[noelwelsh]

"Right wing" is not defined by popularity but by the nature of the arguments being put forth. A central argument in the piece is that London was better in the past. The suggestion that things were better in the past, and we should return to that time, is core to a certain kind of conservative thought. Conservative, by definition, means opposing change. Therefore this is a right-wing argument, whether it is popular or not.

[dismalaf]

The comment you originally replied to said it's not a radical right wing opinion. So my comment is reiterating that; it's not radical. Being slightly right of centre in the sense of wanting to preserve your culture is a mainstream opinion.

Radical can be defined as a sharp departure from the status quo (DHH is merely suggesting a turn back to the status quo of immigration policy from maybe a couple decades ago) or as something more extreme than the mainstream view. If something is so popular it's the majority opinion, it's not radical by most definitions.

[queenkjuul]

He actually pretty explicitly pines for the condition of the past, where London was full of "native Brits," and makes no mention of immigration policy. Then he links to statistics showing that 60% of Londoners are native born British citizens.

So in his mind, you can be a British citizen born in Britain but not a "native Brit." I don't see how one can reach this conclusion unless you believe non-white people to be incapable of being "native Brits" despite being born and raised in Britain.

Again, would love to see where he advocates for any particular immigration policy. The post pretty explicitly admits to just preferring when London was more white (as evidenced by linking to stats showing London is not less British, simply less white)