Brexit matters

[VauxhallandI]

You've kind of proved your own point:

The main issue with the government's handling of the Covid 19 outbreak was that they failed to act decisively. Stronger actions taken sooner would have had less impact overall.

All this time on and all the knowledge we now have and you still believe that, the mind boggles

 

[najaB]

Ok, give you the PMs but doubt inflation would be any different under Labour, their economic policies usually end up leaving us in a worse position.

Sorry, but that's factually incorrect. Despite the Conservatives being the "party of sound economy and business", Labour actually has a slightly better history of economic management than the Conservatives:

In fact, Labour have achieved a higher concentration of quarters of positive growth than the Conservatives. Indeed, despite the 2008-09 recession taking place on Labour’s watch, the party has only overseen seven quarters of recession in the past 100 years compared to 17 under the Conservatives.

If we disregard the global financial crisis as an external shock, Labour has presided over just two recession quarters since 1955, and has produced average annualised growth of 2.66%. If we similarly disregard the three quarters following the 1973 oil shock that took place under the Conservative administration of Ted Heath, his party has presided over 14 recession quarters and 2.65% of average annualised growth.

Labour are much better at running the economy than voters think – new research

We looked at 100 years of Tory and Labour governments to see who was better at producing GDP.

theconversation.com

 

[Bald Rick]

Which would be? It's la chambre!

I can’t believe i have to spell it out, but 23/6/16 should be a good enough clue.

(and I have an A* in Franglais. Champs Élysées).

 

[Richard Scott]

Sorry, but that's factually incorrect. Despite the Conservatives being the "party of sound economy and business", Labour actually has a slightly better history of economic management than the Conservatives:

Labour are much better at running the economy than voters think – new research

We looked at 100 years of Tory and Labour governments to see who was better at producing GDP.

theconversation.com

So one article proves everything? Sorry, not convinced. Seeing as last time they left office there was no money left!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Aug 2023 ==

I can’t believe i have to spell it out, but 23/6/16 should be a good enough clue.

(and I have an A* in Franglais. Champs Élysées).

Whilst I don't personally agree with that particular event and would rather it didn't happen, I believe it was to try and stem the issue of Farage and Co? Whether they could have chosen to ignore result or should have had different rules e.g. more than 50% of people who could vote should vote yes is water under the bridge.
They also believed enough people would vote 'no' so don't think it was an attempt to pull us out of Europe by back door method.

 

[najaB]

Seeing as last time they left office there was no money left!

The near collapse of global financial system might have had a little bit to do with that.

And, going on fourteen years of Conservative rule later, the finances are clearly so much better.

 

[Luke McDonnell]

Something I was thinking of why was Ireland and its population a lot more EU friendly despite being an English speaking island nation as some people attribute the reason for the UKs especially England's Euroscepticism partially to our geographical position as an island nation with no land borders with Mainland Europe? That does not apply to Ireland which is geographically even more detached from mainland Europe and also the Irish are more culturally closer to and intermingled with the UK/English population and the English-speaking world as a whole than continental Europe including close family and cultural ties and they even joined the EEC on the same day in 1973 yet the attitude to the EU seems to be a big difference with the political establishment, media and population being a lot more pro EU than here and Euroscepticism being only a fringe party issue in recent Irish politics even before Brexit just wondering why this may be the case is it because Ireland has had less immigration from mainland Europe or elsewhere or is it something to do with Ireland being a small country that could not survive without being part of a major international trading bloc?

 

[Peterthegreat]

I think part of it is due to Ireland having received large amounts of money from the EU whilst the perception in some quarters is that the UK has paid in a lot and not got a lot out of it.

 

[edwin_m]

I think part of it is due to Ireland having received large amounts of money from the EU whilst the perception in some quarters is that the UK has paid in a lot and not got a lot out of it.

Probably true to a large extent - Ireland has come on in leaps and bounds since joining the EU (so had the UK, anyone remember what things were like in 1973?). But I'd say there's also an attitude issue - a proportion of the British (probably mostly English) population and politicians haven't really come to terms with being a medium-sized power that no longer has an empire. Ireland never had or wanted an empire and suffered in several ways from being part of the British one, but understood their position in the world and how to make the best of it.

 

[Richard Scott]

The near collapse of global financial system might have had a little bit to do with that.

And, going on fourteen years of Conservative rule later, the finances are clearly so much better.

Oh now there's an excuse. May well be valid but so are issues relating to virus, war in Ukraine all putting pressure on finances but, in this case, seems the Labour fans are blaming the Government.

 

[najaB]

Oh now there's an excuse. May well be valid but so are issues relating to virus, war in Ukraine all putting pressure on finances but, in this case, seems the Labour fans are blaming the Government.

Those might have been a valid excuse, however the UK economy was the only major economy that, in 2022, was still smaller than it was in 2019. And we're struggling with inflation at more or less 8% (the third highest in the G20 after Turkey and Argentina) despite being less exposed to Russian gas prices than the likes of our European neighbours. Germany is a full percentage point lower, and the likes of France and Spain are at 4.3% and 2.3% respectively.

 

[Richard Scott]

Those might have been a valid excuse, however the UK economy was the only major economy that, in 2022, was still smaller than it was in 2019. And we're struggling with inflation at more or less 8% (the third highest in the G20 after Turkey and Argentina) despite being less exposed to Russian gas prices than the likes of our European neighbours. Germany is a full percentage point lower, and the likes of France and Spain are at 4.3% and 2.3% respectively.

There are many other countries with higher inflation in Europe including Sweden, Serbia and Slovakia. Travelling around I notice all countries are notably more expensive than they were last year so inflation has affected them all.
Inflation is driven by many things including people buying goods.
So what do you suggest the government does? If it meddles too much people complain. Now the Bank of England has put interest rates up (remember Labour gave them control to do so, not necessarily a bad thing, granted) and some are feeling the squeeze. Inflation isn't the only guideline for how economies perform. You seem to pick and choose rather than looking at things as a whole.

 

[class ep-09]

There are many other countries with higher inflation in Europe including Sweden, Serbia and Slovakia. Travelling around I notice all countries are notably more expensive than they were last year so inflation has affected them all.
Inflation is driven by many things including people buying goods.
So what do you suggest the government does? If it meddles too much people complain. Now the Bank of England has put interest rates up (remember Labour gave them control to do so, not necessarily a bad thing, granted) and some are feeling the squeeze. Inflation isn't the only guideline for how economies perform. You seem to pick and choose rather than looking at things as a whole.

You wanted to know other guidelines how UK’s economy performs :

Understanding the UK economy - Office for National Statistics

Bringing together the latest data on employment, prices and trade to give an overview of the economy in the UK.

www.ons.gov.uk

Comparing with similar sized economies - very badly .

 

[Richard Scott]

You wanted to know other guidelines how UK’s economy performs :

Understanding the UK economy - Office for National Statistics

Bringing together the latest data on employment, prices and trade to give an overview of the economy in the UK.

www.ons.gov.uk

Comparing with similar sized economies - very badly .

Where's the comparison, can only see UK data?

 

[najaB]

Where's the comparison, can only see UK data?

Plenty of comparisons available here: https://stats.oecd.org/ - they're all pretty grim reading.

 

[Richard Scott]

Plenty of comparisons available here: https://stats.oecd.org/ - they're all pretty grim reading.

Grim in what way? Just because economy may not be growing as much as some others does not make it grim. I don't feel like I'm living in a country that's going down the pan and, in reality, never have.
I didn't want Brexit and still don't believe it's I the interest of the UK but there are too many who think everything is a crisis when, sometimes, it's a minor downturn. Yes, interest rates are causing a number of people issues but how many were buying new cars etc when rates were low rather than paying off a bit more of their mortgage? Not saying that's true of everyone.
Remember the Bank of England is in charge of controlling inflation, something that Labour gave it charge over.
Also, I do work in public sector and had pay freezes and below rate of inflation pay rises but if there isn't the money to pay for that there isn't. Seems a number of people don't get reality that any government can only spend what it has and no government is going to heavily tax rich or large companies based in UK as they just up and leave paying no tax at all. If Starmer gets in next time I predict you won't see a big increase in public sector spending as he won't have the means to do it.
I doubt we'll head back into EU sny time soon either even though I would be more than happy with that. Remember a lot of traditional Labour areas voted tory at last election to support Brexit, or that's how it appears, so wasn't just the rich, toffee nose brigade that some on here would have you believe. So if you're unhappy, may be wise to look in your own backyard first.

 

[najaB]

Grim in what way? Just because economy may not be growing as much as some others does not make it grim. I don't feel like I'm living in a country that's going down the pan and, in reality, never have.

Grim in the sense that the average person is, in real terms, measurably poorer not only than we could have been had Brexit not happened, but also than we actually were pre-pandemic.

Also, I do work in public sector and had pay freezes and below rate of inflation pay rises but if there isn't the money to pay for that there isn't. Seems a number of people don't get reality that any government can only spend what it has and no government is going to heavily tax rich or large companies based in UK as they just up and leave paying no tax at all.

That's the theory, however the practice has shown that where tax rises aren't extortionate, companies just take them in their stride since relocating isn't free.

 

[Richard Scott]

Grim in the sense that the average person is, in real terms, measurably poorer not only than we could have been had Brexit not happened, but also than we actually were pre-pandemic.

That's the theory, however the practice has shown that where tax rises aren't extortionate, companies just take them in their stride since relocating isn't free.

How much measurably poorer? I'm probably 10% worse off but in real terms that means I drive an older car and maybe eat out a little less. What does it mean in reality? There are some people who are struggling but, unfortunately, there always have been.
Small tax rises maybe but that's not what some people propose; they want them to pay much more tax and that's when it's worth their while relocating.

 

[Wynd]

Anyone defending the actions of the government since 2010 is failing to appraise themselves of the data available to them.

The UK economy has been underperforming for well over a decade now. The cost of living situation is only a crisis because wages haven’t risen in real terms since late in the last decade, 2008.

Austerity was a gargantuan failure, as it stifled economic growth, and actually made the UK debt worse.

Speaking of which, when the Tory’s came to office it was 500B odd. It’s now approaching 5x that.

Conservative stewardship of the economy, for the average citizen, is not good.

There are a number of structural issues that need to be resolved at haste, primarily growth and productivity. Increasingly, the UK just isn’t competitive enough on these metrics.

The supply side issue of Brexit has not helped. Investment is dramatically lower post 2016 which is not helping with the above.

Like it or not, the Tory’s have not succeeded to “fix the roof whilst the sun was whining” and stand to leave the national finances in an even more parlours state than labour did in 2010.

Debt interest alone is £100B this year. Thank Rishi for index linking, against the advice of the Treasury. He is either corrupt or an idiot, you decide.

 

[JamesT]

Anyone defending the actions of the government since 2010 is failing to appraise themselves of the data available to them.

The UK economy has been underperforming for well over a decade now. The cost of living situation is only a crisis because wages haven’t risen in real terms since late in the last decade, 2008.

Austerity was a gargantuan failure, as it stifled economic growth, and actually made the UK debt worse.

Speaking of which, when the Tory’s came to office it was 500B odd. It’s now approaching 5x that.

Conservative stewardship of the economy, for the average citizen, is not good.

There are a number of structural issues that need to be resolved at haste, primarily growth and productivity. Increasingly, the UK just isn’t competitive enough on these metrics.

The supply side issue of Brexit has not helped. Investment is dramatically lower post 2016 which is not helping with the above.

Like it or not, the Tory’s have not succeeded to “fix the roof whilst the sun was whining” and stand to leave the national finances in an even more parlours state than labour did in 2010.

Debt interest alone is £100B this year. Thank Rishi for index linking, against the advice of the Treasury. He is either corrupt or an idiot, you decide.

Austerity was the popular choice in 2010. Perhaps the SNP weren’t offering it, but the other three major parties were.

Labour left with a budget deficit of £100bn a year, the debt will increase until that is turned into a surplus. Would you prefer tax rises to cover it instead?

Many commentators have spent the last decade and a half arguing the debt didn’t matter as rates were so low.

You may have noticed this little pandemic we’ve had which has required large amounts of spending to keep the economy going. Or should we not have bothered with furlough payments?

UK debt level is the second lowest in the G7.

Rishi didn’t decide anything about the index linking, the Debt Management Office does that. The people buying gilts are generally pension funds who need to protect against inflation, so they want index linking. Otherwise they’re going to demand a premium on the fixed rates to cover against inflation rising.

 

[ainsworth74]

You may have noticed this little pandemic we’ve had which has required large amounts of spending to keep the economy going. Or should we not have bothered with furlough payments?

Indeed so! Which is why it was extremely helpful that just before the pandemic Tory polices had meant that debt had fallen from the £1.2tn it was in 2009/10 to only £1.9tn in 2019/20. Wait, did I say fallen? I meant risen. It had risen under the prudent fiscal leadership of the Tory party.

I don't think anyone disputes that massive Government expenditure was necessary to get us through the pandemic, but lets not pretend that it's why it has reached the record highs that it has now done so. It was already substantially above the levels inherited from Labour in 2010. It's a convenient excuse trotted out by the Tory party and their tame media friends but it's far from the whole story. But then what's new? See also the backlog in the criminal courts which was already soaring falling a decade of cutbacks but is now being blamed on the pandemic. Or NHS waiting lists which have been absolutely worsened by the pandemic dramatically but had already been ticking upwards significantly prior to the pandemic. Etc etc.

 

[JamesT]

Indeed so! Which is why it was extremely helpful that just before the pandemic Tory polices had meant that debt had fallen from the £1.2tn it was in 2009/10 to only £1.9tn in 2019/20. Wait, did I say fallen? I meant risen. It had risen under the prudent fiscal leadership of the Tory party.

I don't think anyone disputes that massive Government expenditure was necessary to get us through the pandemic, but lets not pretend that it's why it has reached the record highs that it has now done so. It was already substantially above the levels inherited from Labour in 2010. It's a convenient excuse trotted out by the Tory party and their tame media friends but it's far from the whole story. But then what's new? See also the backlog in the criminal courts which was already soaring falling a decade of cutbacks but is now being blamed on the pandemic. Or NHS waiting lists which have been absolutely worsened by the pandemic dramatically but had already been ticking upwards significantly prior to the pandemic. Etc etc.

The last time the UK debt fell, was 2001 whilst Labour were sticking to the Tory spending plans.
Looking at https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/gove...ntdebtanddeficitforeurostatmaast/december2020 the deficit had been mostly reduced down from the £100bn of the end of Labour and appeared to be on course to go into surplus.
Presumably if you're not a fan of austerity then the government should have kept on spending at 2010 levels? What would the debt be like if we'd done that?

 

[Wynd]

Austerity was the popular choice in 2010. Perhaps the SNP weren’t offering it, but the other three major parties were.

Labour left with a budget deficit of £100bn a year, the debt will increase until that is turned into a surplus. Would you prefer tax rises to cover it instead?

Many commentators have spent the last decade and a half arguing the debt didn’t matter as rates were so low.

You may have noticed this little pandemic we’ve had which has required large amounts of spending to keep the economy going. Or should we not have bothered with furlough payments?

UK debt level is the second lowest in the G7.

Rishi didn’t decide anything about the index linking, the Debt Management Office does that. The people buying gilts are generally pension funds who need to protect against inflation, so they want index linking. Otherwise they’re going to demand a premium on the fixed rates to cover against inflation rising.

You have rather a lot to catch up on, im afraid.

Poopular or not, it was the wrong path, as time has shown. SNP are irrelivant, as they dont control Whitehall.

Patronising, well done for trying to build consensus.

Factually, the chancellor could have issued long dated debt at any point between 2009 and 2022. They chose not to, depite numerous and frequent calls to do so. This could have mitigated the impact of rising rates, by fixing coupons whilst rates were low.

What is the budget deficit now? If the policies of the last decade were supposed to work, why are we where we are, with a weak economy and stagnant wavges...?

Austerity is a failure, but then again, the UK Governments of all colours havnt been running the UK Economy very well for quite some time now.

Its almost comedic that anyone has the temirity, or should that be another word ending with ...ity to try and defend the record of the last 10 plus years.

The torys core aim was "to get debt falling as a % of GDP." How has that worked out?

 

[ainsworth74]

The last time the UK debt fell, was 2001 whilst Labour were sticking to the Tory spending plans.
Looking at https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/gove...ntdebtanddeficitforeurostatmaast/december2020 the deficit had been mostly reduced down from the £100bn of the end of Labour and appeared to be on course to go into surplus.

It rather looks like it plateaued to me in 2017 rather than being on course to go into surplus? But in any event if the Tory policies were supposed to have worked in the way advertised why didn't it feel like that even before the pandemic? We were supposed fixing the roof whilst the sun was shining. It certainly doesn't feel like the roof was patched up.

Presumably if you're not a fan of austerity then the government should have kept on spending at 2010 levels? What would the debt be like if we'd done that?

I'm not a fan of austerity but I accept that at least some level of fiscal tightening was probably necessary. I'm less convinced by the targets of some of that tightening, especially on one off capital expenditure and on the poorer members of society, but I'm not suggesting that we could have just carried blindly on. After all ignoring fiscal reality is one of the reasons that Tories Truss and Kwarteng crashed the economy last year.

But all of this ignores my wider point. It's disingenuous to suggest that the Torie represented prudent financial management and if only the pandemic hadn't intervened it would all be sunshine and puppies. Things weren't great before the pandemic.

 

[Wynd]

Point of order, Truss and Kwarteng only accelerated what was happening anyway. Rates on UK Debt and mortgages have gone that way eventually anyway. They just did it faster. Who knows, by now, with Truss and Kwarteng focussed on going for growth no matter what, the UK may have ended up better off by now by being back on the road to growth.

As time goies on, and growth ceases to be be present in the economy, patinece will falter and deeper questions will be asked.

The UK isnt getting poorer becasue people are working less hard, so why is it happening?

Taxes are the highest they have been in decades, and brexit has brought total soverignty, why are working people being priced out of participation in some of the basics of a liberal democracy, like food, and shelter...

 

[najaB]

What would the debt be like if we'd done that?

Shrinking the debt at the cost of shrinking the economy doesn't sound like a good plan to me.

Point of order, Truss and Kwarteng only accelerated what was happening anyway. Rates on UK Debt and mortgages have gone that way eventually anyway. They just did it faster. Who knows, by now, with Truss and Kwarteng focussed on going for growth no matter what, the UK may have ended up better off by now by being back on the road to growth.

It is one of those situations where it wasn't what they did as much as the way they went about it.

 

[edwin_m]

Point of order, Truss and Kwarteng only accelerated what was happening anyway. Rates on UK Debt and mortgages have gone that way eventually anyway. They just did it faster. Who knows, by now, with Truss and Kwarteng focussed on going for growth no matter what, the UK may have ended up better off by now by being back on the road to growth.

Borrowing more to cut taxes for the rich isn't a good way of stimulating growth. It basically means those rich people have more cash to spend, and in a situation where the supply side is constrained (by import difficulties and labour shortages, in part due to Brexit) it just stokes inflation.

 

[adrock1976]

Since the referendum back in 2016, we seem to have become more racist than ever before.

For example, there is the Windrush scandal, the ongoing racism in cricket, and most recently, homophobia and racism in the London Fire Brigade and Avon and Somerset Police.

Avon and Somerset Police 'institutionally racist', chief constable says​

• • Published
    16 June

By Nathan Heath
BBC News

A chief constable says she believes her own force is "institutionally racist".
Sarah Crew said she came to that conclusion after applying a series of criteria to Avon and Somerset Police following a report into the local criminal justice system.
She said she was "in no doubt" that racism and racial bias were reinforced within systems across the force.
The force's Police Federation has objected to her statement and said it could divide officers and communities.
Ms Crew said: "We are not representative of the community we police. I am now owning the definition of institutional racism.
"This is recognition that the system is unfair, and our job is to make it fair."

Avon and Somerset Police employs more than 6,000 people
Ms Crew examined her force's performance based on Baroness Louise Casey's criteria.
She was the peer asked to investigate the performance of the Metropolitan Police following the murder of Sarah Everard by a serving officer.
Active discussions about racism have taken place within Avon and Somerset Police since Desmond Brown published his report Identifying Disproportionality in the criminal justice system in the force area.
It showed evidence of a difference in the way the force interacted with people from different ethnic and racial backgrounds, particularly those from black heritage communities.

The body which represents officers in the force has objected to Ms Crew's statement
Ms Crew said they had been working through the report's recommendations.
"To make real change we need to work together, we need to be accountable and by admitting the truth we can start to make progress.
"I am hugely committed to build trust amongst all communities and this is an important step," she said.

The Casey Review called the Met Police institutionally racist, misogynist and homophobic
She described Baroness Casey's review into the Metropolitan Police - which found it was guilty of "institutional prejudice"- including racism, sexism and homophobia - as another "catalyst" for her own force to examine itself.
"I'm in no doubt that, by Baroness Casey's criteria at least, Avon and Somerset Police is institutionally racist," Ms Crew said.
"I must accept that the definition fits - it does for race," said Ms Crew.
"I think it's likely to for misogyny, homophobia and disability as well, though the gaps in the data don't give us the sense of scale, impact or certainty that we have for race."

The Casey Review sets four tests on institutional racism:

• There are racists - and people with racist attitudes - within the organisation

• Staff and officers from black heritage and ethnically/racially minoritised backgrounds experience racism at work and it is routinely ignored, dismissed, or not spoken about

• Racism and racial bias are reinforced within systems

• The force under-protects and over-polices black heritage people

However, Avon and Somerset force's Police Federation, which represents officers, objected to Ms Crew's statement.
It said it created "a false narrative" that could cultivate the impression its officers were racist "and actually drive a divide between our officers and the communities this is intended to assist".
Chair Mark Loker said Ms Crew's comments had been shared internally via a vlog and needed data to back them up, otherwise they amounted to "virtue signalling".
"If accusations of 'institutional racism' are levelled against institutions, these should - like any other serious accusation - be subject to robust assessment and evidence."
He added Ms Crew's characterisation of the force "will do more harm than good".
"This will make our jobs that much more difficult because there will be sections of the community that will use this to their advantage to either make complaints to the police on the back of a legitimate stop and search or on the back of a legitimate arrest and we see that all too often.
"Unfortunately too much time is wasted on vexatious complaints to subvert criminality."
Last year, the force apologised to an investigator who was subjected to "toxic" racial abuse.

Ms Crew said she had "no doubt" the force was institutionally racist
Ms Crew argued there was "real data" behind her words.
"You are six times more likely to be stopped and searched in the force area if you're from black heritage," she said.
"The evidence is undeniable - we are improving but it is not happening fast enough."
Ms Crew added: "I need to be clear, I'm not talking about what's in the hearts and minds of the vast majority of people who work for the force.
"This is about recognising the structural and institutional barriers that exist and which put people at a disadvantage in the way they interact with policing because of their race."
James Oluoch-Olunya, chair of Avon and Somerset Police's Race Ethnicity and Cultural Heritage (Reach) group, said Ms Crew's findings were an important first step for change.
"It's an important acknowledgment of people's lived experience and all of the pain and suffering - it is starting the conversation from an honest place and we can't fix a problem unless we acknowledge it," he said.
He added it was "actions" communities were most interested in, adding in future, the force needed to take a zero-tolerance approach to racism.
"The culture of an organisation is defined by the worst behaviour it will tolerate, so by giving people multiple passes it just keeps perpetuating."
His sentiments were echoed by civil right's charity Black Equity Organisation.
"The admission by Sara Crew is a welcome first step in the fight to ensure that all communities are policed fairly and that the structures that support racism, misogyny and homophobia are dismantled," chief executive Dr Wanda Wyporska said.

See https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-65921150 for the original article.

Ever since the referendum and the aftermath of Brexit, it is a racism problem we have.

 

[REVUpminster]

Since the referendum back in 2016, we seem to have become more racist than ever before.

For example, there is the Windrush scandal, the ongoing racism in cricket, and most recently, homophobia and racism in the London Fire Brigade and Avon and Somerset Police.



See https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-65921150 for the original article.

Ever since the referendum and the aftermath of Brexit, it is a racism problem we have.

The most ridiculous statement I have ever read.

 

[alex397]

The most ridiculous statement I have ever read.

Perhaps you could expand why you think so?

It doesn’t sound unreasonable to say that racism levels can change, positively or negatively, particularly when the electorate are easily influenced by rhetoric from politicians and the tabloid media.

 

[zero]

Perhaps you could expand why you think so?

It doesn’t sound unreasonable to say that racism levels can change, positively or negatively, particularly when the electorate are easily influenced by rhetoric from politicians and the tabloid media.

I don't see that the quoted article links the identified racism to Brexit.

I would think that if the mentioned police force is indeed institutionally racist, then it has likely been so from long before holding a referendum was ever considered by Cameron. Same with cricket and the LFB.

Anecdotally and personally I do not find the UK to have become any more, or less, racist than when I started living here in 2006.

That is not to say the referendum result has not emboldend racists to be more open with their racism. Perhaps the aftermath of the referendum has led to increased hostility to all migrants, not just EU migrants, with the government leading the way; but then the government has become increasingly hostile to migrants since Blair was PM.

I suspect Windrush would have happened anyway even if Remain had won - given that the people involved have nothing to do with the EU.