I can't help but see this as an opportunistic response to the new rhetoric of the opposition. By once more pushing immigration to the front of political debate, Cameron is able to disregard the fact that we are seeing the largest fall in living standards in a century, a further cut in income for the poorest in society via cuts to tax credits, house prices at an all-time high while house building is at a 50 year low.

For Teresa May to have the cheek to come out and blame migration on issues from transport to low pay is an astonishing piece of calculated deceit. What's playing a bigger role in the highest train fares in Europe, some Syrian asylum seekers or the fact that private railway firms' shareholders are walking away with the hundreds of billions of profits they make instead of reinvesting it? Is it the extra 30 000 extra migrants' fault that we are the most unequal and least socially mobile country in Europe, or is it perhaps due to governments like ours who have overseen an economy where the majority of people in poverty are actually in work?

I look forward to the Tory split on the EU referendum that hopefully spells the beginning of the end for Osbourne and co.

If punk ever happened I'd be preaching the law, instead of listenin to Lydon lecture BBC4

I would suggest that people's response to immigration rather than the fact of immigration is what determines the nature of society.

Sydenham by birth. Selhurst by the Grace of God.

Multi-culturalism is not divisive. That has been as often proven as the counter argument. People's response to it (which differs from country to country) is what is divisive. There may be compelling reasons why multi-culturalism works less well in some places than it does in others (over-population, shortage of jobs, etc.) but to simply say that multi-culturalism is divisive is both wrong and untrue. When you have national leaders who fan the flames by articulating ignorant positions and making ill-considered statements, it only makes the inherent prejudice of the assertion a). worse, and b). simultaneously, more believable in the eyes of those who don't think for themselves.

Sydenham by birth. Selhurst by the Grace of God.

Do you honestly believe that? Honestly? It's worse now than at any time since 1915 to include between the 1st and 2nd world wars, during the 2nd WW, the period after the 2nd WW, the 3 day week of the 70s and so on? Really?

Or do you mean since the start of this century? In which case you'd still be wrong.

Living down here does have some advantages. At least you can see them cry.

Nurse! Nurse! Come and help this deluded soul

Jackson.. Wan Bissaka.... Sansom.. Nicholas.. Cannon.. Guehi.... Zaha... Thomas.. Byrne... Holton.. Rogers.. that should do it..

Whilst I do think mass immigration, especially temporary economic migration, is detrimental to the UK as a whole, its important to distinguish that mass immigration's impact on society and the impact of immigration are two entirely different scenarios.

Its worth noting that migration to the UK of people with Islamic faith has been going on since the 60s at least, and the UK only has had a problem with Islamic terrorism since 2001, and notably as a real threat since 2003.

Prior to 2001 the UK had no notable incidences of Islamic terrorism. Its almost as if there might be other factors involved, rather than just migration and a myopic view of Islam.

Not sure how it suddenly turns from migration to Islam.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]