
What Conservatives get wrong about London
Which woke, liberal lefty could possibly have come up with such praise of London's rampant multiculturalism? Who could face standing up for a capital city in which 41 per cent of residents were born abroad?
The answer is Susan Hall, leader of the Conservatives in the London Assembly and the party's 2024 candidate of London mayor. Back when I interviewed her in 2023, Hall had countless criticisms of Sadiq Khan, but she was full of praise for the vibrant diversity of the city she was hoping to lead. True, she had a tendency to 'like' questionable posts on social media (an Enoch Powell meme with the caption 'it's never too late to get London back'), but she was keen to stress that tackling illegal immigration should not mean attacking the capital's longstanding reputation as a hub for people from all over the world to make their home.
Hall has had a change of heart in the intervening years. Earlier this month she signed up to the advisory board Restore Britain, a new political movement run by erstwhile Reform MP Rupert Lowe. As well as promising to 'carpet-bomb the cancer of wokery', Restore Britain wants 'net negative immigration', achieved in part by doubling the departure of legal immigrants from the UK. It is not (yet) calling for mass deportations, but it does declare that 'millions of foreign nationals who cannot speak English… should go home'. Quite how that fits with celebrating the 'mixing pot' of languages Hall so recently enthused about is unclear.
I mention Hall not to single her out personally, but because the apparent shift in her views is part of something bigger. It's fashionable in certain circles today to decry how 'London has fallen', thanks in large part to soaring immigration. The immigration-sceptic journalist David Goodhart was at it in the Evening Standard last month, arguing that 'Rapid demographic change has transformed London'. Days later the academic-turned-Reform-activist Matthew Goodwin got in on the action on Twitter, calling London 'a city in visible decline with deteriorating standards and no real sense of identity or belonging'. This week, Isabel Oakeshott (partner of Reform deputy leader Richard Tice) wrote in the Telegraph that she knew she'd made the right decision to emigrate from Britain to Dubai because she recently saw a stoned Rastafarian on the Embankment. This was apparently a shock to her – clearly she never hung out in Camden in the nineties.
As well as being quite blurry on the distinction between people who have crossed the Channel in small boats and those here with valid visas, those indulging in this trend like to hint at – or explicitly make – the link between rising immigration and rising crime, from fare-dodging and rough-sleeping to phone theft and shoplifting.
This is great for rhetoric, but light on facts. Fare-dodging, while both visible and infuriating (hence the success of Robert Jenrick's viral video confronting evaders) is at 3.4 per cent both lower in London than many global cities (it's three times higher in New York, for example) and is falling rather than rising. Plus there's no evidence this is linked to immigration, just as there isn't with shoplifting, which is more likely to be driven by the cost of living crisis. And the capital is still safer than, say, Manchester, which gets none of the same vitriol.
Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe
It's true that foreign nationals are overrepresented in the London homelessness statistics, but not by much (St Mungo's estimates they make up 48 per cent of the rough-sleeping population, compared to 41 per cent of the capital's population as a whole), and the Home Office must take some responsibility, given the lack of accommodation during the multi-year waits for asylum processing and the fact claimants are forbidden from working during this time. And, as my colleague Anoosh Chakelian has outlined this week, the argument that immigrants unfairly sucking up Britain's social housing is also patently false: '48 per cent of London's social housing is occupied by foreign-born heads of household (the person who fills in the Census form). Hardly surprising, given 49 per cent of the capital's households include someone born overseas'. (Born overseas – like Robert Jenrick's wife was. Or Nigel Farage's ex-wife. Or Boris Johnson himself.)
London is of course beset with reasons people might wish to avoid it. It's loud and crowded and everything is too bloody expensive, from the £8 pints to the £1,900 monthly rent of a one-bed flat in Zone 2. The housing crisis is acute here in part due to rising numbers, but mostly due to decades of failure to build enough houses. Nightlife is struggling, due not to immigrants but in large part to their absence (the more than 80,000 EU hospitality workers who left in 2021 alone have left a massive gap). And don't even get me started on the Nimbys who move to places like Soho than try to get every pub and bar within a 500m radius shut down so they can go to bed at 9pm on a Friday night. If anyone should be firmly encouraged to leave the capital, surely they should be top of the list.
But it's also, as it always was, a city of chaos and joy and spontaneity. The fashionable bewailing of a London long gone reveals a distinct lack of familiarity with the city the authors claim to despise. As the punk-rock singer Frank Turner once put it in his lament for the closed Astoria music venue 'singalongs go on but they're singing different songs in rooms that we don't know on the other side of the city'. Things change, but there is all kinds of fun to be had by those who can be bothered to find it, much of it staffed and provided by the sort of people Restore Britain think should emigrate.
You can get £15 tickets on the day for a wealth of West End shows – then, if you know where to look, find the secret wine bars serving until 3am. The restaurants and food carts will take you on a culinary trip to anywhere in the world. If that's this all sounds too expensive and elitist, the city remains a haven for those looking for entertainment on the cheap; free museums, free parks (Goodhart and the like rarely mention that London is the second greenest city in the world), street performances and pop-up events. Head to the redeveloped oasis of Kings Cross this summer and you can sit, cost-free, on the steps of the canal and enjoy the open-air cinema screening Wimbledon, Wicked and Paddington in Peru.
Speaking of Paddington every additional 'London has fallen' diatribe reminds me of the equally unfounded zombie myth that the capital is 'unfriendly', when its diversity is exactly why it has been such a beacon to all-comers for centuries. Goodhart writes in his piece that 'Many parts of the capital would fail my integration 'bus stop' test — can you share a joke at a bus stop with a stranger from a different ethnicity about something you have both heard on national media?' If such a test ever existed elsewhere in the country, it is something I have never encountered in my three-plus decades in the capital. Most Londoners would balk at an unsolicited bus stop chat not because they are foreigners who have shamefully failed to integrate, but because infringing on someone's precious quiet time mid-travel is a profoundly rude and un-London thing to do. That is not how residents here show their camaraderie with their neighbours, and the narrative that this is a deficiency tends to be pushed by people who don't like it much and therefore fail to understand one of its key charms. As Mrs Brown tells our ursine Peruvian immigrant: 'In London everyone is different, and that means anyone can fit in.' 2023-era Susan Hall would surely approve.
[See more: The OBR is always wrong]
Related

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Leader Live
29 minutes ago
- Leader Live
Tories demand Reeves ‘urgently rule out' investment tax hikes
The Tories claim scrapping the £500 dividend allowance will drag an estimated 5.22 million more people into paying investment levies. The party is seeking to pile pressure on ministers after a memo sent by Angela Rayner to Ms Reeves, in which the Deputy Prime Minister suggested a series of tax hikes, was leaked to the press. In the document, Ms Rayner proposed removing the dividend allowance to raise around £325 million a year in revenue, as well as axing inheritance tax relief for AIM shares and increasing dividend tax rates, the Telegraph reported. Shadow chancellor Mel Stride said: 'The Government need to urgently rule out these tax hikes on savers and investors before speculation causes further economic harm. 'Labour don't understand how business works and how to create growth. More taxes on investment, entrepreneurship and saving are the last thing our economy needs right now.' The Government's U-turns over welfare reform and winter fuel payments have left the Chancellor with a multibillion-pound black hole to fill, fuelling speculation that she will seek to raise revenue through tax hikes. The Tories claimed axing the dividend allowance would drag 'an estimated 5.22 million more people into paying dividend tax'. This figure appears to be based on an assumption that at least 8.82 million people in the UK hold shares that pay dividends. Some 3.6 million are already subject to dividend tax, according to data obtained by investment platform AJ Bell through a Freedom of Information request. The Chancellor last year said she would not be 'coming back with more borrowing or more taxes' after her first budget but has since refused to rule out raising specific levies, saying it would be 'irresponsible' to do so. A Labour Party spokesperson said: 'The Conservatives have some brass neck. They've still not apologised for the damage caused by the Liz Truss mini-Budget, nor the £22 billion black hole they left – which hammered firms and families across the country. 'Labour is doing more to support business than the Tories ever could. 'We've already delivered three historic trade deals and four interest rate cuts – to reduce costs and put money back in people's pockets.'


Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
UK and France to ratify 'one in, one out' migrant returns deal
LONDON, Aug 4 (Reuters) - Britain said it would begin implementing a deal to return migrants who arrive on small boats to France within days after a treaty on the arrangement - a key part of British plans to cut illegal migration - is ratified on Tuesday. Prime Minister Keir Starmer and French President Emmanuel Macron announced the "one in, one out" pilot scheme on migrant returns last month. Under the new deal, France has agreed to accept the return of undocumented people arriving in Britain by small boats, in exchange for Britain agreeing to accept an equal number of legitimate asylum seekers with British family connections. A treaty on the scheme was signed last week but not previously announced ahead of Tuesday's ratification. Britain said the European Commission and EU member states had given the green light to the plan. Starmer, whose popularity has fallen since winning an election landslide last year, is facing pressure to stop small boat arrivals from the populist Reform UK party, led by Brexit campaigner Nigel Farage. Britain's interior ministry said it expected detentions to begin within days. "This is an important step towards undermining the business model of the organised crime gangs that are behind these crossings," British interior minister Yvette Cooper said. Under the agreement with France, government sources previously said they were looking at about 50 returns a week, or 2,600 a year, a fraction of the more than 35,000 arrivals reported last year, though the scheme could be scaled up. More than 25,000 people have arrived on small boats so far in 2025, and the government has targeted people smugglers with sanctions, clamped down on social media adverts and is working with delivery firms to tackle the illegal work that is often promised to migrants.


BBC News
an hour ago
- BBC News
'One-in, one-out' small boats pilot plan comes into force
The UK-French "one-in, one-out" pilot scheme, aimed at reducing the number of small boats crossing the Channel, has come into force with detentions of illegal migrants due to start within days. The deal will see some of those arriving in the UK in small boats detained and returned to France. In exchange the UK will accept from France an equal number of asylum seekers provided they have not already tried to make the crossing and can pass security and eligibility checks. Prime Minister Keir Starmer said the plan was a "product of months of grown-up diplomacy" which would "deliver real results".But the Conservatives said it would "make no difference whatsoever". Sir Keir and French President Emmanuel Macron announced the agreement in July, but it was still subject to legal scrutiny by the European Commission and EU member UK government has now said that the "EU Commission, Germany and other member states have given the green light on this innovative approach" meaning the scheme can go ahead. Under the plan, an adult migrant who tries to get to the UK by crossing the Channel could be returned to France if their claim for asylum is deemed to be inadmissible. The government has not confirmed how many migrants would be returned and accepted under the plan, but said it would look to "ramp up both the pace and scale of returns over the course of the pilot scheme".There have been reports that 50 people per week could be returned, compared to the weekly average of more than 800 people currently making the crossing. Sir Keir has previously said the pilot is not "a silver bullet" but believes it will deter people from making the dangerous journey following a big increase in the numbers so far this year. As of 30 July, more than 25,000 people had crossed the Channel in small boats in 2025 - around 49% higher than at the same point in 2024. The government is under pressure to reduce the numbers, having previously promised to "smash the gangs" organising the journeys. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper hailed the agreement as "ground breaking" and an "important step towards undermining the business model of the organised crime gangs"."It is also right to make clear that – while the UK will always be ready to play its part alongside other countries in helping those fleeing persecution and conflict – this must be done in a controlled and managed legal way, not through dangerous, illegal, and uncontrolled routes," she said. On Monday, the government announced £100m to fund 300 National Crime Agency Officers to stop the people smugglers arranging the crossings. It has also said it wants to tackle illegal working, to reduce pull factors encouraging people to come to the UK. Conservative shadow home secretary Chris Philp said the government's deal with the French would be less effective than the Rwanda plan, proposed by the previous Conservative government."The Rwanda removals deterrent, under which 100% of illegal arrivals would be removed, was ready to go last summer but Labour cancelled it just days before it was due to start with no proper replacement plan," he said."As a result, this year so far has been the worst ever for illegal immigrants crossing the Channel."When the UK and France first announced the plan in July, the charity Asylum Matters criticised the measure, arguing: "The only way to stop people from making dangerous journeys is to give them real safe routes to seek sanctuary."