’ Lou Shriver:

    Read More
    • Replies: @Chrisnonymous
    If you read the Wiki Steve linked to, it explains why she has a man's name.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  12. @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)
    "conservative-leaning American lady novelist Lionel Shriver"

    Huh? Isn't "Lionel" a boy's name? Following your link to
    https://www.spectator.co.uk/2018/03/why-mass-immigration-explains-the-housing-crisis/
    and scrolling down a bit, we see the caption "Lionel Shriver" on the photograph of a bald-headed man with a white mustache and beard. I wonder whether Lionel is related to Ramblin' Lou Shriver:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QBpSG6LlTUU

    If you read the Wiki Steve linked to, it explains why she has a man’s name.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Mark Spahn (West Seneca, NY)
    Thanks, Chrisnonymous. I followed the wrong one of the two links Steve gave. It looks like the Spectator thinks that Lionel Shriver is a bald bearded man.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  13. Tyrion 2 says:

    I knew she was a good egg as soon as I saw her. What a blistering article she has written!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  14. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    She wrote a pre-Trump novel where a crazy president is elected, and Mexico builds a wall to keep out fleeing Americans.

    She seems to have avoided developing that weird too-long-in-England, Bill Bryson-style half-American, half-English accent.

    Another American in England, Sarah Lyall, eventually returned after 18 years and wrote a pretty funny book about the country on her way out, The Anglo Files. Mixed in with the funny stuff is a chapter on the consumption of alcohol by the English. It really sounds like a problem. Normal people get frat-party drunk on a nightly basis.

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross

    the consumption of alcohol by the English. It really sounds like a problem. Normal people get frat-party drunk on a nightly basis.
     
    This is a well known old point, usually brought up to rebut stereotypes of Irish or Russians (which stereotypes were propagated by ... you guessed it).
    Another less publicized but related point, relevant to distributed gun ownership, is that England is shockingly violent, as a direct function of out of control drunkenness and the expectation that nobody is going to pull a gun. I have heard Anglos claiming that the police have totally given up on consensual bar fights, and that some pubs have a nightly fight at closing time. Good thing they got rid of legal pistol ownership.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  15. Randal says:
    @Doug
    Interesting. Never heard this before. Do you have any numbers?

    Interesting. Never heard this before. Do you have any numbers?

    The scale of the Blairite catastrophe is best seen here:

    https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/statistics-net-migration-statistics

    and see also the article here:

    Immigration Under Labour

    In the two decades since 1997, the Blairite Prime Ministers Blair, Brown, Cameron, and May have basically irretrievably destroyed a priceless asset that was created over the course of a millennium of island life. The main reason for recording and memorialising this truth is so that future generations living in these isles will know whom to blame and whom to hate for their condition and the strife they will undoubtedly have to endure.

    It might or might not be of interest to you, depending where you stand on one of the big Unz issues, to know that one of the pivotal figures in opening the floodgates was jewish: the immigration minister from 1999-2001 Barbara Roche, about whom Wikipedia notes;

    In February 2016, a biography of Tony Blair, Broken Vows: Tony Blair — The Tragedy of Power (serialized in the Daily Mail), by British author Tom Bower, described Roche’s alleged part in the deliberate encouragement of mass immigration into the UK during Blair’s time as Prime Minister of the UK.[7]

    The Daily Mail, in its serialization, commented thus on the book: “The most incredible revelations concern Barbara Roche, a little-known MP who was immigration minister between 1999 and 2001. During this period, she quietly adopted policies – with Mr Blair’s approval – that changed the face of the UK.” and “She changed the rules to allow more work permits to be issued, especially to people who would previously have been considered asylum seekers. Stephen Boys Smith, who was then head of the Home Office’s immigration directorate, said: ‘It was clear that Roche wanted more immigrants to come to Britain. She didn’t see her job as controlling entry into Britain, but by looking at the wider picture in a “holistic way” she wanted us to see the benefit of a multicultural society.’”[7]“

    Read More
    • Replies: @Whiskey
    If only those evil jooooooooo rays had not mind controlled Tony Blair like Wormtongue controlled the King of Rohan in Lord of the Rings.

    Blair was what he was and got exactly what he wanted. And he was what he was because of Matriarchy. Which is inevitable if women are not dependent on and inferior to their male peers as a way of controlling female hypergamy
    , @Tyrion 2
    As always, keys facts are missed out.

    1. The ministerial position was created in 1999, when she assumed the role.

    2. Immigration took off in 1997, 2 years before she took the role. It then levelled out briefly after she assumed it.

    3. Immigration did rise again, but only after she left the role.

    In other words, her effect was to stop the trending rise in immigration until a couple of years after she left. It is the literal opposite of what you argue.

    All stats were looked up on the graph at the link below.

    https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/statistics-net-migration-statistics

    Having said that:

    In the two decades since 1997, the Blairite Prime Ministers Blair, Brown, Cameron, and May have basically irretrievably destroyed a priceless asset that was created over the course of a millennium of island life.
     
    Yes.

    Or as (((Benjamin Schwarz))) - Yale University Press Editor at Large - wrote:

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/unmaking-england/

    The above is to my mind undoubtedly the finest piece on this sad issue.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  16. anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Ed
    The sad part about Britain’s migration issue is that it didn’t need to occur. Even after the post war liberalization the number of immigrants was relatively small up through the Blair years. Up to that point immigrants were heavily South Asians many of whom were actually British nationals expelled out of east Africa.

    I don’t know the exact law Blair implemented or if he simply looked the other way but migration boomed under his watch to historic levels and from places that previously saw little migration to the U.K.

    “The sad part about Britain’s migration issue is that it didn’t need to occur.”

    Nor, I might add, did America’s.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  17. The Radio 3 podcast of the panel of experts is available at their Free Thinking webpage.

    The theme is “The Population Bomb” .

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  18. Whiskey says: • Website
    @Randal

    Interesting. Never heard this before. Do you have any numbers?
     
    The scale of the Blairite catastrophe is best seen here:

    https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/statistics-net-migration-statistics

    and see also the article here:

    Immigration Under Labour

    In the two decades since 1997, the Blairite Prime Ministers Blair, Brown, Cameron, and May have basically irretrievably destroyed a priceless asset that was created over the course of a millennium of island life. The main reason for recording and memorialising this truth is so that future generations living in these isles will know whom to blame and whom to hate for their condition and the strife they will undoubtedly have to endure.

    It might or might not be of interest to you, depending where you stand on one of the big Unz issues, to know that one of the pivotal figures in opening the floodgates was jewish: the immigration minister from 1999-2001 Barbara Roche, about whom Wikipedia notes;

    "In February 2016, a biography of Tony Blair, Broken Vows: Tony Blair -- The Tragedy of Power (serialized in the Daily Mail), by British author Tom Bower, described Roche's alleged part in the deliberate encouragement of mass immigration into the UK during Blair's time as Prime Minister of the UK.[7]

    The Daily Mail, in its serialization, commented thus on the book: "The most incredible revelations concern Barbara Roche, a little-known MP who was immigration minister between 1999 and 2001. During this period, she quietly adopted policies – with Mr Blair’s approval – that changed the face of the UK." and "She changed the rules to allow more work permits to be issued, especially to people who would previously have been considered asylum seekers. Stephen Boys Smith, who was then head of the Home Office’s immigration directorate, said: ‘It was clear that Roche wanted more immigrants to come to Britain. She didn’t see her job as controlling entry into Britain, but by looking at the wider picture in a “holistic way” she wanted us to see the benefit of a multicultural society.’"[7]
    "

    If only those evil jooooooooo rays had not mind controlled Tony Blair like Wormtongue controlled the King of Rohan in Lord of the Rings.

    Blair was what he was and got exactly what he wanted. And he was what he was because of Matriarchy. Which is inevitable if women are not dependent on and inferior to their male peers as a way of controlling female hypergamy

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  19. Randal says:

    By the way, on the topic of immigration to Britain, here’s a first: socialist bruiser George Galloway actually calling for the expulsion of immigrants:

    George Galloway has said the “nest” of Russian immigrants murdering and robbing each other should “take themselves and their money” back to Russia, following the poisoning of Sergei Skripal.

    Of course, it’s mostly white, mostly Christian Russian immigrants he’s targeting, using the kind of language he’d no doubt punch you out as a “racist” for using about any of the more special immigrant groups that are dearer to his lefty heart.

    Still, maybe it’s a start. Fwiw, over the past couple of decades he’s mostly been right on foreign policy related issues and utterly wrong on domestic policy issues (apart form despising Blairites), as far as I have seen.

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    So Galloway can only see through laughably dishonest pretexts for war when he is a business partner of the accused?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  20. George says:

    It’s not a housing crisis if you own housing.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  21. @Chrisnonymous
    If you read the Wiki Steve linked to, it explains why she has a man's name.

    Thanks, Chrisnonymous. I followed the wrong one of the two links Steve gave. It looks like the Spectator thinks that Lionel Shriver is a bald bearded man.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  22. njguy73 says:

    Here’s Shriver on why being angry about “cultural appropriation” is a farce:

    I am hopeful that the concept of “cultural appropriation” is a passing fad: people with different backgrounds rubbing up against each other and exchanging ideas and practices is self-evidently one of the most productive, fascinating aspects of modern urban life.

    But this latest and little absurd no-no is part of a larger climate of super-sensitivity, giving rise to proliferating prohibitions supposedly in the interest of social justice that constrain fiction writers and prospectively makes our work impossible.

    Because the ultimate endpoint of keeping out mitts off experience that doesn’t belong to us is that there is no fiction. Someone like me only permits herself to write from the perspective of a straight white female born in North Carolina, closing on sixty, able-bodied but with bad knees, skint for years but finally able to buy the odd new shirt. All that’s left is memoir.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/13/lionel-shrivers-full-speech-i-hope-the-concept-of-cultural-appropriation-is-a-passing-fad

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous

    All that’s left is memoir.
     
    She hit on it perfectly, omitting only to say that only certain kinds of people are now permitted to publish their memoirs, and they're permitted to make up anything they like in them. Watch out for white ladies on escalators!
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  23. J.Ross says: • Website
    @Randal
    By the way, on the topic of immigration to Britain, here's a first: socialist bruiser George Galloway actually calling for the expulsion of immigrants:

    "George Galloway has said the "nest" of Russian immigrants murdering and robbing each other should "take themselves and their money" back to Russia, following the poisoning of Sergei Skripal."

    Of course, it's mostly white, mostly Christian Russian immigrants he's targeting, using the kind of language he'd no doubt punch you out as a "racist" for using about any of the more special immigrant groups that are dearer to his lefty heart.

    Still, maybe it's a start. Fwiw, over the past couple of decades he's mostly been right on foreign policy related issues and utterly wrong on domestic policy issues (apart form despising Blairites), as far as I have seen.

    So Galloway can only see through laughably dishonest pretexts for war when he is a business partner of the accused?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  24. Lurker says:
    @Ed
    The sad part about Britain’s migration issue is that it didn’t need to occur. Even after the post war liberalization the number of immigrants was relatively small up through the Blair years. Up to that point immigrants were heavily South Asians many of whom were actually British nationals expelled out of east Africa.

    I don’t know the exact law Blair implemented or if he simply looked the other way but migration boomed under his watch to historic levels and from places that previously saw little migration to the U.K.

    It occurred because a group of people with enough clout wanted it to happen. But no, it certainly didn’t need to occur.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  25. J.Ross says: • Website
    @Anonymous
    She wrote a pre-Trump novel where a crazy president is elected, and Mexico builds a wall to keep out fleeing Americans.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUlelCrLm-o

    She seems to have avoided developing that weird too-long-in-England, Bill Bryson-style half-American, half-English accent.

    Another American in England, Sarah Lyall, eventually returned after 18 years and wrote a pretty funny book about the country on her way out, The Anglo Files. Mixed in with the funny stuff is a chapter on the consumption of alcohol by the English. It really sounds like a problem. Normal people get frat-party drunk on a nightly basis.

    the consumption of alcohol by the English. It really sounds like a problem. Normal people get frat-party drunk on a nightly basis.

    This is a well known old point, usually brought up to rebut stereotypes of Irish or Russians (which stereotypes were propagated by … you guessed it).
    Another less publicized but related point, relevant to distributed gun ownership, is that England is shockingly violent, as a direct function of out of control drunkenness and the expectation that nobody is going to pull a gun. I have heard Anglos claiming that the police have totally given up on consensual bar fights, and that some pubs have a nightly fight at closing time. Good thing they got rid of legal pistol ownership.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Graham
    Alcohol consumption in England is much lower than in many other European countries. See http://www.ias.org.uk/Alcohol-knowledge-centre/Consumption/Factsheets/UK-alcohol-consumption.aspx for a chart.

    Drinking has been slowly declining in recent years (same source). As for fights in pubs, well, I last saw one about 20 years ago. That's anecdotal, so make of it what you will.

    Sarah Lyall's book was written to amuse Americans, not to give a measured and scholarly assessment of the UK, and should not be taken seriously.

    England is not 'shockingly violent', and certainly nowhere near as violent as America. See https://dispellingthemythukvsusguns.wordpress.com/.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  26. @Ed
    The sad part about Britain’s migration issue is that it didn’t need to occur. Even after the post war liberalization the number of immigrants was relatively small up through the Blair years. Up to that point immigrants were heavily South Asians many of whom were actually British nationals expelled out of east Africa.

    I don’t know the exact law Blair implemented or if he simply looked the other way but migration boomed under his watch to historic levels and from places that previously saw little migration to the U.K.

    “I don’t know the exact law Blair implemented or if he simply looked the other way but migration boomed under his watch to historic levels and from places that previously saw little migration to the U.K.”

    It’s almost as if Tony Blair and his pals were evil sacks of shit with zero interest in the welfare of the British people. Small wonder that within about five years of leaving Downing Street his net worth – for a man who came from no money, with no experience outside of politics – was north of £70 million (~US$100 million). He’s been bought off, and is now advocating for parliament to completely ignore the will of the British people and to stay in the EU anyway.

    Read More
    • Agree: ben tillman
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  27. @Altai

    As of 2011, mothers born in Poland averaged 2.1 children — while mothers born in Pakistan had 3.8, and mothers born in Somalia had 4.2. So even Brexit — assuming it actually happens, and actually curtails freedom of movement (ha! on both counts) — may not appreciably constrain foreign increase.
     
    Uh, sure it would. In fact if fully enacted it would have a serious effect as she mentioned in her own article. Where do people get this idea that EU immigration isn't a problem and doesn't displace the native population? (Arguably legal low wage immigration is far worse than asylum seekers who can't legally enter the labour force and who can't get cheap loans etc) How long has she been living in London? Surely she's noticed or is she one of these neo-cons who hope to continue the flow just without so many Muslims?

    Though maybe she's just American and can't tell Britons from non-British white people?

    “Where do people get this idea that EU immigration isn’t a problem and doesn’t displace the native population?”

    Obviously the best thing to happen would be for Britain to all but zero out non-European immigration, control its borders, and reduce legal immigration to a realistic amount.

    I have almost zero understanding of UK immigration law, but I would assume that right now, under the EU requirement of open borders, that if the UK has some designated number of allowable immigrants that immigrants from EU countries take up zero spots, since permission for them to immigrate isn’t required. Once they need permission (after Brexit takes effect) their numbers will count against whatever limit there is, meaning that non-European immigration would fall.

    UK natives who know better please enlighten me if that is incorrect.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tyrion 2

    UK natives who know better please enlighten me if that is incorrect.
     
    There are no 'spots'. There is a loose target. It is very high. Yet it is exceeded at least doubly so because the political class are unwilling to do what it takes.

    Maintaining borders requires committed, morally complex action. I wonder often if the ideology of multiculturalism is merely a rationalisation for this extreme moral cowardice.

    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  28. The moment I mentioned the inevitable pressures on Europe of mass migration, the poor gentleman exploded, as if I’d tripped the pin on one of those grenades cropping up on the dodgier streets of Sweden.

    Beautiful.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  29. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @njguy73
    Here's Shriver on why being angry about "cultural appropriation" is a farce:

    I am hopeful that the concept of “cultural appropriation” is a passing fad: people with different backgrounds rubbing up against each other and exchanging ideas and practices is self-evidently one of the most productive, fascinating aspects of modern urban life.

    But this latest and little absurd no-no is part of a larger climate of super-sensitivity, giving rise to proliferating prohibitions supposedly in the interest of social justice that constrain fiction writers and prospectively makes our work impossible.
     

    Because the ultimate endpoint of keeping out mitts off experience that doesn’t belong to us is that there is no fiction. Someone like me only permits herself to write from the perspective of a straight white female born in North Carolina, closing on sixty, able-bodied but with bad knees, skint for years but finally able to buy the odd new shirt. All that’s left is memoir.
     
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/13/lionel-shrivers-full-speech-i-hope-the-concept-of-cultural-appropriation-is-a-passing-fad

    All that’s left is memoir.

    She hit on it perfectly, omitting only to say that only certain kinds of people are now permitted to publish their memoirs, and they’re permitted to make up anything they like in them. Watch out for white ladies on escalators!

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  30. Lionel mentions “blinkered” liberals, but I never have met an un-blinkered liberal. It’s “who they are” as a moron used to say a lot.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  31. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Excellent article by Lionel Shriver.

    Now, the Blair/Economist ‘official’ justification for the mass immigration wave post 1997, was that it would ‘boost’ the British economy. Logically, if we go by the musings of the old time economic thinkers, ‘boosting’ an economy has but one justification, namely, increasing the living standards of the all citizens – in plain English putting more cash in the punter’s pocket -.

    Now we learn that mass immigration has made housing all but unaffordable for large numbers of Britons, and rents are now so high that yer typical Londoner has but a few pounds left out of his weekly wages after paying the rent.

    Hardly increasing living standards.

    So, what was *the bloody point* of the Blair/Economist immigration surge?

    Read More
    • Replies: @ben tillman

    So, what was *the bloody point* of the Blair/Economist immigration surge?
     
    To expedite the annihilation of the British peoples.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  32. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Seth Largo
    Major crush on Lionel. Something about a girl who can talk TFR statistics . . .

    For her age, she’s something of a miracle. She’s almost a miracle anyway.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  33. Graham says:
    @J.Ross

    the consumption of alcohol by the English. It really sounds like a problem. Normal people get frat-party drunk on a nightly basis.
     
    This is a well known old point, usually brought up to rebut stereotypes of Irish or Russians (which stereotypes were propagated by ... you guessed it).
    Another less publicized but related point, relevant to distributed gun ownership, is that England is shockingly violent, as a direct function of out of control drunkenness and the expectation that nobody is going to pull a gun. I have heard Anglos claiming that the police have totally given up on consensual bar fights, and that some pubs have a nightly fight at closing time. Good thing they got rid of legal pistol ownership.

    Alcohol consumption in England is much lower than in many other European countries. See http://www.ias.org.uk/Alcohol-knowledge-centre/Consumption/Factsheets/UK-alcohol-consumption.aspx for a chart.

    Drinking has been slowly declining in recent years (same source). As for fights in pubs, well, I last saw one about 20 years ago. That’s anecdotal, so make of it what you will.

    Sarah Lyall’s book was written to amuse Americans, not to give a measured and scholarly assessment of the UK, and should not be taken seriously.

    England is not ‘shockingly violent’, and certainly nowhere near as violent as America. See https://dispellingthemythukvsusguns.wordpress.com/.

    Read More
    • Replies: @J.Ross
    America has more deaths from guns because we have more guns, but England has more violence, and the worst ghetto precinct has not abdicated its role like English police universally have.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  34. Pericles says:
    @Ed
    The sad part about Britain’s migration issue is that it didn’t need to occur. Even after the post war liberalization the number of immigrants was relatively small up through the Blair years. Up to that point immigrants were heavily South Asians many of whom were actually British nationals expelled out of east Africa.

    I don’t know the exact law Blair implemented or if he simply looked the other way but migration boomed under his watch to historic levels and from places that previously saw little migration to the U.K.

    It looks pretty deliberate by Blair and his gang. Of course, many leftist parties decided the same thing about that time: time to get a new set of voters. (A shame it also turned out the new voters wanted a new set of politicians, eh?)

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3466485/How-Blair-cynically-let-two-million-migrants-Explosive-biography-reveals-PM-s-conspiracy-silence-immigration-debate.html

    https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/immigration-legacy-tony-blair

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  35. I am not sure how much research Lionel Shriver has done into the subject, the loosening of planning restrictions (it is much easier to convert office space to residential property or to build a house extension) and profits available have meant housing supply in the UK and the South East have largely tracked the rise in households caused by immigration and native increase.

    Research by a range of consultancies, housing economists etc. put the rise in the South East primarily down to higher earnings and the huge drop in interest rates since 2007. You earn roughly the same yield on a property now that you did 20 years ago as your borrowing costs are a lot lower. That tracks with my own experience, apart from a few central London neighborhoods most immigrants don’t have the savings or earnings to bid up prices. Put interest rates back to 5% and the crisis would be over.

    https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.oxfordeconomics.com/publication/open/269985&ved=2ahUKEwjmsuWbxPPZAhXMZFAKHdmwDBQQFjAAegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw0mVcCb1i5ZTS5wmBFGgDkY

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tyrion 2

    Research by a range of consultancies, housing economists etc. put the rise in the South East primarily down to higher earnings and the huge drop in interest rates since 2007. You earn roughly the same yield on a property now that you did 20 years ago as your borrowing costs are a lot lower. That tracks with my own experience, apart from a few central London neighborhoods most immigrants don’t have the savings or earnings to bid up prices. Put interest rates back to 5% and the crisis would be over.
     
    Interest rates are an issue but the idea that you can add millions of people and transform the population of London without increasing house prices is nuts.
    , @Anonymous
    Yep.

    The Law of Supply and Demand no longer exists, because you've said so.

    I've just declared that 'Gravity' does not exist.
    Care to jump off a roof to disprove my assertion?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  36. Thea says:
    @Ed
    The sad part about Britain’s migration issue is that it didn’t need to occur. Even after the post war liberalization the number of immigrants was relatively small up through the Blair years. Up to that point immigrants were heavily South Asians many of whom were actually British nationals expelled out of east Africa.

    I don’t know the exact law Blair implemented or if he simply looked the other way but migration boomed under his watch to historic levels and from places that previously saw little migration to the U.K.

    One of his cronies Andrew N -something wrote an article for the Independent about how to point was to rub “Little Englanders’” noses in diversity.

    While I believe it more likely involved pay offs and profits, Blair’s smug freinds do hate ordinary Englishmen.

    He & Bush are traitors of the greatest level and I feel nauseated that they continue to profit from stabbing their fellow countrymen in the back.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  37. Tyrion 2 says:
    @Randal

    Interesting. Never heard this before. Do you have any numbers?
     
    The scale of the Blairite catastrophe is best seen here:

    https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/statistics-net-migration-statistics

    and see also the article here:

    Immigration Under Labour

    In the two decades since 1997, the Blairite Prime Ministers Blair, Brown, Cameron, and May have basically irretrievably destroyed a priceless asset that was created over the course of a millennium of island life. The main reason for recording and memorialising this truth is so that future generations living in these isles will know whom to blame and whom to hate for their condition and the strife they will undoubtedly have to endure.

    It might or might not be of interest to you, depending where you stand on one of the big Unz issues, to know that one of the pivotal figures in opening the floodgates was jewish: the immigration minister from 1999-2001 Barbara Roche, about whom Wikipedia notes;

    "In February 2016, a biography of Tony Blair, Broken Vows: Tony Blair -- The Tragedy of Power (serialized in the Daily Mail), by British author Tom Bower, described Roche's alleged part in the deliberate encouragement of mass immigration into the UK during Blair's time as Prime Minister of the UK.[7]

    The Daily Mail, in its serialization, commented thus on the book: "The most incredible revelations concern Barbara Roche, a little-known MP who was immigration minister between 1999 and 2001. During this period, she quietly adopted policies – with Mr Blair’s approval – that changed the face of the UK." and "She changed the rules to allow more work permits to be issued, especially to people who would previously have been considered asylum seekers. Stephen Boys Smith, who was then head of the Home Office’s immigration directorate, said: ‘It was clear that Roche wanted more immigrants to come to Britain. She didn’t see her job as controlling entry into Britain, but by looking at the wider picture in a “holistic way” she wanted us to see the benefit of a multicultural society.’"[7]
    "

    As always, keys facts are missed out.

    1. The ministerial position was created in 1999, when she assumed the role.

    2. Immigration took off in 1997, 2 years before she took the role. It then levelled out briefly after she assumed it.

    3. Immigration did rise again, but only after she left the role.

    In other words, her effect was to stop the trending rise in immigration until a couple of years after she left. It is the literal opposite of what you argue.

    All stats were looked up on the graph at the link below.

    https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/statistics-net-migration-statistics

    Having said that:

    In the two decades since 1997, the Blairite Prime Ministers Blair, Brown, Cameron, and May have basically irretrievably destroyed a priceless asset that was created over the course of a millennium of island life.

    Yes.

    Or as (((Benjamin Schwarz))) – Yale University Press Editor at Large – wrote:

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/unmaking-england/

    The above is to my mind undoubtedly the finest piece on this sad issue.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Randal

    The ministerial position was created in 1999, when she assumed the role.
     
    Why is that a "key fact", bearing in mind I identified her as "immigration minister from 1999-2001"?

    2. Immigration took off in 1997, 2 years before she took the role. It then levelled out briefly after she assumed it.

    3. Immigration did rise again, but only after she left the role.
     
    These are the ONS figures for immigration in the years in question (and yes, there's no question that the election of the Blair government in 1997 was the initiator of the harm - that's never been disputed and was indeed the main thrust of my post):

    1997: 327k
    1998: 391k
    1999: 454k
    2000: 479k
    2001: 481k
    2002: 516k

    Barbara Roche took office in the middle of 1999 and left office in the middle of 2001, in which time she increased the official number of immigrants from 454k pa to 481k pa, and created conditions in which it jumped to 516k the following year.

    Source: https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/statistics-net-migration-statistics

    Ministerial decisions, like government decisions in general, often don't show all their impact immediately, and nor are immigration figures under the control of pro-immigration zealots like Roche remotely reliable - one should ordinarily assume they are systematically understated for ideological reasons. It would be rather surprising given Roche's recorded attitude to immigration (as set out in the extract I quoted above) if she had not, as was in fact the case, increased immigration both directly and indirectly.

    The flooding of Britain has been a long process that started under Blair and continued under all the subsequent Blairite PMs including the current one. Obviously Roche was not responsible for all of it. I will concede that the term "pivotal" probably should better have been "significant".

    Or as (((Benjamin Schwarz))) – Yale University Press Editor at Large – wrote:

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/unmaking-england/

    The above is to my mind undoubtedly the finest piece on this sad issue.
     
    I agree and I have acknowledged that before (in fact if you look at the Amconmag article you will see that mine is the first comment below it). I have elsewhere noted the irony that jewish people have provided both some of the strongest advocates of multiculturalism and mass immigration and some of the people most effectively pointing out the problems with it, as with that essay by Schwarz.

    Sadly it tends to be the Barbara Roches and the Barbara Lerner Spectres that get to occupy the seats of political and cultural influence, while Schwarz gets to write a mostly ignored (albeit brilliant) piece published in a fringe and rather second rate American semi-conservative online publication.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  38. Brutusale says:
    @Seth Largo
    Major crush on Lionel. Something about a girl who can talk TFR statistics . . .

    And trigger Muzzie snowflakes with keynote addresses…

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/sep/10/as-lionel-shriver-made-light-of-identity-i-had-no-choice-but-to-walk-out-on-her

    I like the cut of her jib myself.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  39. Tyrion 2 says:
    @JollyOldSoul
    "Where do people get this idea that EU immigration isn’t a problem and doesn’t displace the native population?"

    Obviously the best thing to happen would be for Britain to all but zero out non-European immigration, control its borders, and reduce legal immigration to a realistic amount.

    I have almost zero understanding of UK immigration law, but I would assume that right now, under the EU requirement of open borders, that if the UK has some designated number of allowable immigrants that immigrants from EU countries take up zero spots, since permission for them to immigrate isn't required. Once they need permission (after Brexit takes effect) their numbers will count against whatever limit there is, meaning that non-European immigration would fall.

    UK natives who know better please enlighten me if that is incorrect.

    UK natives who know better please enlighten me if that is incorrect.

    There are no ‘spots’. There is a loose target. It is very high. Yet it is exceeded at least doubly so because the political class are unwilling to do what it takes.

    Maintaining borders requires committed, morally complex action. I wonder often if the ideology of multiculturalism is merely a rationalisation for this extreme moral cowardice.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  40. AKAHorace says:

    Could Shrivers article have been published in any mainstream US newspaper or magazine ?

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tyrion 2
    The Spectator is launching in the States soon.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  41. Tyrion 2 says:
    @Ali Choudhury
    I am not sure how much research Lionel Shriver has done into the subject, the loosening of planning restrictions (it is much easier to convert office space to residential property or to build a house extension) and profits available have meant housing supply in the UK and the South East have largely tracked the rise in households caused by immigration and native increase.

    Research by a range of consultancies, housing economists etc. put the rise in the South East primarily down to higher earnings and the huge drop in interest rates since 2007. You earn roughly the same yield on a property now that you did 20 years ago as your borrowing costs are a lot lower. That tracks with my own experience, apart from a few central London neighborhoods most immigrants don't have the savings or earnings to bid up prices. Put interest rates back to 5% and the crisis would be over.

    https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.oxfordeconomics.com/publication/open/269985&ved=2ahUKEwjmsuWbxPPZAhXMZFAKHdmwDBQQFjAAegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw0mVcCb1i5ZTS5wmBFGgDkY

    Research by a range of consultancies, housing economists etc. put the rise in the South East primarily down to higher earnings and the huge drop in interest rates since 2007. You earn roughly the same yield on a property now that you did 20 years ago as your borrowing costs are a lot lower. That tracks with my own experience, apart from a few central London neighborhoods most immigrants don’t have the savings or earnings to bid up prices. Put interest rates back to 5% and the crisis would be over.

    Interest rates are an issue but the idea that you can add millions of people and transform the population of London without increasing house prices is nuts.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Ali Choudhury
    I would recommend going through these blogs.

    https://medium.com/@ian.mulheirn/part-1-is-there-really-a-housing-shortage-89fdc6bac4d2

    The picture they paint is pretty clear, even given the rise in population the supply of housing has been more than keeping up in London and the UK generally. For those who follow the news locally here it is apparent the cost of housing i.e. the cost of paying mortgages has been the biggest factor the trajectory of house prices, Part 3 from the link above corroborates that.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  42. Tyrion 2 says:
    @AKAHorace
    Could Shrivers article have been published in any mainstream US newspaper or magazine ?

    The Spectator is launching in the States soon.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  43. Randal says:
    @Tyrion 2
    As always, keys facts are missed out.

    1. The ministerial position was created in 1999, when she assumed the role.

    2. Immigration took off in 1997, 2 years before she took the role. It then levelled out briefly after she assumed it.

    3. Immigration did rise again, but only after she left the role.

    In other words, her effect was to stop the trending rise in immigration until a couple of years after she left. It is the literal opposite of what you argue.

    All stats were looked up on the graph at the link below.

    https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/statistics-net-migration-statistics

    Having said that:

    In the two decades since 1997, the Blairite Prime Ministers Blair, Brown, Cameron, and May have basically irretrievably destroyed a priceless asset that was created over the course of a millennium of island life.
     
    Yes.

    Or as (((Benjamin Schwarz))) - Yale University Press Editor at Large - wrote:

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/unmaking-england/

    The above is to my mind undoubtedly the finest piece on this sad issue.

    The ministerial position was created in 1999, when she assumed the role.

    Why is that a “key fact”, bearing in mind I identified her as “immigration minister from 1999-2001″?

    2. Immigration took off in 1997, 2 years before she took the role. It then levelled out briefly after she assumed it.

    3. Immigration did rise again, but only after she left the role.

    These are the ONS figures for immigration in the years in question (and yes, there’s no question that the election of the Blair government in 1997 was the initiator of the harm – that’s never been disputed and was indeed the main thrust of my post):

    1997: 327k
    1998: 391k
    1999: 454k
    2000: 479k
    2001: 481k
    2002: 516k

    Barbara Roche took office in the middle of 1999 and left office in the middle of 2001, in which time she increased the official number of immigrants from 454k pa to 481k pa, and created conditions in which it jumped to 516k the following year.

    Source: https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/statistics-net-migration-statistics

    Ministerial decisions, like government decisions in general, often don’t show all their impact immediately, and nor are immigration figures under the control of pro-immigration zealots like Roche remotely reliable – one should ordinarily assume they are systematically understated for ideological reasons. It would be rather surprising given Roche’s recorded attitude to immigration (as set out in the extract I quoted above) if she had not, as was in fact the case, increased immigration both directly and indirectly.

    The flooding of Britain has been a long process that started under Blair and continued under all the subsequent Blairite PMs including the current one. Obviously Roche was not responsible for all of it. I will concede that the term “pivotal” probably should better have been “significant”.

    Or as (((Benjamin Schwarz))) – Yale University Press Editor at Large – wrote:

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/unmaking-england/

    The above is to my mind undoubtedly the finest piece on this sad issue.

    I agree and I have acknowledged that before (in fact if you look at the Amconmag article you will see that mine is the first comment below it). I have elsewhere noted the irony that jewish people have provided both some of the strongest advocates of multiculturalism and mass immigration and some of the people most effectively pointing out the problems with it, as with that essay by Schwarz.

    Sadly it tends to be the Barbara Roches and the Barbara Lerner Spectres that get to occupy the seats of political and cultural influence, while Schwarz gets to write a mostly ignored (albeit brilliant) piece published in a fringe and rather second rate American semi-conservative online publication.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Tyrion 2

    Sadly it tends to be the Barbara Roches and the Barbara Lerner Spectres that get to occupy the seats of political and cultural influence, while Schwarz gets to write a mostly ignored (albeit brilliant) piece published in a fringe and rather second rate American semi-conservative online publication
     
    Barbara Lerner Spectre is and was a nobody. Some random cat lady who wheedled her way into a make-work joke of a job and once got a bit excited in trying to sound important and down with the kids.

    She runs a glorified book club. Yet the commenters here use her as their most important evidence! Mad.

    Schwarz was the editor for Yale University Press and The Atlantic.

    Barbara Roche took office in the middle of 1999 and left office in the middle of 2001, in which time she increased the official number of immigrants from 454k pa to 481k pa,
     
    That is a relatively small increase and is not net immigration. It likely reflects the increase in student numbers as much as anything else.

    It would be rather surprising given Roche’s recorded attitude to immigration (as set out in the extract I quoted above)
     
    That 'recorded attitude' is not a quote from her but is third hand gossip.
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  44. J.Ross says: • Website
    @Graham
    Alcohol consumption in England is much lower than in many other European countries. See http://www.ias.org.uk/Alcohol-knowledge-centre/Consumption/Factsheets/UK-alcohol-consumption.aspx for a chart.

    Drinking has been slowly declining in recent years (same source). As for fights in pubs, well, I last saw one about 20 years ago. That's anecdotal, so make of it what you will.

    Sarah Lyall's book was written to amuse Americans, not to give a measured and scholarly assessment of the UK, and should not be taken seriously.

    England is not 'shockingly violent', and certainly nowhere near as violent as America. See https://dispellingthemythukvsusguns.wordpress.com/.

    America has more deaths from guns because we have more guns, but England has more violence, and the worst ghetto precinct has not abdicated its role like English police universally have.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  45. @Tyrion 2

    Research by a range of consultancies, housing economists etc. put the rise in the South East primarily down to higher earnings and the huge drop in interest rates since 2007. You earn roughly the same yield on a property now that you did 20 years ago as your borrowing costs are a lot lower. That tracks with my own experience, apart from a few central London neighborhoods most immigrants don’t have the savings or earnings to bid up prices. Put interest rates back to 5% and the crisis would be over.
     
    Interest rates are an issue but the idea that you can add millions of people and transform the population of London without increasing house prices is nuts.

    I would recommend going through these blogs.

    https://medium.com/@ian.mulheirn/part-1-is-there-really-a-housing-shortage-89fdc6bac4d2

    The picture they paint is pretty clear, even given the rise in population the supply of housing has been more than keeping up in London and the UK generally. For those who follow the news locally here it is apparent the cost of housing i.e. the cost of paying mortgages has been the biggest factor the trajectory of house prices, Part 3 from the link above corroborates that.

    Read More
    • Replies: @Anonymous
    The population of the former GLC area has risen from something like 7 million, before the start of the Blair era, to around 9 to 10 million now.
    Thus, an increase of 2 millions at the very least.
    Two million - roughly the population of eight good sized London boroughs.

    Are you really, seriously trying to claim that housing accommodation to the extent of eight London boroughs - drive around Wandsworth, Lambeth, Southwark, Lewisham.Greenwich, Bexley, Bromley, Croydon etc and note all the streets and houses, apartment blocks etc. Try to gauge the magnitude of it all. Note, roughly, when the houses were built.

    Do you really, really, seriously believe that built environment to that extent has been added on to London in the past twenty years?
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  46. Tyrion 2 says:
    @Randal

    The ministerial position was created in 1999, when she assumed the role.
     
    Why is that a "key fact", bearing in mind I identified her as "immigration minister from 1999-2001"?

    2. Immigration took off in 1997, 2 years before she took the role. It then levelled out briefly after she assumed it.

    3. Immigration did rise again, but only after she left the role.
     
    These are the ONS figures for immigration in the years in question (and yes, there's no question that the election of the Blair government in 1997 was the initiator of the harm - that's never been disputed and was indeed the main thrust of my post):

    1997: 327k
    1998: 391k
    1999: 454k
    2000: 479k
    2001: 481k
    2002: 516k

    Barbara Roche took office in the middle of 1999 and left office in the middle of 2001, in which time she increased the official number of immigrants from 454k pa to 481k pa, and created conditions in which it jumped to 516k the following year.

    Source: https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/statistics-net-migration-statistics

    Ministerial decisions, like government decisions in general, often don't show all their impact immediately, and nor are immigration figures under the control of pro-immigration zealots like Roche remotely reliable - one should ordinarily assume they are systematically understated for ideological reasons. It would be rather surprising given Roche's recorded attitude to immigration (as set out in the extract I quoted above) if she had not, as was in fact the case, increased immigration both directly and indirectly.

    The flooding of Britain has been a long process that started under Blair and continued under all the subsequent Blairite PMs including the current one. Obviously Roche was not responsible for all of it. I will concede that the term "pivotal" probably should better have been "significant".

    Or as (((Benjamin Schwarz))) – Yale University Press Editor at Large – wrote:

    http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/unmaking-england/

    The above is to my mind undoubtedly the finest piece on this sad issue.
     
    I agree and I have acknowledged that before (in fact if you look at the Amconmag article you will see that mine is the first comment below it). I have elsewhere noted the irony that jewish people have provided both some of the strongest advocates of multiculturalism and mass immigration and some of the people most effectively pointing out the problems with it, as with that essay by Schwarz.

    Sadly it tends to be the Barbara Roches and the Barbara Lerner Spectres that get to occupy the seats of political and cultural influence, while Schwarz gets to write a mostly ignored (albeit brilliant) piece published in a fringe and rather second rate American semi-conservative online publication.

    Sadly it tends to be the Barbara Roches and the Barbara Lerner Spectres that get to occupy the seats of political and cultural influence, while Schwarz gets to write a mostly ignored (albeit brilliant) piece published in a fringe and rather second rate American semi-conservative online publication

    Barbara Lerner Spectre is and was a nobody. Some random cat lady who wheedled her way into a make-work joke of a job and once got a bit excited in trying to sound important and down with the kids.

    She runs a glorified book club. Yet the commenters here use her as their most important evidence! Mad.

    Schwarz was the editor for Yale University Press and The Atlantic.

    Barbara Roche took office in the middle of 1999 and left office in the middle of 2001, in which time she increased the official number of immigrants from 454k pa to 481k pa,

    That is a relatively small increase and is not net immigration. It likely reflects the increase in student numbers as much as anything else.

    It would be rather surprising given Roche’s recorded attitude to immigration (as set out in the extract I quoted above)

    That ‘recorded attitude’ is not a quote from her but is third hand gossip.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  47. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:

    Apparently, if you want to know how many people are living in a particular city, the best people to ask aren’t government officials but the water company, or more specifically, the sewage department. A journalist investigated this some years ago and found that London produces far more sewage than its official population should produce.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter Display All Comments
  48. @J.Ross
    Aha, Wikipedia says she changed her name at 15 out of tomboyism (althought Lionel is the least manly name that isn't Chesney, Jeffrey or Percy. For somewhat related reasons George -- a regally manly name -- seems to be a perennial favorite nickname among English girls). If any SJWs are confused, pursuing your own idea is cool, and allowing Mark Zuckface to sort you into market-testing manipulation boxes cannot ever be cool, or a good idea. Tomboys are cool (and generally hot), and men claiming to be biological women (not merely existing at the bounds of a gender identity but claiming to be able to control reality) are uncool, sad, and insane, especially if their reality-controlling claims follow having killed someone with bad driving.

    althought Lionel is the least manly name that isn’t Chesney, Jeffrey or Percy.

    Don’t forget Lionel Tiger and his longtime partner Robin Fox.

    The two Percys I worked with were both black, and masculine enough. The name is like ballet with Eastern Europeans (according to Steve)– to them, it exudes class, not effeminacy.

    Chesley sounds even worse than Chesney, but that’s the name of a rare modern hero.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  49. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Ali Choudhury
    I am not sure how much research Lionel Shriver has done into the subject, the loosening of planning restrictions (it is much easier to convert office space to residential property or to build a house extension) and profits available have meant housing supply in the UK and the South East have largely tracked the rise in households caused by immigration and native increase.

    Research by a range of consultancies, housing economists etc. put the rise in the South East primarily down to higher earnings and the huge drop in interest rates since 2007. You earn roughly the same yield on a property now that you did 20 years ago as your borrowing costs are a lot lower. That tracks with my own experience, apart from a few central London neighborhoods most immigrants don't have the savings or earnings to bid up prices. Put interest rates back to 5% and the crisis would be over.

    https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=http://www.oxfordeconomics.com/publication/open/269985&ved=2ahUKEwjmsuWbxPPZAhXMZFAKHdmwDBQQFjAAegQIBxAB&usg=AOvVaw0mVcCb1i5ZTS5wmBFGgDkY

    Yep.

    The Law of Supply and Demand no longer exists, because you’ve said so.

    I’ve just declared that ‘Gravity’ does not exist.
    Care to jump off a roof to disprove my assertion?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  50. Anonymous • Disclaimer says:
    @Ali Choudhury
    I would recommend going through these blogs.

    https://medium.com/@ian.mulheirn/part-1-is-there-really-a-housing-shortage-89fdc6bac4d2

    The picture they paint is pretty clear, even given the rise in population the supply of housing has been more than keeping up in London and the UK generally. For those who follow the news locally here it is apparent the cost of housing i.e. the cost of paying mortgages has been the biggest factor the trajectory of house prices, Part 3 from the link above corroborates that.

    The population of the former GLC area has risen from something like 7 million, before the start of the Blair era, to around 9 to 10 million now.
    Thus, an increase of 2 millions at the very least.
    Two million – roughly the population of eight good sized London boroughs.

    Are you really, seriously trying to claim that housing accommodation to the extent of eight London boroughs – drive around Wandsworth, Lambeth, Southwark, Lewisham.Greenwich, Bexley, Bromley, Croydon etc and note all the streets and houses, apartment blocks etc. Try to gauge the magnitude of it all. Note, roughly, when the houses were built.

    Do you really, really, seriously believe that built environment to that extent has been added on to London in the past twenty years?

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
  51. @Anonymous
    Excellent article by Lionel Shriver.

    Now, the Blair/Economist 'official' justification for the mass immigration wave post 1997, was that it would 'boost' the British economy. Logically, if we go by the musings of the old time economic thinkers, 'boosting' an economy has but one justification, namely, increasing the living standards of the all citizens - in plain English putting more cash in the punter's pocket -.

    Now we learn that mass immigration has made housing all but unaffordable for large numbers of Britons, and rents are now so high that yer typical Londoner has but a few pounds left out of his weekly wages after paying the rent.

    Hardly increasing living standards.

    So, what was *the bloody point* of the Blair/Economist immigration surge?

    So, what was *the bloody point* of the Blair/Economist immigration surge?

    To expedite the annihilation of the British peoples.

    Read More
    ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Steve Sailer Comments via RSS
PastClassics
The major media overlooked Communist spies and Madoff’s fraud. What are they missing today?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.
The evidence is clear — but often ignored
The unspoken statistical reality of urban crime over the last quarter century.
What Was John McCain's True Wartime Record in Vietnam?