Friday, 2 July 2010

It's not just years that kill

Draw a horizontal line eight miles long with its centre on Westminster. At the Western end, folk will live about ten eighteen years longer than those at the Eastern end, have less than a quarter of the infant mortality, Tuberculosis will be rare and they will tend to be lean as whippets on a diet of olive oil and lettuce. In the West, bedbugs and body lice are virtually unknown; in the East, bus and tube upholstery is riddled with their eggs.

The contrast is remarkable in anyone's eyes. For socialists, it is a powerful argument for taking lots of money from the people in the West and giving it to the people in the East. In fact, they've just spent thirteen years doing just this, and the result is that ..... all the inequalities have got worse.

But read the National Audit Office Report in detail. All the areas in the country with the worst all-age all-cause mortality rates, and with the worst life expectancy at birth rates, are areas with high immigrant populations, and particularly with high first generation immigrant populations. Strip out all those not born in the UK from all-age all-cause mortality rates and they dramatically equalise - not wholly, but significantly. And look in detail at infant mortality rates, for these too are distorted, with infants born to recent immigrants being more likely to die than those born to the established population. The situation suddenly stops looking like one due largely to income inequality and starts looking like one due largely to immigration status.

London's East End is the insanitary melting-pot for new arrivals that it always has been. Peasants from rural Pakistan, Somalia and Bangladesh crowd over-populated housing, bringing with them long-term chronic health problems, parasitic infestations and all the health risks that living crowded together in tiny council flats bring. In fact, as the NAO study reveals, 44% of the UK's immigrants live in the handful of spearhead local authority areas with the worst stats.

And this of course explains why all the cash thrown by Labour at the problem had absolutely no effect whatsoever - for at the same time, they were holding the immigration door wide open, and a flood of poor and very unhealthy people from the world's most primitive nations just swamped the health services in the target areas.

Which is why of course the BBC is spinning the report to demonstrate that if only we all stopped smoking, lost weight and gave up red wine this health inequality gap will disappear. Go figure.


Anonymous said...

I watched the dance again on QT, one question involved immigration.
Oh what a boon it has been! - for Britain blah blah etc, which led me to question, are the audience skillfully hand picked from the local socialist apparatchik association(New Labour) and are they all Guardian readers?

"They are all such good little workers?"

What about the those from the Horn of Africa? They come here fully 'tooled up' on how to milk the system, then take the houses, start your own steet mafia and never work, why work? - if you can sponge off the state... and make a decent 'living' robbing, intimidating and mugging?

What about The police (service)?

Well they just let 'em get on with it, its called ghettoisation and turning a blind eye, we're all multiculturalists now, the law dictates!

Anonymous said...

I just don't get it. What political advantage would labour have gained by doing this deliberately? Qui Bono - as they say. The only thing I can come up with is gerrymandering on a gigantic scale. A scale so large, it cannot be seen. Of course, all these immigrants will eventually become labour voters.

Coney Island

johnse18 said...

Just one point on the subject of inequalities significantly evening out when you strip out immigrant data. The NAO report doesn't seem to have anything much on the breakdown between native and immigrant groups. Is there some other document where this is addressed mor explicitly?