The country’s grinding to a halt. Nothing surprised me about the Daily Mail’s ‘Gridlock UK’ splash on Friday.

If you live in London you are better to walk than to attempt to cross it in a car. The only time you can guarantee free passage is in the middle of the night. Congestion has hit an all-time high and is not just affecting the roads. The Tube (and its platforms) and buses are constantly packed; so are the pavements. London is fast becoming a Third World city.

Why anyone should be surprised beats me.

There’s a reason why our roads are blocked with traffic, why there’s a housing shortage, why there are not enough school places, why the NHS is creaking at the seams. It’s called population growth, something that the political class choose to ignore, let alone see the need to be planned for.

The expansion of our population since 2004 is unprecedented. It grew to an estimated record 65.1million in 2015, increasing by more than half a million in just one year since 2014.

Driven by record migration levels, our population has seen its sharpest growth ever. Britain has experienced a population increase of over 5 million in a just over a decade, from 2005 to 2016. The previous 5 million took 35 years to achieve, between 1970 and 2005.

Do we hear a debate in the Chamber on this? The last time the BBC’s Panorama investigated the question was in 2010, when the population was projected to reach 70million in 20 years. Well, they can bring that figure forward now by five years.

As to the implications, politicians stay singularly silent. Both the Conservative and Labour parties appear to be in some sort of denial, their heads firmly stuck in the sand.

Dare to ask the unmentionable – whether the country can possibly cope with these numbers without irrevocably and irreparably changing – and you are silenced, cast as racist or fascist.

Take any debate on ‘services’, on pressure on infrastructure, on housing, on crime and the elephant in the room always is rapid population rise. Population expansion due to immigration is never mentioned as a factor. This is Animal Farm all over again.

Traffic congestion should come as no surprise. In 2015, as Westmonster notes, the number of cars on England’s roads rose by almost 600,000. They are not all vans delivering Amazon goods. The year 2016 saw 3.3million cars registered, the highest number on record.

More people means more houses needed, too, though you’d be forgiven for believing from current reportage that the problem was one of supply side only – a need for planning application reform, investment, stamp duty, the Green Belt and so on, all those things Philip Hammond mentioned on in his Budget speech. Never the impact of immigration –  which feeds demand.

Hammond could have referred to a recent report from the Select Committee on Economic Affairs. This concluded that while the UK economy has adjusted to immigration in various ways, there is one factor of production that is fixed in supply: land. Here, finally, was an admission that rising net immigration does lead to an increase in population density, and therefore to an increase in demand for, and in the price of, housing.

‘Immigration is one of many factors contributing to more demand for housing and higher house prices . . . if current rates of net immigration persist, 20 years hence house prices would be over 10 per cent higher than they would be if there were zero net immigration.’

Though new immigrants are prepared to tolerate appalling and overcrowded housing conditions (creating a hidden underbelly of life that should have no place in modern Britain) this only mitigates demand in the short term.

‘Immigrants who stay in the UK choose to live in smaller households over time; it doesn’t take long for their housing demand to match that of longer-term residents.’

The committee’s conclusion?

‘Housing matters alone should not dictate immigration policy but they should be an important consideration when assessing the economic impacts of immigration on the resident population in the UK.’

So too should all the other economic impacts of immigration, on schooling, transport and health care. Are we able to meet the demand? And with what implications on quality and standards?

Even in the pre-Brexit referendum debate there was a remarkable reluctance to raise such questions, Vote Leave being quite as culpable as Remain in suppressing it, putting off all mention of immigration until they realised that this strategy would lose them the vote.

More than a year on, though, there is no sign of immigration abating. The BBC instead choses to run scare stories about EU nationals departing in droves, leaving no one to build the houses we need, to keep the hospitals staffed or to look after our old people. In fact, acccording to the most recent ONS figures, the current 2.38million EU nationals working in the UK marks a rise of 112,000 on a year ago.

Brexit or no Brexit, overcrowded Britain seems here to stay. But the very least that this generation of politicians owe my children’s generation is some honesty. When will they admit that the country is fit to bust, that England is already the 23rd most populated country in the world and the fifth – yes, the fifth – most densely populated?

If this does not warrant national attention and debate, I don’t know what does. It is totally irresponsible to cast raising these issues as racist or fascist. It cannot be unreasonable to suggest a moratorium on immigration until we know how to address and plan for the level of population growth we are now stuck with.

Denying the scale of the problem, and the change it makes to our national life, is authoritarian and disrespectful of the British populace – of every colour and creed, newly arrived as well as longstanding.


  1. Who is going to look after our old people? The Remainers demand, in their attempt to scare us.
    There is a simple way to deal with this.
    Since joining the EU in 2004 Lithuania’s population (then 3 million) has shrunk by 370,000. Approximately 150,000 of those have come to the UK. As a percentage of their young people this is massive. They are typically losing their brightest and best young people. Educated at the expense of the Lithuanian tax payer. They have the fastest population decline in the EU.

    So ask any Remainer who is going to look after Lithuania’s old people? or don’t they care? This is when you can see clearly that Remainers are actually quite nasty people.

    • Exactly, the Lithuanian problem exemplifies the inherent flaw in absolute “free movement” that the EU (read Merkel) failed to address and which David Cameron failed so lamentably to articulate clearly enough, internationally.

      It is is probably the key to why the Brexit vote went the way it did.

      I visited Lithuania several times before it joined the EU. On my first visit, my cab driver was a highly educated young graduate engineer who spoke, Russian, German and very perfect English, (apart from Lithuanian}. He explained to me that to be an engineer it was necessary to study in German and English as all the key information was in those languages.

      He asked me if, after Lithuania joined the EU, he would be allowed to come to London and drive a cab.

      I told him that Yes, he would.

      He is very likely to be here now. Probably driving for Uber. That is Lithuania’s problem. It is also ours.

      • Great example David. I would not be at all surprised if he was driving for Uber, or even delivering for Domino’s. Or maybe washing cars. What a waste of talent.
        The social chaos this is causing in the east of Europe is never reported by our media.

        • Yes, but the graduate engineer was a cab driver in Lithuania as well. So coming here hasn’t deprived Lithuania of a usefully-employed qualified engineer.

          • No, but its added to our housing problems.
            Incidentally, check out any local news site for our major cities & see just how many immigrants are involved in criminal behaviour.
            This is not “racist” or even xenophobic, it is just a fact of life.
            In the 19th century, British & Irish immigrants to the US & South Africa
            were disproportionately criminal.
            As a percentage of our population & with regard to our geography, we are
            suffering much higher rates of (often inappropriate) immigration than
            did 19th cen US, Australia, South Africa etc.

          • I was replying to Colkitto03’s point about the social chaos being caused to Eastern Europe.

            The socail chaos being caused to this country is a different question altogether, and far more important, to my mind.

          • How can a taxi driver from Lithuania leaving, be impoverishing Lithuania of his engineering talent? If he had been a practising engineer there – yes I agree. But he wasn’t.

          • Oh bloomin’ heck that’s what I’m saying. I was responding to the “taking talent out of poorer countries” point. I personally don’t care if other countries are deprived of people whom they can’t put in proper positions, but end ujp as taxi drivers. That’s their problem.

            The fact that those people come over her is OUR problem, and to me far more important.

          • It has deprived Lithuania of talent and potential, it is a brain drain such as the UK will suffer if Labour come to power with their current policies.

          • But had a good education and presumably the potential to add value somehow, to the Lithuanian economy. Maybe own the taxi firm? Maybe do something better.

            You have missed the point so narrow is your view of the world.

          • I think you have missed my point – if engineers and doctors were leaving any country to come here, I would agree with you.

            Potential to add value, somehow. Well that’s up to Lithuania to solve – which is obviously isn’t if its engineers are taxi drivers.

            My point anyway is that we can’t solve Lithuania’s problems for it. We have our own – and that is letting in people who are neither wanted nor needed here.

          • Your view of the debate is narrow. The OP was about damage to Lithuania (or similar countries) and the population issues for the UK.

            In a Community (the EU) the rules should not be damaging two countries. In a Community we DO have responsibility to each nation.

            Your remarks were trivial.


          • The damage to places like Lithuania and the population issues for this country are two separate issues. My post initially was regarding the former point.

          • Precisely. While I might care about Lithuania’s problems in providing proper opportunities for its people, it’s tertiary at best.

            My concern as an American is about America, and in our case it often comes down to our state simply because what is good for Nebraska is quite possibly not good for say California. Of course, neither is most of what California does good for California.

            Similarly, your concern should be for Britain. That’s enough. Lithuania is for Lithuanians to worry about.

            Sounds a bit cold, but we all tend to be nosey Parkers, which may explain why I care about Britain, but it is not my first concern, nor is America the first concern of my British friends. We do interact enough that each other’s countries do matter though. Particularly since we tend to have similar problems – sometimes the solutions are as well.

          • Thank yo,u Mr Christianson.

            No doubt our views will be criticised as being “too narrow”. Well, we all have our own opinions; at least we can put ours across without getting personal about our people’s views.

          • They are the opinion of people who love their countries, and recognize history. BTW Trump has the same view, it is one of the things that speakes to us.

            Getting personal simply gets in the way of making good decisions.

            There’s an old toast, I’ve heard that its origin is Scottish, goes like this:

            Here’s to us and those like us,
            [answered by]
            Damned few left, and they’re all dead.

            Sadly appropriate these days.

          • You still miss the point. The issues are NOT seperate they are jointly related to the dysfunction of “free movement” which the EU has failed to address. Your remark was trivial because you were not taking account of the whole issue.

            Totally free movement between countries so differrent in their economic development was always a nonsense.

          • I was commenting on one specific point, which was made in one particular email. It was not meant to deal with the whole issue. Perhaps you would like to tell the author of that email, that they are trivial.

            And I have NOT missed the point. As a paid-up member of Leave.EU and an active campaigner for Brexit I am perfectly aware of the whole issue. Related consequences of free movement may still be commented on separately as different issues, depending on which country’s point of view you are looking from.

          • “…if engineers and doctors were leaving any country to come here…”
            I don’t know about engineers, but foreign doctors are all over the place here, often doing the work of British doctors who have escaped to Australia, etc..

          • My experience, too.

            My (rather large) GP practice has a board of photos and names in reception. I go there from time to time: apart from the partners there seems to be quite a turnover, and they all seem to be foreigners: half a dozen unfamiliar names every time.

            A new GP surgery is going up round the corner, on the site of a former used-car shop. (Is “shop” the right word?) Three Indians, I gather.

            There seems to be some kind of hierarchy: Australia ranks higher than us, India lower. We’ll know we’re in trouble when the Indians start leaving for Australia.

            It’s government policy to limit the number of places available to study medicine.

      • We get the glib reply that the immigrants will go back home. I don’t think they will for one minute…and neither do the politicians. They are just lying, again.

    • I agree wholeheartedly with your last sentence.
      Remainers are usually deeply unpleasant people.
      From bag carriers for the hyper rich, persons like Campbell & Blair, through to the hyper rich for whom the EU was designed – often anonymous or sheltered behind layers of secrecy.
      Al BEEB’s Any Questions on Friday was jammed full of young, jeering, miseducated
      yobs all shouting down any panellist who did not enthusiastically endorse our being run
      by a foreign power to which we pay Danegeld & over which we have no influence.

      • Yes indeed. I have asked Remainers why the 1100 Sudanese doctors employed by the NHS are better used here than their own country? never get an answer, only silence! That a a strong sense they they wished I would go away 🙂

        • I bet you do. Personally I think we could have had some good results for ourselves and for countries benefitting from money “sent home”. However this required some robust policy and institutions taking control. Being outside Schengen was a step totally squandered. I’m afraid I actually don’t expect much better once we “leave” as half of our recent mass immigration wasn’t from the EU anyway. No there is a strange confluence of virtue signalling and selfishness, which I suspect will continue after the EU. Leavened with a lack of will and investment to Police (we are an island after all!). All wrapped together in a big bow of “niceness”.
          Virtue signal and get cheap labour ! How dare you puncture such smugness.

          • I think you are absolutely right. Leaving will be great but that has to be the start of changes. The proponents of mass immigration will not give up that easily.

        • I was in an NHS hospital for a week last summer.
          The first time I’d been hospitalised in 50 years.
          I doubt if 4 frontline staff I had dealings with were indigenes, though in all fairness the “asian” i.e. Indian doctors were very personable & did a great job.
          The 30 or so staff I experienced included one indigenous low skill chap
          who told me it was his duty to work for the hospital that had saved his life after an “incident”
          There was one Hungarian (sullen & unobliging) & the rest were immigrants including all but one nurse.
          This is very wrong. Why give out foreign aid & poach doctors & nurses simultaneously ?
          The very highly paid, & invisible, administrators would presumably all be indigenes. They are in the habit of paying £3 for 25 aspirins and allowing
          drugs to be subject to massive price inflation.
          Still, as long as their fat salaries & pensions. are OK.
          They could hand over to persons with a sense of financial responsibility
          of course, and become University Vice Chancellors for even lower skilled
          massively over paid work.

          • ‘This is very wrong. Why give out foreign aid & poach doctors & nurses simultaneously?’
            What a good point. It is utterly illogical. See the people who run this country? I would not pay the vast majority of them to cut my grass.

          • ‘Poach’? I remember a time when African doctors struggled to gain employment in the NHS as their training would have been regarded as being woefully inadequate. You mentioned we have 1100 Sudanese doctors… care in the Sudan must have improved immensely in the last 50 years whilst NHS care must have plummeted.

          • To right!
            The amount of foreign born doctors ‘struck off’ compared to UK born doctors is something our media choose not to dwell on!
            Yet every year British kids with all ‘As’ or ‘A stars’ cannot get on medical courses here because of lack of places.

          • “Roll of Honour”!

            Lower ranked universities, like Derby, are less attractive to applicants,of course. You’ll probably find that students need a Very Good Reason to apply to Derby. That tends to skew the demographic: for example, Moslem colonists in Derby, and nearby towns, especially the women, will be expected to live at their parents’ home while studying and to attend the “local university”. Some “new” universities, perhaps including Derby, consider themselves “local” or “regional” universities, and seek recruits accordingly although, paradoxically, often also recruiting strongly from overseas. (I mean, their students are generally, although of course not exclusively, either already living within commuting distance or else from a foreign country, rarely from other parts of Britain. For example, I gather that Coventry University recruits strongly from Nigeria. I don’t know why: presumably there was some initial reason and things just snowballed.) I think the paradox arises thus: that students from a country which does not have a well-established university system both value an English degree and also struggle to meet the entry requirements for higher-ranked universities. So they’re likely to consider a university like Derby, and consider it a success to go there, whereas an Englishman from Derbyshire is more likely to consider it a contingency. And Derby will be glad to have them, and their fees.

            The result is that English people from Derbyshire are likely to go elsewhere to study, in the English tradition, foreign students from the Derby area are likely to go to Derby to study, students from elsewhere in Britain are unlikely to go to Derby, and there are probably lots of overseas students at Derby. So the demographic is … unrepresentative.

            A fellow called John Care who used to be the Telegraph Education Editor classified British Universities as “selective” or “recruiting”; Derby is “recruiting”, and it shows in the demographics you note.

            I should add that I don’t know Derby well, and have no direct knowledge of Derby University, particularly. I aim to describe what I think is a general pattern.

          • “there are probably lots of overseas students at …”. Quite.
            However, the overseas students don’t necessarily pay overseas student fee rates. It is highly likely that the lack of decent border control and enforcement of such regulations mean that the ‘overseas’ students actually have student loans. These loans, on default, end up on the taxpayer.
            Don’t ask how I know, but I do….At the beginning of this century a great number of Chinese students were paying their first year student fees then disappearing into the ethnic working community. They seemed to see it as a way of circumventing borders.

    • That, of course, is why the push to ration medical care and for euthanasia. It;s a simple cost saving measure, don’t you know. I remember when I was a kid, the horror stories about the Eskimos (Inuit? I can’t keep up!) putting the old people on an ice floe to die – now we are proposing to do the same.

  2. “When immigration is too high, when the pace of change is too
    fast, it’s impossible to build a cohesive society. It’s difficult for
    schools and hospitals and core infrastructure like housing and transport
    to cope. And we know that for people in low-paid jobs, wages are forced
    down even further while some people are forced out of work altogether.”

    Theresa May 2015 Tory Party Conference

    And what have you done about it Mrs May?

    • She was obviously speaking rhetorically, in that she did not believe immigration actually is too high. She probably still doesn’t believe it is. Maybe she never will. There is no telling what levels it has to reach before she begins to suspect it might be getting “too high”, because of course no politician dares to offer a number. So maybe it will take a huge refugee camp to be set up on the doorstep of Chequers, and total traffic gridlock to paralyse London so that she is always forced to walk from number 10 to the House of Commons and back every day, before reality starts to sink in.

      • As the article states, the finite resource is land. The old saying goes: “They’re not making it any more”. We don’t really own land, we hold it in trust for future generations, so the rape of the countryside that is now going on is destruction that will take many decades to put right, even if we take measures to stabilise and then reduce our population.
        Immigration is the main problem, both in causing social chaos in our country and depleting the source nations of their own talent. But without sounding too much like George Monbiot, we also have to make our own people realise that having families of six children, or God forbid, even more, is also digging our own grave.

  3. The ubiquitous Mr Blair opened the floodgates, for electoral purposes. Also to rub the middle classes faces in unfettered immigration.
    Before then controlled immigration had worked remarkably well for the UK and it’s people.
    Now we have let in a lot of bad people, terrorists, criminals, rapists, those who will not integrate, alongside those who want to work and contribute.

        • A pre-Babel world would have its attractions. Don’t forget that YHWH, (a nasty piece of work most of the time), took away the single language as he feared it would make humanity too powerful.

    • I read recently that the Bank of England (Mervyn King) wrote a report that indicated that allowing full immediate access to the eastern European countries would keep inflation low by suppressing wages. This report was well received by Blair and may have been a factor in his decision. Best to keep the poor in their place so that they can blame the tories and vote labour !

  4. Population explosion is the way MPs could discuss rampant immigration.

    …but they’ve yet to complete their re-education.

  5. “It’s called population growth” but of course it is not the indigenous population that is growing, it is the huge mainly third world influx that is the problem, the services cannot cope and should not be expected to with people who arrive have never contributed but expect and get housing, however bad, health care and welfare.
    We are told these people will pay for future pensions ? really they are a drain on society, they have the highest unemployment rates and in many cases it is getting worse yet are allowed to bring even more relatives who follow the same pattern.
    Welfare will if this caries on collapse, it is already reaching breaking point in several European countries, the current tax contributors can only sustain a finite growth in that area, immigration on the scale of today was unimaginable twenty years ago but has been encouraged never curbed by successive governments, why, there is never an answer that adds up only the usual fill low paid jobs our own feckless wont do and the NHS would collapse without mantra, the NHS would not have a problem anymore than the housing and everything else under strain if immigration had stayed at pre Blair levels.
    The NHS not only has to cope with the extra numbers but also diseases that were eradicated pre third world influx both brought in and created here.
    Who was it that said “you can have mass immigration but you can’t have welfare” we are well on the way to that nirvana.

  6. The politicians do not want a debate about it because they agree with it, and are apparently under the thumb of lobbyists/big business who favour mass immigration. Mass immigration is an ideal tool for those who want flexible cheap labour, and for those who want radical transformation of society with multiculturalism. Mass immigration is the tool of the Marxist social engineers and as long as Theresa May’s “Conservatives” et al pursue their “progressive”, well left of centre policies and not effect the Brexit we voted for then this will continue.

    • Yep, but that short term thinking at its worst. Those are the jobs that are easiest to automate. Next time you see a combine, think about how many agricultural laborers it replaced – I’d guess at least a dozen. Same thing all through the economy, the next generation will have to think as much as it does.

  7. Yes indeed , but what is to be done ? Describing what we all know will get us nowhere .
    Support UKIP and stop voting LiblabCon the parties that are only concerned with their own survival .
    Also get rid of the FPTP voting so that we get real representation in our Parliament .
    The ghastly Merkel is in trouble now BECAUSE of PR . Here in Britain under FPTP if we dump the appalling MAY we get the appalling Corbyn .

    • Merkel has held onto power longer than she should BECAUSE of PR. PR encourages deadlocked coalitions, hence why it has taken a monumental amount of immigration to wake up the German population. Under FPTP she could be removed easier, but thanks to the political class love of PR she has remained longer.

      All that is required is for the population of the UK to stop putting their vote to the Lib-Labcon.

      • Maybe but she would be replaced by Schulz ( under FPTP ) who is just as nutty as Corbyn .
        UKIP would have got the AFD effect in 2010? with their 4 million votes but under FPTP they got 1 MP ! The Last general election .
        SNP 977569 votes = 35 MPs
        Sinn Fein 238915 votes = 7 MPs
        UKIP 593852 votes = BIG FAT ZERO .
        Are you happy with a system like that ?

        • Add to that the problem of corruption.
          Corruption must favour Labour 90% to 10% for the other parties.
          All student votes that are corrupt through voting at home & at university go to Labour for obvious reasons.
          Elements in society where corruption is a culturally acceptable also
          obviously vote Labour – The Muslim Party of Britain.
          In fairness, some asian politicians in Slough were convicted of ballot offences & they were Tories

          • Some Asian ‘politicians’ will join any party that will have them. There was one to my knowledge who got kicked out of one party after another. I think he was with UKIP first and then when he was either kicked out or on the point of being so jumped to Cameron’s lot and Cameron was delighted that he had made that jump whilst UKIP were glad to be shot of him. Didn’t take Cameron long to see his mistake.

        • You seem to have a big problem with constituencies. Unless you want them abolished? UKIP needs people to vote for it, that is all.

          Changing the system is not going to turn Mrs May into a conservative or make UKIP into a majority party. You will still have people voting for the Labour.

          • Afraid so. I have never seen PR as being any kind of solution. Right now, it would most probably give us a government consisting of Corbyn as PM presiding over a bitterly squabbling ragbag of Labour, SNP and LibDems all wanting seats in the cabinet and fighting to see who can drag the country into the gutter quickest. Exactly how that would solve any of the nation’s problems is beyond me; and as for tackling the immigration issue, well you could certainly kiss that idea goodbye.

  8. UK pop density per sq mile 700, eg Pakistan 675. It is beyond dangerous. I will never vote LibLabCon ever again in my entire life. New patriotic political system is needed. The HoC is a shallow thing, a hollow hall of actors reading from the globalist script of their puppet masters & aided by the cultural marxists.

    • What I can never figure is; if Britain’s population is some 61 million, then why when I go anywhere does the entire nation of 61 million seem to go to exactly the same place at exactly same time as me?

    • For comparison our three most densely populated states are,

      1 New Jersey 1,210
      2 Rhode island 1,022
      3 Massachusetts 871

      Those states have all the problems you mention (including lousy politicians) but it continues going down rapidly from there. Figures for the country are surprisingly hard to find, mostly a lot of this for us is about states, because of our system. But we have the same problems even out here on the prairie.


  9. As the constant debate about housing is rarely out of the news, it is incredible that the obvious relationship between mass, uncontrolled immigration is not coupled with it.
    If someone makes an insurance claim on a damaged carpet they would be expected to tell
    the insurer that the damage was caused by a leaking water tank & that no attempt is being made
    to stop the constant flow of water.
    It is truly Orwellian, Ministry of Truth stuff that a government promises to build thousands of new homes each year, while admitting a greater number of young, fertile, immigrants annually
    than the number of houses promised.

  10. Ironically the modest growth which the UK has enjoyed recently has resulted because of a growing population fuelled by immigrant labour. A drastic clamp down on immigration would result in economic contraction and put the country focally in an even more parlous state than it finds itself currently. Our future will be one of slow, managed decline coupled with increasing insignificance internationally unless we achieve immensely favourable and multiple deals and treaties in respect to trade with the rest of the world more or less instantly. Should be a snap!

    • Funny how well we did before handing ourselves over to the Fourth Reich for
      Presumably every country not in the EU will be lining up to join, from Russia to New Zealand.

        • I wonder. Especially since Norway and Switzerland are both associated members of Schengen Area, with pretty much free movement of immigrant labour in and out of those countries from within the EU.

        • Not to mention that Norway has already said, last week, that when Sweden collapses (not if, when) they will not be taking any refugees. Somebody up there is Oslo must have taken a quick look around.

          • That is interesting!
            Wise of the Norwegians.
            No mention of that over here in our news. From what i can see on twitter Sweden is the middle of some particularly vicious gang warfare between immigrant communities. It is clear Sweden is very much regretting its open door policy. What is also not reported here in the Uk is that Sweden is very quietly but firmly trying to kick out any migrant who cannot prove they are a genuine refugee.

          • Don’t remember where I read it, but it wasn’t the media! Yes, Sweden is increasingly a mess, even some high ranking police are going public finally. Thing is, there is no back up, they’ve all but disbanded their military, notwithstanding their recent maneuvers with the USMC.

          • Sweden is on a suicidal course & only extreme right wingers (i.e. mild conservatives) observe it.
            In World War Two the Swedes caved in without a fight & actually provided trains & coaches for the occupying forces.
            Plus ca change.

      • Russia? One day quite possibly. New Zealand? Well, not being a part of the same continent as European nations probably not.

      • GDP per capita is falling and one of the reasons put forward is a lack of investment by businesses in plant & machinery because they can utilise a large pool of cheap, foreign labour instead. If an immigrant arrives with a £1 in his pocket GDP increases. But the future costs of his and his family’s social welfare, free education and healthcare will cause GDP per capita to fall sharply.

        • I fully support RichardOfKent’s point regarding GDP per capita. This measurement – GDP per capita – is our ‘smoking gun’. In welfare states there is a very strong inverse correlation between mass immigration and GDP per capita. Why is no one, either in Whitehall or in Parliament, prepared to mention GDP per capita? Because an acknowledgement of the decline of GDP per capita would act to encourage the outright rejection of mass immigration.

          • Lots of information about this in the literature. A particularly readable summary is Anthony Scholeflield’s excellent paper, ‘Warning: Immigration can seriously damage your wealth’ (2007: Social Affairs Unit).

    • Returning home any immigrant who is unemployed is a good place to start. Also I suggest they are not allowed in unless they have a job lined up AND somewhere to live.

      • Imagine turning up in Canada, USA, Australia, Japan, China etc with no job and no accommodation and being allowed in. If you have a family in tow would you be given priority for social housing ?

        How have we got to this point of economic madness where poor people are allowed to arrive on our doorsteps and expect to be given everything they need to live ?

        • Unless you are talking about refugees I believe that what you are saying is urban mythological, doesn’t happen these days and hasn’t actually happened for years.

        • They have been since 1948, and HMS Windrush.

          Then Indians and Bangaldeshi’s in the 1960s, and again in the 1970s, followed by Blair’s “floodgate removal” in 1997.

      • No problem with that. Trouble is, without a source of trained casual labour, we may end up with crops rotting in the fields and nt enough staff in horticulture, agriculture, construction, catering and hospitality trades and similar. At the very least we look set to have a smaller economy post-brexit and a shrunken workforce which could bad if we have to become a ultra-low tax sweatshop moored of the coast of France, after failing to conquer the world by means of trade and commerce.

          • It would be interesting seeing an idea like that trying to get put into practice. If the Conservatives end up going down a road like this they face extinction since views of this nature are poisonous and repugnant to the vast majority of those under forty – already statistically more likely to vote Labour than Tory. I doubt that the Conservative party, desperate to win favour amongst the young, would be daft enough to commit political suicide by embracing such a programme no matter how many people on this site might wistfully approve of it.

  11. About time this was brought out into the open. Having lived in West London all my life, 70+ years, it has changed considerably over that time but mostly in the last decade and not in a good way. Thanks Mr Blair. Yes more money is no doubt made in the City but try getting around it on foot and public transport when you are feeling less than 100%. Queuing is a thing of the past here. Immigrants have brought their own methods of mob rush with them and you have no option but to join in the fray. The tube is very often packed and commuters rush and hurry, pushing past, not a place for the less than fit. Having said this, it is often an immigrant who gives up their seat, not just men, and who ask you if you need help. We need to thin out our current population and should start with those who have entered illegally, or who commit serious crime or perpetual minor crime.

    • As an ex resident of Harrow, I remember it as a prosperous, somewhat posh place,
      and Wembley & Stanmore were considered Jewish areas because some shops were open on Sundays & all the houses & front gardens were immaculate.
      Just last week I read in the local press that 30 men were found living in a 3 bedroom hose in Stanmore & 40 persons including 2 children were found living in a 4 bedroom house
      in Harrow.
      As for Wembley.
      There was a notorious video online where a video camera was allowed to run on a corner of the High Street. I’d be surprised if 1% of those shown were indigenes & the overwhelming majority were mohammedans.

      • ’40 persons & 2 children…’ Just think of the Housing benefit, the Council Tax rebates, the multiple child benefit claims, the multiple tax credits and the multiple income support claims that could occur. Nah! they wouldn’t do that would they? I wonder if they have other residences elsewhere in the country. Nah! hordes are sneaking across from Calais only for our wonderful weather, aren’t they?

  12. I wonder how many diseases (TB &c.) have been brought in/back by the new arrivals since no Health Checks seem to be imposed? Although of course to suggest that, would invite cries of Racism &c.

  13. All that decades of “humanitarian aid” to less developed countries in the world has achieved is to encourage population growth in areas of the world that are unable economically to support those populations, hence the migration of herds of low-IQ, uneducated savages to the lands of milk and honey from where the largesse emanated in the first place. We have triumphed over nature! No more disease, no more famine, no more natural disasters, just lots of idle time in which to procreate whilst munching on aid packages and scouring the Internet for destinations to move to that promise to be the most accommodating to parasites.

    And as for the wholly spurious claim that mass immigration can only “enrich” the host populations upon which these hordes descend, they will not and cannot benefit anyone but themselves, thanks to an out-of-control welfare state that favours rewarding indolence and ignorance, to the detriment of those who understand the necessity to contribute in order to build a civilisation and do just that.

    What roles, other than drug dealing, prostitution, extortion, smuggling and theft will the majority of these Third World migrants be able to fulfil in the technologically advanced societies upon which they descend? With significant advances in driver-less technology, bus and taxi drivers will eventually become obsolete, drones will one day supplant delivery drivers and robots will carry out all of the functions undertaken by restaurant and shop workers.

    All that will remain is a proliferating underclass of unemployable aliens, bereft of the acumen, skills, impetus and language skills to participate even on the periphery of the society upon which they are wholly dependent for their existence, but rewarded by a cowardly and traitorous establishment that is wholly insulated from the effects of the uncontrollable, dystopian social experiment they have unleashed upon those by whom they were elected, first and foremost, to protect.

  14. The reason for their denial is clear:” the political class has claimed that immigration was has been and remains an unqualified benefit to the Country. Having altered the culture of the country without consent and no permitted debate, how can they find a formula to blame someone else – that is the game they are playing. No doubt, like Blair, the main culprits will have escaped to safety before we can hold their hands to the fire.

    There will be an accounting for this at some point. It is almost certainly too late to prevent the former white anglo saxon population from becoming a minority in what many of us still call our own country. No doubt the wealthy mobile population of all cultures will at some appoint ship their money and families out as the Chinese wealthy did from Hong Kong to Canada at the time we handed the territory to the PRC.

    For the rest of us, well I do not know what to expect. Will the new population follow the path of Islamist extremists, will they rapidly adopt quasi-British values of live-and-let-live, will the large asian and eastern european peoples among us make some new fusion of culture which is capitalist and free or socialist and poor – I just do not know.

    • For the “elite” immigration is a Ponzi scheme from which they will not suffer. They need “economic growth” to pay off manage the debts they have incurred on our behalf. The only way they see to do that is to keep running on the treadmill, hoping that the crash will not come until after they’ve gone.

      They are a disgrace. They don’t care whether they destroy the country. Some of them have children, but even those don’t seem to care.

    • Look to the areas with high immigrant populations for your answer… Bradford, Luton, Tower Hamlets? Are they increasingly free capitalist areas? Or is the direction of travel overwhelmingly in favour of socialist and poor?
      I grew up in and regularly visit Huddersfield, which has had a shared multicultural environment since I was a child. Things have changed there. Visit the outdoor market now and it feels like Bangladesh. Goods in baskets across the pavement, open meat stalls, sequins everywhere, but no button shop….
      I have little hope that the fusion culture will maintain western values.

  15. I’m surprised you dare say it. You will be labelled ‘racist’. I’m surprised you are not being howled down by the enumerable political correct brigade.
    The fact is, the country is already ruined; to many of us it is unrecognisable and large parts have become unsafe, to the native English that is.
    It can be said, with some certainty, that our politicians no longer represent us, no longer represent our interests and make decisions that are against our welfare and interests.
    It has become the norm for politicians to lie and deceive and hide their true motives from the population.
    Most people now recognise the extent of Edward Heath’s betrayal and the enormous harm it caused the country bringing it to the brink of extinction. We were sold the false “Common Market” which unknown to us at the time, was actually a name conjured up by a communist leader of the EU. The name was created with the express purpose of hiding from the public their aim of creating a United States of Europe, of the intention of destroying individual democratic countries and their governing bodies. We were deliberately deceived into thinking that the so-called Common Market was to facilitate trade.
    Our present demographic disaster is not caused by accident or default but by a deliberate policy adopted under the secretive Barcelona Declaration 1995 which was gradually implemented over the next 15-20 years.
    The Declaration was in all respects a Treaty but the EU avoided all the legal requirements of a Treaty by misnaming it a “Declaration” thus escaping the scrutiny of the electorates of the 27 Europeans Union countries. Representatives of the individual EU countries approved and adopted the Declaration, UK representative, Malcolm Rifkind, MP.
    The Declaration effectively extended the influence and power of the UE into nine Mediterranean Arab countries creating a free trade area and operating in all political, economic and financial areas.
    Of greatest significance was the EU agreement to encourage and facilitate the migration of Islamic Arab migrants to aid their entry into all EU countries and their subsequent integration.
    Over the ensuing years nary a word is said by the EU about the Barcelona Declaration but the destructive effects are there for all to see.
    Most people have not heard of the Barcelona Declaration, the EU never mentions it, and lack of space prevents further exposition on these pages. But it is worth reading as it illustrates the extent and depths of the EU deceptive practices.

    • England is not really represented in Parliament, at least not collectively. There is the UK and then there is the minority Celtic fringe, all of which preside over the “management control” of England whilst the fringe has its own parliaments or assemblies as well. No-one in government speaks of England except to denounce any hint of “populism” or to sneer at any English people who are less than impressed by their treatment and denounce them as “far right”. The Scottish Nationalist Party has 35 seats in the House of Commons, of 59 seats for Scottish MPs. There is neither an English Nationalist Party nor any seats representing English nationalism.

      Now the latest wheeze is to break England into urbanised regions under city region mayors (gauleiters) despite this being rejected when Brown tried to impose it on the north. Because there is no collective English representation in Parliament the UK government can proceed with this vandalism without any opposition and any legislation required will also be voted on by Celtic fringe representatives. Far from devolving power it will simply create another tier of political control with its attendant bloated bureaucracies and parasites. And either the mantra of the centre will be rolled out or in the case of opposition parties bitterly and divisively opposed. A lot of animosity, if not hate, is being incited between English “regions” by the language of politicians to further difference identities and undermine the notion of an English nation.

      • Parliament has become the enemy of the people, especially the English. Whether or not it is intentional, Parliament is fulfilling the long-term aims and objectives of the European Union which was the destruction of each and every individual democratic country and in particular, England.
        To understand the enormity of this project you have to go back to the original formation of the EU and indeed earlier when many powerful and influential Germans, politicians, financiers, industrialists together with some leading Communists (French and Italian) devised and planned their concept of a unified Europe. Their plan for England has already been partly fulfilled and that accounts, in part for our present sorry mess.

      • 1000upticks..the deliberate fragmentation of the UK is well under way.
        Police Scotland/England Wales
        NHS ditto.
        Mayors coming out of nowhere..WE HAVE TO GET OUR COUNTRY BACK

    • Absolutely spot on..EU countries esp UK has been earmarked for population replacement.
      A glimmer of hopeshines frkm Germany(AfD) Netherlands(Geert Wilders party(and France(FN) Hungary Poland etc.
      They are all growing in the strength needed to end this onslaught.

      • I agree. There are some hopeful signs on the continent. My fear is that it is too late for England and the UK. It can be done but have we got the will to conquer the Muslim invasion? Ferdinand & Isabel did it in Spain in 1492, when after over two hundred years of occupation by the Muslim Caliphate they eventually expelled them all to Africa. Can we do that? Are there too many who prefer defeat?

  16. Yes, too high a population density is the most certain way to national poverty, and Britain exemplifies that perfectly. Despite all our historic advantages we are now hopelessly in debt, severely over congested, productively low achieving, stressed by any measure you care to choose, discontented, frustrated, pessimistic and utterly divided between those who recognise these things and those who describe any objective or common sense observation of them by some pejorative word ending in ‘phobic’.

    But surely the most absurd nonsense we constantly hear is that immigration gives a boost to our economic performance (and so presumably makes us all more wealthy). Well any fool can boost GDP by filling up an island of finite space until there’s standing room only; but the hell you have created reduces your real wealth (measured by any realistic sense of what wealth means) to the subsistence level of mere survival so long as nothing goes wrong – of course eventually it is bound to go wrong.

    Yet only a couple of years ago Cameron was saying ‘come and work here, it’s a great place to live!’ and of course Theresa May was overseeing horrific levels of immigration; still today she has not the faintest understanding of what she’s done, suggesting building skywards everywhere as a remedy!

    If we were to achieve a net population growth of zero, permanently from now on, a few decades of careful management and positive inducements to emigration might sort out the massive problem we have brought on ourselves; we would be densely populated but possibly able to achieve acceptable living standards once again. Now who amongst our ‘elite’ is intellectually and morally capable of facing up to this challenge?

  17. Immigration needs to be stopped, now. It is no part of the European dream for EU countries which have under-developed economies and primitive social services to be able to dump their surplus populations on the UK. The UK has no duty to provide an alternative home for economic migrants from Asia and MENA countries. The UK’s principal responsibility is, in fact, to the British people, their welfare, their prosperity and their ability to bequeath their exceptionalism to their own future generations. The worship of multiculturalism and of diversity for its own sake and the sacrifice of identity are not just bunk. The example of the United States, riven by irreconcilable racial differences and destructive identity politics, show that they are evil bunk and that in the end, they harm everybody. If this is racist and fascist according to the Left’s knee-jerk retort, then so be it, because it is also a matter in the long run of survival. And in the end, the survival instinct prevails, whatever may be the consequences.

    Underlying the devotion to open borders and scarcely regulated immigration is the worship of human rights because human rights are an unmitigated good and the more of them that everyone has, the better off everyone is. But what if this unquestionable assumption is not true? What if the constant multiplication of rights meets the laws of diminishing returns and of unintended consequences to the extent that human rights become, not universal benefits, but a source of division, conflict and wrongs?

    Politicians flinch from any discussion of immigration not because they believe in something that the rest of us don’t but because they have lost control of an area of government for which they have full responsibility and do not know how to get it back without colliding head on with supposedly sacrosant human rights. An idiot could tell you that you cannot add millions of people to the population without also providing the resources to cope with them. Since the politicians did not do the latter, they hide behind an ostensibly high-minded but really self-protective refusal to even admit there is a problem never mind discuss solutions.

    To take housing as an example. For whom are all these new homes to be built? There will be competition for them between the homeless young Britons who are causing so much political angst and immigrants. Some of them will be built for future immigrants who are still living in their own homes in their countries of origin but will be attracted by the prospect of perhaps better homes being built by those kind British. The law of supply and demand guarantees that so long as the borders are porous, the housing authorities will be chasing their tails. But to say so would offend someone’s sensibilities or human rights, so nothing is said. Immigration and the obsession with human rights are not separate issues; they belong in the same box and need to be tackled together with a highly sceptical eye if the UK’s gradual downward slide is to be stopped.

    • The idiot Cameron declared multi-culturalism a failure in 2010 but the government and all its parasitic hangers on continue to impose it as policy and as “a good thing”, creating division at the same time as they bleat about societal unity and immigration.

      • And Ruth Kelly MP declared it ‘failed’ in Blair’s goivernment.

        As did Merkel a couple of years ago.

        An utterly evil, poisonoius, cancerous doctrine.

  18. Because they’re too scared of the PC illiberal liberals screaming “racist”. I would restrict immigration to those able to read,write and speak fluent English and offer something to Britain, find and remove all illegal immigrants whatever it took, solve labour shortages with temporary contract workers, and abolish the whole equality industry. My response tro the inevitable screams would be -“If I am, who made me one?

  19. I don’t necessarily believe you (or we) need a moratorium on immigration, although at least you don’t have a need to build a wall – you have a ditch! But surely the most advanced civilizations in the world have a need to control immigration for the benefit of the people that made it so. And I’m sorry, that does not include many, if any, politicians. Kicking cans down roads grows increasingly destructive, especially if one kicks it through vehicle’s windscreens.

    The old (and true) saw has it, One can (maybe) have a welfare state, one can have open immigration, but no one can have both, it’s simply impossible.

  20. Oh dear the reason for the government allowing unrestricted migration has been rehearsed many times, but why have so few (none on here) listened?

    I’m afraid it comes down to short term expediency, and Prime Ministers only caring about the time they are in office and not what they pass on to their successors.

    In order to keep the metric of GDP to national debt and the deficit Mass Migration has been allowed. Every person coming to the UK brings with them a certain boost to the GDP figures even if that boost is a short term one.
    It enables the chancellor to claim that the rising national debt is under control and the credit agencies to keep a decent rating for the UK.

    It is however something of a Ponzi scheme as the numbers have to continue to grow or the whole thing will come crashing down, and the only thing a PM is bothered about is it not happened on their watch.

    As a consequence mass migration absolutely HAS to continue.

    It is cynical corrupt and dishonest – but there you are, that’s politics in a nutshell !

  21. One cannot but be disgusted with the refusal to address the problem of immigration in Britain. Basic economics and common sense should tell the politicians that this is unsustainable on so many grounds and is pressuring vital services.

    But it seems that no one in Westminster can distinguish between recongising the value of immigration and being responsible about a country’s capacity to receive varying numbers of immigrants. They deliberately pretend that reasonable concerns about numbers equals a disregard or hatred for all immigrants. They accuse those not guilty of bigotry of being bigots, and conflate them with those who genuinely are bigots and would find something else to complain about were immigration not unsustainable.

    What is the aim here? To preserve their saintly consciences? No, I don’t give them that much credit. Politicians love mass immigration because their sponsors have told them to support it. Money is the REAL reason. Until we address the businesses who refuse to incentivize British workers to WORK as hard as their foreign counterparts, then we won’t wrench any excuses for allowing the current rate of immigration out of the hands of politicians and other head-in-the-sanders.

    • Yes! (1) It’s all about numbers. (2) When it’s not about numbers, it’s all about graft – in both senses of the word.

    • Apart from numbers, there is another problem which is exacerbated by immigration.
      This pernicious doctrine ensures that not just immigrants, but their progeny, are misfits in our land.
      When we are outbred by unassimilable immigrants in parts of the UK, (essentially England) then those parts become foreign, even hostile, territory.

      • As the daughter of immigrants myself, I must agree. I travel regularly and am amazed at some parts where one can barely hear a word of English spoken. And I see no one stepping in to encourage this. How can they hope to contribute to the country and fit in with British culture if they cannot speak the language? I remember asking a Pakistani Muslim lady where the next bus was headed, and barely got a coherent sentence. I taught another lady English (she was from Bangladesh, also Muslim), who had almost no contact with the outside world, could barely speak English and had no intention of working in an environment that would accustom her to English culture. I can’t say how long either of these women had been in the country, but there are parts of the country that show no sign of integrating with the host country’s culture. This is troubling, as it means that any abuses of the law cannot be properly governed. We are seeing this to some effect with some Muslim/Pakistani enclaves of London.

        • This is a good point,
          Immigrants to the UK have typically integrated very well. I have a very close friend for example who is a Hindu, who came here as a babe in arms in the early seventies when his family were kicked out of Uganda. For two men in our forties I cannot see anything but the most minimal cultural differences. We talk football, we talk work, we talk drinking and we talk nonsense.
          The case of Pakistani Muslims is different though, due to the continuing practise of bringing over male and female marriage partners from the rural areas of thier homeland. this is turning out to be a big problem. Its not fair on all other immigrants, when they get lumped together.

      • For years, people have been saying “I don’t recognise my country anymore”.

        When I reply, “That’s because it hasn’t been ‘your’ country for quite a long time.”

        They think I’m being facetious. If pushed, I then explain the “areas of competence” that have been signed over to the EU by the various treaties down the years (all signed unread)

        Foreign Policy
        and …..Immigration / Asylum.

  22. But if we stopped all the immigrants entering where would we find employment for all the Guardian reading Socialists currently managing the situation and disseminating housing, work and benefits?
    What would Saint Jeremy and his disciples say and do?

    • You may jest (you were jesting, weren’t you?), but I’m afraid there’s more than a little truth in what you say.

  23. I remember Ed Miliband and other Labour figures admitting some years ago that discussing immigration was not racist.

    Of course, at that time, the established political parties were under pressure from UKIP and they had to appear to be open-minded.

    Since UKIP has receded it is full speed ahead once more on silencing debate on the subject.

    It speaks volumes.

  24. Britain granted nearly 900,000 resident permits to non-EU migrants in 2016.
    The 865,894 who were given residency was a 52% INCREASE on 2015.
    This made up 25% of ALL residency permits issued to such migrants by countries in Europe and was more than ANY other nation.

    And you seriously believe May is a better PM than Corbyn would be? How would this treacherous woman be any better? Adolf Hitler Chairman Mao, and Joseph Stalin would be better options than a woman whose actions may not end your life now but will in the future !

  25. Ummm… are on an island with finite land space. I suggest you look up John Calhoun, mouse utopia. Welcome to your future.

  26. Thank you for raising this subject so comprehensively, without fear or favour and my goodness you`ve hit a few nails on the head.
    Do you get any support from your colleagues ……(anybody)???
    I take it no fiscal arrangements have ever been made specifically for the cost of increased population services i.e. I take it there are calculators for each 100,000 increase in population you need so many schools, so many surgeries, so many new roads, so many houses etc .
    I seem to remember John Prescott used to talk about a 3 million housing shortage – that was ?years ago, how many of those ever got built?
    A lot of noise was made in the budget about low wages and lack of productivity – did nobody think to put two and two together and admit some of the problem is tied up with immigration swamping.
    Oh! talking about living conditions how about the growth of Multi Occupancy Residences (legal and illegal)
    And while we are on about it how many illegal entrants do we have -not on the books.
    And what about the money immigrants remit to families abroad and don`t spend in this country in local shops (lost GDP??)
    Go for it Kathy
    Oh! and while I`m at it can we have a proper Brexit, proper return of border control ,no more ECJ, return complete of our fishing ownership and control, end EAW implementation period limited to 6 months (quite long enough we already had the cliff jump off it was 23/6/2016) I call it TOTAL Brexit

  27. At the same time we are experiencing a collapse in the birth rate amongst ( I assume I am correct here) ethnic British women.
    One fifth are now childless and the rate is below 2.00 .This is not opinion but according to the ONS.
    Funny thing about demographics. it is an accurate predictor of the future. Just as the remainers are looking forward to a death rate increase in the brexiteers so we are looking at a general collapse in the birth rate amongst the indigenous British .I expect our recent immigrants are not part of this and are busy replacing us .
    When the women in a society decide to stop having children for whatever reason and there are many; that really needs to be discussed however politically incorrect that is and however unwelcome to our progressives it is.
    When this birth rate collapse happens it shows a society in it’s death spiral. If one generation decides that it is the culmination of all previous ones and the whole things ends with them then this society is sick beyond hope.
    A civilisation is a compact between past ,present and future generations. Break this and the civilisation ends .
    Once you understand this then all the current nonsense that is being forced on us by our political leaders and the MSM , the church leaders of all faiths, the opinion makers on the wretched Guardian/BBC and the endless corruption of our children by an educational establishment that is by any terms decadent and ignorant all makes sense . They are at war with reality and with the common sense of the ordinary people .
    Sometimes only the word wicked is the right one.

    • I know that some women are not having children because they (correctly) believe that the children would have a poor quality of life in the place that Britain is becoming.
      Now of course this only accelerates the destruction of British society at the hands of the Islamists and their masters, but what can be done?
      If we could wave a magic wand and remove the 10 million or so unwelcome aliens from the country, I have no doubt that we would see the indigenous birthrate rise again. Though I am too old to play any part in this 🙁

  28. Prof Haidt used to be an extreme liberal but found that the 5 moral values matter to the running of a stable society and has changed his views somewhat. Liberals prefer an edge towards instability but society is not so easily put together again.

  29. Immigration happens when an economy has a skills shortage. UK plc is an economy based on public spending and consumer spending. A classic ponzi scheme. A few seconds search will reveal our insane levels of debt at every level. All those cars were bought using credit.

    If you think 2008 was a one-off – think again. The outllook is looking very grim indeed, the first domino to fall ironically will be house prices. The pound is next. I sound like a pessimist, but it seems so obvious that our leaders have been in denial for decades about our true level of prosperity (at least in public!).

    If you wish to be red pilled about the economy visit Dr Tim Morgan’s Surplus Energy Economics blog.

      • The scheme for cars causing the concern is the leases, where finance companies have bought vehicles at large discounts and then offer them to people at monthly prices which are a better deal than buying their own, and running it.
        The potential problem with the scheme is the leasing company have assumed a resale value which is probably over optimistic even for todays market, if the resales are less than planned though they will end up with egg on their faces.

        • I have known some people who have had their lease cars valued at quite a bit less than expected at the end of the lease. The leasing company, not surprisingly, look for the tiniest bits of damage and reduce the amount paid. I think there’s a lot of naive people out there getting conned.

  30. hmmmmmmmm what happened to my post that the Tories raised non EU migration by 52% to around 900 0000 last year?

Comments are closed.