The progs are not on the same side as the common man. Ergo, the police aren’t either

Hector Drummond Posted on by

I left this comment about the Henry Vincent affair at Tim Newman’s blog, and thought it was worth a post of its own here:

To see whose side the police are on, you need to look at who is in control of them. And that’s the modern progressive sociology- degree-left. And they are not on the side of the common man. They’re on the side of the travellers. Not that they particularly like travellers (travellers aren’t exactly feminists) but if it’s a common man who’s taken the law into his own hands versus travellers, the latter wins. That’s why the floral tributes are being protected.

If it was the other way around the tributes would have been removed quick smart and threats of disturbing the peace made to whoever put them up (as happened with the tributes to Lee Rigby, his tributes were removed by the council for being ‘unsightly’).

So the police aren’t doing a bad job at all from this perspective. They’re doing a good job of reminding the general public of where they stand. Remember, since Lenin’s time the left has been keen on sending out messages to the public through the authorities they have taken over.

Tim said:

At the rate they’re going, the British police are going to be awfully surprised when one day in the near future they are called upon to restore law and order and find the population treating them very much as part of the problem.

Or else the British public is going to be awfully surprised one day in the future when they’ve had enough of the police being like this and they finally try to do something about it, and find that it’s too late.

Has anyone really thought through the consequences of these two campaigns?

Hector Drummond Posted on by

So: there’s the campaign for the Universal Basic Income.

And there’s the campaign for the legalisation of marijuana.

So what if they both succeed? A universal basic income, enough for anyone to live on without having to ever worry about getting a job. And marijuana a-plenty, all of it perfectly legal. Does anyone think this is going to end well?

 

Michael Green: The Art of Coarse Dying

Hector Drummond Posted on by

One of my more off-the-beaten-path comedy loves is a writer mostly forgotten now, but pretty big in his day: Michael Green, and his ‘The Art of Coarse’ series of books: The Art of Coarse Acting, Coarse Drinking, Rugby (still the world’s best-selling rugby book), Sailing, Golf, etc. I was doing a bit of re-reading of some of his books recently, and decided to Google him, and discovered that he had died about six weeks ago, so I thought it would be appropriate if I gave him a bit of a send-off.

Green after selling a million copies.

If you haven’t read any of the series before, they describe these various pursuits from the viewpoint of the ambitious-but-crap amateur, the actor who thinks he’s great but who really prefers to spend Act I getting noticed and Act II in the bar , the rugby player who thinks his talent has been overlooked all these years, but still considers that a win accomplished without expending much energy is better than a win that requires exertion, because the latter requires less skill and brains, and so on.

He also drolly details the other eccentrics in the boat crew or the team or the production who are even bigger duffers than the Green character. It’s a very British type of humour, in the sandwiches-for-lunch-in-a-layby-near-Nuneaton manner, with incompetence, laziness, and cunning all featured players, but team spirit and being a trouper get a guernsey too. The portraits are all drawn kindly, without much spite or malice. Some of it is laugh-out-loud funny, some of it is more gentle. It’s not comedy genius, but it’s consistently amusing and there’s no padding like you get in a lot of actor’s memoirs, it’s well-crafted and edited.

One of the things I really liked about these books is that, as well as being funny and spot-on (or not spot-on but still funny) they really evoked their era: provincial Britain in the late 50’s, and early 60s. Although later books were written in the 70s and 80s, they all seemed to have that same feel about them.

The portrait of Britain painted in these books was a realistic but affectionate one. Britain was a somewhat drab, conventional, poor and cold place at the time (to some degree anyway — let’s not overdo that old cliche), but it was still full of characters, characters who weren’t that way by deliberately dressing-up and posing, as happened later in the 60s, but ordinary people who were just naturally following their own trumpet section. It was full of suburban-but-free spirits who just got on with living life and pursuing their hobbies, who didn’t spend half their time agonising over whether they’d accidentally bought something from South Africa, or whether, to take a more modern example, the way somebody spoke to them constituted a micro-aggression. No-one had to stay at work until midnight because of government-mandated admin, so other pursuits were possible. And it was a more unself-conscious era, when University rugby players could fill a bath with beer bottles and sing bawdy songs without being forced to go to a series of diversity lectures as a punishment.

An interesting, and possibly amusing — depending on what level you score on the Molgrano-Skriansk score of sadism — is that this cover featured my great-Uncle Bingo, quite the wealthy squire at the time, in a stage battle with his next-door neighbour Henkel, in the local production of Chain Mail a-GoGo. They were both engaged at the time in a court battle over boundaries, and both ended up bankrupt as a result, although Uncle Bingo always maintained he won a moral victory because he broke Henkel’s fingers on stage, possibly on the night of this photo, although Henkel maintains that Bingo only managed to do this by sending the boys around. I doubt this explanation myself, if only because my in (admittedly juveline) memory of Bingo’s boys, they struggled to break open a bottle of champagne, despite their right forearms being more developed than their left, which was strange as most of them were keen tennis players.

As a result when I read the books I get a sense of the time and place more strongly than any realist novel from the period. Well, perhaps not more strongly, but equally strongly, and Green’s books are far more fun to read, and I don’t have to put up with the angry politics that most of those novels are full of.

He has other books as well, which I’m intending to get hold of and read, but for anyone who wants to read any of his stuff you can’t go wrong with ‘The Art of Coarse Something’ series. Choose whichever topic you’re most interested in to start with, but they’re all funny even if you’ve never had any previous interest in the activity before.

Some obituaries and articles:

The Telegraph.

The Times.

The Stage.

Leicester Mercury, which he was sacked from for mucking about and damaging the printing press.

An earlier piece in the Independent where Green was no 53 on a list of forgotten authors.

A rugby-centered ESPN story from 2017, which still has a lot of detail about him.

A similar piece from in The Rugby Paper in 2014, again with a lot of interesting detail.

Wikipedia.

An interview with him in his later days about Coarse Acting:

 

Update: Thinking about it, I suppose my campus novel owes something to Green. ‘The Art of Coarse Lecturing’, perhaps, in a more modern, less generous, style.

 

 

The media’s drip-drip-drip technique for creating belief

Hector Drummond Posted on by

In a recent profile of Jack Dorsey by Fast Company, I came across this:

Pressure has mounted on technology companies to cleanse their platforms of abuse and toxicity following the 2016 U.S. presidential election, as it has become more apparent how much they were leveraged and manipulated for ill.

On the contrary, what has become apparent is how little technology companies were manipulated in the 2016 election, and how little effect it had. But the media will keep repeating this line over and over, despite all the evidence against, hoping that it will eventually become received wisdom.

We saw the same thing happen with the Iraq War. It’s received wisdom now, even across the right, that the Iraq War was a complete disaster. But it wasn’t. It’s too strong to say it was a success, but it wasn’t a failure. At least, if you think it was a failure, you need to argue that, and distinguish it from Obama’s own Middle East failures years later.

Anyway, during the war, and for a few years after it, the right-wing blogosphere was full of people poo-poohing the Iraq nay-sayers. And it’s not like all these people explicitly said at some stage that they’d reconsidered the evidence, and changed their mind. But the old drip-drip-drip feed worked its spell, and now every man and their dog sings from the same hymn-sheet on Iraq.

Possibly this intemperate rush to go to war with Syria will swing opinion back again on Iraq, but Iraq isn’t what I want to discuss here. What I’m claiming here is that the old saying, that if the media repeats a lie enough times eventually it becomes believed, is, to some degree — to enough of a degree — true, only not about the topics that most people usually think it’s true of.

And these lies about Facebook and Twitter are going to lead to further governmental power being used to shut down political opinion. So it’s vital that we stand up and say that the Russian Facebook story is garbage, that the idea that Russian Twitter bots swung the US election and the Brexit referendum is rubbish, and that we will not allow restrictions on free speech to be built on a tissue of lies. If we don’t say all that now then good luck trying to get any right-wing comment past the Facebook and Twitter bots in a few years time.

The one party state has always been the aim

Hector Drummond Posted on by

There’s been some interest on the web about Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey liking a Medium article that calls for the US to be made into a de facto one-party state.

A picture of Jack Dorsey that fills me with hope.

This has caused alarm, but it shouldn’t really come as any surprise, because it’s clear to careful observers that this has been the aim of Western leftists for decades. The only interest should really be that this aim has been stated so openly. Usually this ultimate goal gets hidden away from the mainstream so as not to frighten the horses. In fact, this reveal may be a sign that the left is starting to worry that Trump’s election is threatening the progress of this aim, when all had been proceeding swimmingly for so long.

The modern method the left is using to bring about the one-party state is to gradually introduce laws that effectively ban people from being conservative, or from acting in ways deemed non-permissible by the left. Take business and industry. The left realised that outright nationalisation was unlikely to happen after the disasters of the 1970s. So instead of wholesale government takeovers of companies, companies were allowed to stay in private hands for the time being, but gradually more and more legislation has been introduced which effectively gives more and more control of the company to the government, and this process is nowhere near finished. The fact that left-wing governments try to introduce licencing for every trade it can is no accident. (Latest UK example here — licences for estate agents.)

The other legislative method is to bring in laws that seems fair and balanced to the mainstream, but then apply it in a very one-handed way; for example, legislation that is used to force Christian bakers to bake cakes with gay messages on them, but mysteriously never gets used against Twitter banning conservatives, or against the endless online hateful threats made against conservatives.

A younger version of Jack Dorsey, a picture that also fills me with hope.

The end state for the left is simple: eventually it will be against the law to be a conservative, to be a climate change sceptic, or to be anti-immigration, or to hold that there are only two genders,  and so on. Anyone who thinks that the left and the progressives have any commitment to freedom of expression, freedom of opinion and diversity in politics is fooling themselves.  The progs will use every advantage they have at their disposal to shut down their opposition. They always do. That’s why this Medium article is right in a way: a civil war, of some sort, is coming.

Was Brexit as much about socialism as anything else?

Hector Drummond Posted on by

Ever since Brexit the right has been saying that Brexit was about ordinary people ‘taking back control’, and the start of a shake-up of politics. We could expect a UK version of the Trumpian revolution to follow soon after, where big government and political correctness gets the boot, and things go back to where they were 20-30 years ago, and we start having some sane policies again.

Unfortunately that sort of revolution seems dead in the water. The Conservatives and Labour have both moved leftward, both have ramped up the political correctness, yet both are dominating the polls like they haven’t done for a long time. UKIP is moribund and the few anti-establishment parties there are have polling figures that require an electron microscope to see. It looks to me like Brexit was as much about left-wingers wanting the way cleared for old-style socialism and Communism as anything else. Some of these old-style leftists may not be that keen on political correctness, or immigration, but they are very keen on getting hold of other people’s money.

The Conservatives Still Need Corbyn

Hector Drummond Posted on by

The conventional thinking around the Conservatives and Jeremy Corbyn seems to be this:

The Conservatives originally thought the taking over of Labour by Jeremy Corbyn and his band of hard leftists was a Godsend to them, because they thought Britain would never elect a bunch of near-Communists, so it would be huge majorities for the Conservatives as long as the hard left were in charge of Labour. Corbyn is good for us, they thought, so they went easy on him. But then it turned out that lots of British people, especially young people, do like aggressive, old-style socialism, and now Labour have soared in the polls, polling much more than they ever did under the drippy Ed Milliband, and are threatening to win an election. So Corbyn turns out not to be so good for the Conservatives after all.

There’s a lot of truth in this, and it’s true that Corbyn’s Labour are threatening to win the next general election. But the fact is that the current Conservatives line-up still desperately need Corbyn and his cronies to stay in control of Labour to have any chance of victory. A great many people – including many who had previously voted UKIP, and even many (especially in the North and Midlands) who had previously voted Labour – voted for the Conservatives at the last election because they were the party of Brexit. But there is now widespread disillusionment with the Conservatives on the right, and amongst the traditional working-class, which in the last few weeks has turned to outright anger.

One reason for this is the sense, whether well-founded or not, that Theresa May has ‘sold out’ on Brexit, particularly in regard to continued migration during the transition period, and fishing rights. And in recent weeks we have had plenty of incidents that have inflamed social media: the banning of three right-wing speakers and journalists from entering the UK, the revelations that another town, Telford, has seen the mass rape of underage children by Islamic men, the BBC’s supression of the Telford news, Tommy Robinson being banned from Twitter, the internet comedian Count Dankula being found guilty of a hate crime for his joke video where his girlfriend’s dog does a Hitler salute, rapists and murderers being let out of jail after serving short sentences, police harassment of people who criticise transgenderism, and so on.

(Not all of these can be directly blamed upon the government, of course, particularly Robinson’s Twitter ban, but the ‘traditionalists’, reasonably enough, are incensed that Christian bakers are forced to bake cakes with gay messages on them, while Twitter is free to refuse any content it wants to refuse.)

So support for the current Conservatives is once again collapsing amongst traditionalists, who see the Tories, not entirely inaccurately, as a soft left party. There is really very little in the Conservatives’ current practices that would entice such people to vote for them, and plenty that repels them, and once Brexit has happened then there will be even less reason for the Brexiteers who voted Tory for the first time in 2017 to vote for them again.

Thus the Tories are threatened with a complete electoral wipeout at the next general election, whether that happens in 2022, or earlier, assuming the same team remains in place until then. (And there’s a fair chance of that happening, for despite the widespread unhappiness with Theresa May, Philip Hammond and Amber Rudd on the right, the Tories appear to be terrified of changing anything lest their current tenuous grip on government dissolves.)

But there is one large life-ring floating right in front of them, and it bears the name ‘Corbyn’. This is what will keep them afloat for the next few years, and into the next election, presuming Corbyn is still in place. The traditionalists hate May’s Conservatives, but they’re terrified of Corbyn’s Labour. Some of them have suggested, in a Peter Hitchens-like spirit, that Labour needs to be allowed a term in power so that the UK can see how bad the hard left is, and so the Conservatives can be destroyed, and replaced with a new right-wing party, or a reborn Conservative party. But most traditionalists know how risky that is. They know that if a hard-left Labour gets into power they’ll rig the system as much as possible to keep themselves, or at least their ideas and their placemen, in power. In five years they can do an enormous amount of damage to the country, far more than Blair and Brown ever did. Also, there’s no guarantee that a reborn right-wing party will emerge, The Conservatives may be broken beyond repair. Or the right may splinter into two opposed factions, and neither will be able to win power.

So when it comes to polling day, you can expect many people who hate Theresa May and think the Conservative are bringing about the slow death of Britain to vote for their local Conservative candidate, simply to stop the keys of the country being handed over to Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell and Seamus Milne, who would all bring about the quick death of Britain. That is what will keep the Conservatives afloat: the fear of a hard-left UK government under Corbyn. A Blairite Labour party, on the other hand, would not produce the same fear, and the traditionalists would stay home. That doesn’t necessarily mean a more centrist Labour party would win an election – we don’t know how many on the left would also stay at home rather than vote for New Labour Mark II. But we do know that Labour under Corbyn will win if the right refuse to vote Conservative on election day. That is why the Conservatives still need Corbyn: he’s the only person who’ll bring out their base.

Further problems with recent grammar school research

Hector Drummond Posted on by

For those who are interested in the current grammar schools debate, there’s a must-read article up at The Conservative Woman by Chris McGovern, who claims that the inadequacies of the current GCSE system mean that any recent research based on GCSE results (such as the research I blogged about here) is unreliable.

What was Steve Smith thinking?

Hector Drummond Posted on by

Warning — cricket post

I’m just wondering what was going through Steve Smith’s mind when David Warner came up to him and said, ‘Steve mate, is it all right if Cam takes some sandpaper on the field with him to work on the ball?’ Was Smith gelling his hair and not really paying attention? ‘Yeah yeah, whatever Dave, kinda busy right now‘. Or was he paying close attention and though it a brilliant idea? ‘Genius Dave, why has nobody ever thought of taking some sandpaper on the field with them before and just getting it out of their pocket and scratching the hell out of the ball? Why pussyfoot around with fingernails? If you’re gonna do it, go hard, or go home.”

Or were the three of them sitting around the table having a meal and pitching ideas of how you could get away with ball-tampering without being seen? Was this was the culmination of their mental efforts, the best that they could come up with after two hours of brain-storming? After razor-blade fingernails and false fingers full of acid and the belt-sander had been rejected as unworkable? ‘Let’s keep it simple,’ Warner may have said. ‘Less to go wrong with a  piece of sandpaper. And it’s yellow, so it’s sort of the same colour as skin so no-one will notice it.’

Using this mini cordless belt-sander was one idea. The exhaust bag was a problem as it was difficult to cover with your hand, so the idea was for Bancroft to pretend it was his sunglasses bag.

 

(It wasn’t like Smith or Warner were under any great pressure. They wanted to win the series, sure, and they looked like they were going to lose it, but it’s not like the press was saying that heads would roll if they lost. It’s not like the English press who wanted half the side sacked after the Ashes loss. I think Warner just wanted to get one over on de Kock, and he probably thought the Saffers were cheating as well.)

And Smith clearly had no clue in that first press conference. ‘Mistakes were made, lessons will be learned, let’s move on, tomorrow’s another day when all this will be forgotten,’ seemd to be how he was thinking. He couldn’t have got that more wrong. And I swear Bancroft was still playing with that sandpaper while he was sitting there.

The predictable academic move to kill off grammars

Hector Drummond Posted on by

When Theresa May announced a year ago that the Conservatives would support more grammar schools opening in the UK I expected that this would result in education academics doing some studies that would conveniently show that grammars are a bad thing. You could expect that process to take a year or so.

And lo and behold a year on and some such studies have started to appear, and be given favourable coverage in the media. Here’s one that I’ll talk about in this post: ‘Differences in exam performance between pupils attending selective and non-selective schools mirror the genetic differences between them‘. I saw this in The Telegraph here, The Times here (by Matt Ridley, but I can’t read it), and the Financial Times here.

Mostly of the researchers are from the MRC Social, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre at the Institute of Psychiatry at Kings College London. Normally this is the part where I point out that this is a Mickey Mouse outfit full of SJWs, but in this case I won’t, because this lab looks really good, and the Professor involved, Robert Plomin, is a proper heavyweight with a deserved reputation. And normally I say here that the paper is a joke, but I have to say that this paper looks well done. I had formulated a few problems that I expected the paper would entirely miss, but it mostly hasn’t, with a few exceptions that I look at below.

(I could also say something about the presence of Toby Young, the Toadmeister, in the list of authors, because as one of the leading proponents of free schools, which are non-selective, he has an obvious interest in doing down the selective grammar school system, the expansion of which would be a threat to his beloved non-selective free schools. But I won’t, because presumably his role was mainly to help provide access to some students, and also because I don’t regard him as a dishonourable man like everyone else does these days.)

The basic thesis of the article is that selective schools – both grammars and selective private schools — don’t themselves increase a student’s school marks compared to what that student would probably get at a non-selective school. Certainly the average result at selective schools is much higher than the average result at non-selective schools, but this is entirely, or almost entirely, explained by genetics, socio-economic status (SES) and previous academic achievement. In other words, non-selective schools do worse because they have a lot more average and dumb kids, and poorer kids, which the selective schools don’t have (they will have some poorer kids, but these kids will have more conscientous parents). The bright kids do the same at either type of school. So, the authors conclude, in most cases an intelligent kid will end up no better off academically if they go to a selective school rather than a non-selective school.

I haven’t read the paper in depth yet, and as I said it’s written by serious researchers who appear to have done a good job, so I’m not going to say too much here. But obviously one would want some strong assurance that we really are able to be so confident about the genetics. These authors do know their stuff, but still, these are strong theses.

Note that the authors are not saying that environment has no effect, they’re saying that a certain environment X (being at a selective school) has no more effect than a certain environment Y (being at a non-selective school). They do accept that school itself make a big difference. It wouldn’t be correct to characterise them as saying it’s all about genetics. But it would be true to characterise them as saying that genetics are more important than we realised, and certain environmental differences are less important than we thought.

The main topic I want to raise in this blog is that the paper seems to be not quite getting the point about parental input. The authors are well aware that higher SES scores generally mean more parental help. But here’s the thing. If you’re a bright kid who gets into grammar school, then your parents have to help you less, because the school will probably do a good job, and you won’t have misbehaving dummies around you. But if you don’t get into grammar school, either because there aren’t any around your area, or there are but you or your parents chose not to go, or you didn’t quite get a high enough 11+ score, then your parents will in many cases put a lot more effort into educating you at home after school and on weekends than they would do if you went to a grammar.

And I’ve heard many parents say just this: ‘If our kids have to go to state school then we’ll just have to make sure we put a lot of effort into educating them ourselves, because the school sure as hell won’t do it’. And they do. This doesn’t look a like a factor that has been controlled for. Indeed, it would be very hard to control for that. So that’s one prima facie reason I have for scepticism at this point. You can’t say grammar schools make no difference to these kids compared to (non-selective) state schools if what you’re comparing is not the same sort of kids educated by one type of school versus another, but one type of school versus another plus a load of parental help.

Of course, I can’t say myself for sure that this sort of parental help happens a lot, and is definitely a factor. But I’m not saying that. I’m saying that there is anecdotal evidence that it’s a factor, so the authors can’t make their claims unless they can rule it out. Which they don’t.

This is also one reason why parents are so keen to get their kids into a grammar school, or a private school, or even just a good normal state school. It’s not just that they think, rightly or wrongly, that their kids will do better, it’s also that it makes life easier for them. Or, should I say, it makes life so much harder if the kids don’t to go. Because then the parents have to do the state’s job for it. And that takes a lot of time. The sort of people who can afford to send their kids to private school usually don’t have that time. That’s why they pay a school to do it properly.

(More on this, and other grammar school articles, later.)

Brave Sir Fireman Sam ran away

Hector Drummond Posted on by

We are literally paying firefighters to run away from danger, not towards it:

Although two fire crews were stationed close enough to the Arena to hear the explosion, they were sent to a rendezvous point three miles away amid fears that there was a marauding terror attack and they would not be safe, the review concluded.

Surely we can get some people who will run away for less money? I’ll do it for half the salary. I’m very good at running away and hiding, and I’ll even accept a smaller pension, as long as I can claim some quality pairs of trainers on expenses.

(via Tim Newman).

The truth about Communism is going to come out

Hector Drummond Posted on by

The frightening upsurge in people saying they’re Communists has a flip side. Which is that public interest in, and knowledge about, Communism, which are both currently low, will start to surge.

I think this is already starting to happen, such as with The Death of Stalin film. I’ve noticed a lot more discussion of Communism in the last year than I have done in previous decades. And I think the endless (and mostly justified) interest in Nazism in the UK is starting to slow down, and I suspect Communism will fill this void.

Although I’m not holding my breath, perhaps then more people will start to realise what a horrific system Communism is. Let’s just hope we don’t have to endure a hard-left Corbyn-McDonnell-Milne government to discover it for ourselves.

 

The ‘Is the EU a club or partnership’ question again?

Hector Drummond Posted on by

I’ve blogged about this question before, but the issue of the Galileo network means it’s pertinent once again.

The Galileo network, which is due to go live in 2020, received 15 per cent of its £2.3billion cost from the UK.

The system has important military advantages and will deliver encrypted GPS navigation data.

Furious officials inside No10 have expressed outrage the EU now plans to ban the UK from benefiting from Galileo by accusing the country of being a risk to security.

If membership of the EU is like being a club, then we have no claim on the system. Suppose you’ve been in a club for years, which has a snooker table. When you leave the club, you clearly have no claim on that table. The fact that you helped pay for it with your membership fees is no relevance. It belongs to the club.

But on the flip side, you also have no part in future obligations that the club has. If the club had decided to build an expensive swimming pool, and you leave the club when the works for it have only just started, then you have no obligation to help pay for the swimming pool once you’ve left.

So if the EU is like a club, then we can’t stop the EU denying us access to the Galileo system. It’s not ours. But equally, we’re not liable for any of the EU’s future expenses, like pensions.

If, on the other hand, membership of the EU is like a partnership, then we do have some financial obligations for future EU projects and financial obligations. But then we also have a claim on ownership of EU assets, such as the Galileo system, and many others, including all the buildings and EU property and the results of EU research.

So the UK government should tell the EU, if you want your £40 billion, then we get a share of the Galileo system and other such stuff (and you can buy out our shares if you want). But if you insist that the stuff’s all yours, and we have no claim on it, then the future bills are all yours too.

And we could also do with an answer to this question, which seems to be causing so much trouble: what exactly is the relationship between the EU and its member states?

‘Where are the comedians?’ Over there, plotting with the commies

Hector Drummond Posted on by

Yesterday I blogged about Jonathan Pie’s plaintive but naive cry concerning the whereabouts of the comedians and the artists and the writers in face of the latest assault on free speech, and I noted that they’re no longer on the side of free speech any more because they no longer need it. Now this telling exchange of Twitter comments has appeared involving Count Dankula and Omid Djalili:

Q. What do leftists and immigrants have in common?

A. Once they start getting significant numbers they’re suddenly very much less interested in placating traditional Brits.