Net immigration

Cameron would find that the immigration figures are not particularly reducing. There has been a reduction in net migration. But that is largely due to the recession not due to tighter immigration control.

Also, arguing solely on the basis of immigration suggests that the cultural effects are irrelevant, and that immigration is just about material resources.

But consider, if 1 million new migrants arrived in a year, and 1 million Britons left, net migration would be zero. In the eyes of Cameron, nothing has happened, and there is no problem. Yet the cultural impact would be considerable, particularly if those 1 million were concentrated in particular towns and boroughs. Areas can have their whole feel changed by weight of numbers. You can travel down a highstreet near Wembley and see not only no one who is white, but everyone is the same shade of brown. Some diversity that!!

Large immigration combined with minimal assimilation leads to considerable cultural change. It does that regardless of the net migration figure. To be obsessed with net migration suggests that any number of migrants is fine, provide an equal number of Britons want to leave their country. That is a little odd.

The turnover in population has been immense over the last 10 years. We have gain a few million new permanent residents, a loss a large but smaller number of Britons. Carry on at that rate, and you have a new country in a few decades - at least, you do if you practice multiculturalism and encourage the migrants to think of themselves more as ex-pats than new members of the existing nation.

Judging by the Gay News interview, complicated subjects are not Cameron's forte.

But, as I have said before, we readily recognise that an influx of newcomers can ruin an area: but only when those newcomers are Britons changing the culture of French villages or Spanish towns. Where newcomers bring change by weight of numbers to parts of Britain, it is a cause for positive celebration.