logo
Rampant street crime. One alleged rape every hour. Homeless beggars. And demographic changes that have made the city unrecognisable. With a heavy heart, MATT GOODWIN says London is OVER

Rampant street crime. One alleged rape every hour. Homeless beggars. And demographic changes that have made the city unrecognisable. With a heavy heart, MATT GOODWIN says London is OVER

Daily Mail​a day ago

When I fired off a tweet about my day trip to London last week, I didn't expect it to be read by 12 million people around the world.
But that's exactly what happened when I shared a few observations about our once-great capital under Labour Mayor Sadiq Khan. 'All these things happened to me in London today,' I wrote. 'I paid nearly £30 for a train ticket to take me into London from a town just 30 miles away – on a Saturday.
'The first person I sat next to decided to have a FaceTime conversation with his friend on speakerphone, so we all had to listen to it.
'The train was late by 40 minutes due to unexplained 'signalling issues'. It was also filthy. I paid nearly £8 for a pint. I offered a woman my seat on the Tube without realising she was with a man – who intervened and said: 'No man.' He was not from the UK. I think he took my gesture as an insult.
'I was asked for money by homeless people three times in one day.
'I noticed that several people who are paid to give information to taxpayers and tourists over the Tannoy on the Tube cannot speak English properly.
'A cabbie told me: 'London is dead most nights.' Restaurants are struggling and hideously overpriced. I was constantly aware I should not get my phone out on the street – as more than 70,000 were stolen last year. I also discovered there were 90,000 shoplifting offences in London last year, up 54 per cent.'
Behind all these observations lies a deeper point that has gradually become unavoidable. London is over. It's so over.
It's morphed into a city that is unrecognisable from years ago and is now in manifest and rapid decline, with deteriorating standards and no real sense of identity or belonging. While my tweet predictably irritated London liberals, it clearly struck a chord with a much larger audience.
Millions have watched as a toxic cocktail of accelerated demographic change, mass immigration and economic stagnation have ripped the heart and soul out of our capital.
Another person who has noticed this is respected British writer Professor David Goodhart, who last week pointed to many of the same concerns. A quarter-century ago, he wrote, London was a booming metropolitan centre: a beacon of openness and opportunity for the rest of the country and, indeed, the world. But no more.
When a recent report suggested that white Britons with no immigrant parents look set to become a minority in the UK by the year 2063, Goodhart pointed out: 'I heard nobody saying, 'rapid demographic change is nothing to worry about – just look at London'.' He has a point.
London has been irreversibly transformed. White Britons, the indigenous population for centuries, now represent one-third of the city.
Only 22 per cent of children in Greater London's schools are White British – and in one school, Kobi Nazrul Primary in Whitechapel, not a single child speaks English as their first language.
Four in ten people currently living in London were born overseas. Close to one in seven are Muslim.
And nearly one-quarter of Londoners do not speak English as their main language. While London's liberal set may respond to this by repeating, in robotic fashion, 'diversity is our strength', Goodhart asks a more troubling question.
Yes, immigration has long been a feature of London. But is all this demographic change actually improving the quality of life in the city? Or is it making it far worse?
Compare the capital to the rest of the country. Shoplifting is up 15 per cent in England – but has soared by 54 per cent in the capital. Theft is down 14 per cent in England – but has rocketed by 41 per cent in London.
Home ownership in London is down 20 per cent since the early 1990s – while rents are up 85 per cent on the past 15 years, and earnings are up just 21 per cent. And even in some prime areas of central London, half of all social housing includes people who were not born in Britain.
Another thing that has collapsed in recent years is London's fertility rate, which has slumped 30 per cent in the past decade, making it the lowest of all UK regions.
When people no longer want children, it's a pretty good sign of how they feel about their surroundings. There are other things I could add. Like the fact there is an alleged rape every hour in London. In just five years, reported sexual offences against women and girls rose 14 per cent while homelessness and rough sleeping climbed 26 per cent in one year. Does this look like a thriving city to you?
Knife crime, gang violence, robberies, pickpocketing and so-called 'moped-enabled crimes' have also become everyday features of London life. And 30,000 millionaires left London in the past decade according to research from Henley & Partners, a firm that helps high net-worth clients move countries.
Meanwhile, according to a recent Thames Water study, up to 600,000 illegal migrants may be living in London, flouting our laws and taking taxpayers for a ride.
While these findings have been subject to debate, if correct, how can you possibly sustain the social contract in a major city when it's possible that one in every 13 people is an illegal immigrant? Or when nearly one-quarter of the people in London do not speak English as their main language –while 320,000 cannot speak English at all?
If London really is so vibrant and wonderful, why, according to one survey from Opinium, do one in four Londoners say they feel unsafe in their own neighbourhood?
The truth is, London's famed diversity has changed in profound and negative ways since the 1990s.
The European bankers, asset managers and Polish plumbers who came two decades ago have now largely been replaced by low-wage, low-skill migrant workers from across the Middle East and Northern Africa – a situation that worsened hugely during the last Tory government, which opened the floodgates to migrants from the developing world.
This more recent wave of immigration, as studies by the Office for Budget Responsibility and elsewhere have made clear, is taking more from the economy than it's putting in, exacerbating not just the housing crisis but our glaring lack of growth.
To be clear, this is not to criticise the migrants themselves. It's merely to accept reality. Like much of the rest of the country, London's energy, productivity and prosperity are being drained by a model of low-skill, low-wage, non-European immigration that makes no economic sense.
Take one iconic example: London's famous black cabs with a driver who possesses a deep and historic knowledge of our capital. Increasingly, he is being replaced by an Uber driver from Somalia or Afghanistan who drives you around while relying on Google Maps.
Rather than build a dynamic, integrated and unified capital city with a clear sense of history and identity, these forces are inexorably pushing us towards the ongoing 'Yookayfication' of our capital city and, indeed, our country. Increasingly, the label 'Yookay' has caught on to refer to the jarring aesthetic quality of the country today – a mix of cultures, languages and identities spreading across the landscape.
Examples include the proliferation of Palestinian flags and obvious signs of sectarianism in migrant communities, the spread of multicultural 'English' with its global slang, the mainstreaming of gang culture in everything from fashion to advertising, the constant smell of weed, the American candy store next to the kebab shop, the Deliveroo riders scrolling through their phone and so on. All have become symbols of a new, migration-fuelled and sagging economy.
As Lord Frost pointed out recently, as these demographic changes take effect, the 'Yookay' risks gradually becoming a permanent new country: a successor state to Great Britain, with a new identity, character, culture, values and way of life. Nowhere are these changes more profound than in our capital.
As David Goodhart asks: 'What happens when London's white British population falls below 20 per cent in ten years? Is there some minimum number of natives that a capital requires before it ceases to be the capital?'
While I'm not sure of the answer, I am certain that unless there is a radical change of direction, London will look increasingly unlike the city I once knew.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Calling someone a ‘Karen' is ‘borderline racist, sexist and ageist', tribunal says
Calling someone a ‘Karen' is ‘borderline racist, sexist and ageist', tribunal says

The Guardian

time31 minutes ago

  • The Guardian

Calling someone a ‘Karen' is ‘borderline racist, sexist and ageist', tribunal says

Calling someone a 'Karen' is 'borderline racist, sexist and ageist', a tribunal judge has said. Employment judge George Alliott said the term, typically targeted at middle-aged white women, was pejorative. The remarks came in the case of Sylvia Constance, 74, who had brought claims of unfair dismissal, direct race and age discrimination and victimisation against Harpenden Mencap, a charity that provides support to adults with learning disabilities. Constance, who the tribunal heard is black British, said she was targeted because of her race, having been dismissed on 13 June 2023 because of an 'irrevocable breakdown in the relationship' with Mencap. Bosses had previously suspended Constance over claims of 'emotional/psychological abuse of a tenant in your care' and 'bullying and intimidation of colleagues', the tribunal heard. Christine Yates, who represented Constance at the tribunal, said in a document: 'The respondents have acted like the stereotypical 'Karen', having weaponised their privilege and more powerful position against the complainant, making up and suspending the complainant for numerous fictitious infringements, and deflecting from their personal misconduct. 'As egregiously, they encouraged residents under their care to do same. There is also something very sordid about the way in which white, female management have facilitated racism by colluding with white, male residents to give a misogynistic, racist view of the black complainant.' But Alliott said: 'We note Christine Yates uses the slang term 'Karen', which is a pejorative and borderline racist, sexist and ageist term.' The judge dismissed Constance's claims, saying that the complaints against her were 'legitimate' and 'did not constitute a targeted racist campaign against her'.

Starmer still faces Labour anger over risk of ‘two-tier' disability benefits
Starmer still faces Labour anger over risk of ‘two-tier' disability benefits

The Guardian

time38 minutes ago

  • The Guardian

Starmer still faces Labour anger over risk of ‘two-tier' disability benefits

Keir Starmer is battling to stem the revolt over his cuts to disability benefits, with about 50 Labour MPs concerned the new concessions will create a 'two-tier' system where existing and new claimants are treated differently. Senior government sources insisted things were 'moving in the right direction' for No 10, with the whips phoning backbenchers to persuade them to support the bill on Tuesday. Government insiders said they believed they had peeled off enough of the original 120-plus Labour opponents of the legislation to win the vote, after the work and pensions secretary, Liz Kendall, promised to exempt current disability claimants from the changes, and to increase the health element of universal credit in line with inflation. However, rebel MPs will attempt to lay a new amendment on Monday giving colleagues a chance to delay the bill, which will still involve £2.5bn of cuts to future disability benefits. The continuing row over the changes is likely to blight the week that will mark the first anniversary of Labour's return to power. In an interview on Thursday, Starmer admitted to a range of mistakes – including using the phrase 'an island of strangers' in an immigration speech, and hiring his former chief of staff Sue Gray. His government has made a series of U-turns in the last 12 months, but his handling of the welfare bill might be the most damaging episode of them all. Starmer will next week be hoping to draw a line under the difficult period, in which the government has also reversed cuts to winter fuel payments and changed course over holding an inquiry into grooming gangs. Dozens of Labour MPs are continuing to criticise the welfare cuts on a Labour WhatsApp group. Many MPs are still undecided about how they will vote and are pressing for more assurances that it is ethical and legal to set up a division between current and future claimants. Disability charities have said the bill remains 'fatally flawed' and will lead to an 'unequal future' for different groups of disabled people, making life harder for hundreds of thousands of future claimants. The government confirmed on Friday night that people who have to make new claims for Pip after November 2026 will be assessed under the new criteria. This means those reapplying after losing their Pip or who have fluctuating health conditions will not have the level of their previous awards protected. Starmer defended the bill on Friday, saying it struck the right balance. The changes will protect 370,000 existing recipients who were expected to lose out after reassessment. The prime minister said: 'We talked to colleagues, who've made powerful representations, as a result of which we've got a package which I think will work, we can get it right.' Asked how the government would pay for the £3bn of concessions, which experts believe will have to be funded by tax rises or extra borrowing, Starmer replied: 'The funding will be set out in the budget in the usual way, as you'd expect, later in the year.' There would need to be at least 80 rebels to defeat the bill, and government sources were quietly confident they had given enough ground after Meg Hillier, the chair of the Treasury committee, said she would back the legislation following changes. Others were unconvinced. One leading rebel said 'everyone but a handful of people is unhappy', even if they do end up reluctantly backing the changed legislation. Another expressed frustration that No 10 and the whips were 'trying to bounce people into agreeing before we've seen enough details'. Rachael Maskell, the Labour MP for York Central, a leading opponent of the bill, said: 'They are going to have to go back to the negotiating table … deaf and disabled people's organisations are rejecting these changes as it fails to address future need and gives no security for people with fluctuating conditions, for instance where people are in remission.' Other critics who plan to vote against the bill include the MP for Crawley, Peter Lamb, who said: 'Despite many improvements to the system set out in the bill, at its core the bill remains a cost-cutting exercise. No matter the level of involvement of disability groups in co-producing a scheme for new applicants, to save money the new scheme has to result in people with high levels of need losing the support necessary to wash themselves, dress themselves and feed themselves.' Sign up to Headlines UK Get the day's headlines and highlights emailed direct to you every morning after newsletter promotion Simon Opher, the MP for Stroud, said he still opposed the bill. 'The changes do not tackle the eligibility issues that are at the heart of many of the problems with Pip [personal independence payments]. The bill should be scrapped and we should start again and put the needs of disabled people at the centre of the process.' Diane Abbott, a leading figure from the left of Labour, said the rebellion was 'far from over', while another Labour MP said: 'The bill starts from the premise of cuts, not reform. It's also arse about face in terms of impact assessments and co-production. It's simply a negotiated dog's dinner. In that sense, nothing has really changed except the fact they've negotiated more [people to] misguidedly to sign up to it.' One thing Labour MPs are pushing for is more clarity on the review of the Pip system, due to be done before autumn by Stephen Timms, a work and pensions minister. Many expect that process to change the points system from the current proposals. Some in the party also want Starmer to reinstate Vicky Foxcroft, who quit as a whip to vote against the bill before the U-turn was made. Stella Creasy, a leading Labour MP who had initially signed the amendment to delay the bill, said she wanted to see more details. 'We need to understand why we would treat one group of claimants differently from another,' she said. A Labour MP from the 2024 intake said: 'I'm waiting to look at the details before making any decisions. Many are in the same place as me and need to get something more than a midnight email on an issue of this much importance to hundreds of thousands of people.' The Labour MPs opposed to the changes are citing a fundamental rejection of the idea that a Labour government will be making disabled people worse off. At the same time, many of them have also been alienated by what they say is a No 10 operation that is out of touch with the parliamentary party, and has tried to strongarm MPs into backing the legislation with threats and promises of preferment. 'Good will has been lost and there is still huge suspicion about whether they will try and pull a stunt at the last minute,' said one Labour MP. The majority of disability charities and campaign groups still opposed the cuts. Ellen Clifford, from Disabled People Against Cuts, said: 'Many people who rely on Pip to survive have fluctuating conditions which means our support needs can go up and down. By penalising existing claimants if we go out of and then go back to the benefits system depending on our health, more people will be denied the support they need. 'This is exactly why no disabled people's organisation across the whole of the UK has welcomed these concessions because we know the complexities of the social security system and bitter experience from years of cuts that there are many ways in which grand sweeping statements about protections translate to very little in practice when you go into the detail of it.' The disability equality charity Scope said that despite the concessions, an estimated 430,000 future disabled claimants would be affected by 2029-30. Its strategy director, James Taylor, said: 'It is encouraging that the government is starting to listen to disabled people and MPs who have been campaigning for change for months. But these plans will still rip billions from the welfare system. 'The proposed concessions will create a two-tier benefits system and an unequal future for disabled people. Life costs more if you are disabled. And these cuts will have a devastating effect on disabled people's health, ability to live independently or work.' Additional reporting by Frances Ryan

Two men charged after Bedford town centre stabbing
Two men charged after Bedford town centre stabbing

BBC News

time39 minutes ago

  • BBC News

Two men charged after Bedford town centre stabbing

Two men have been charged following a town centre stabbing.A man was injured in Iddesleigh Road, Bedford at about 21:40 BST on 20 men in their 20s have now been charged with grievous bodily harm and one was also charged with possession of a knife or bladed other men, also in their 20s, were arrested in connection with the incident and released on bail. Follow Beds, Herts and Bucks news on BBC Sounds, Facebook, Instagram and X.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store