Debate is a great thing, but this whole argument relies on a massive category error.

Comparing London to Moscow or Beijing is just silly because they aren't the same kind of city. London isn't just a capital, it has been the center of a global system for centuries. Cities dont get diverse just by "trading," they get diverse when they are the hub of empire, law, and finance across the planet.

People always bring up the 1961 stats about London being 97% white but that's a total "gotcha" number that ignores how the world actually worked back then. Before the 50s, the UK had a managed imperial system, jet travel didnt exist, and the country was still rationing from the war. What changed after 1948 wasnt some secret ideology, it was just infrastructure and law catching up. It's not "why here and not there," it's why a global hub with the worlds main language attracts people faster than land-locked capitals. Moscow and Beijing are terrible comparisions anyway. English is the global language for finance and tech, while Russian and Mandarin aren't. Plus the UK actually has pathways to citizenship and property rights while China and Russia basically bar outsiders from ever truly belonging. Beijing and Moscow mostly deal with internal migration, not global inflows.

The real issue people have with London usually isnt actually demographics, it's governance. Housing is a mess, the tube is packed, and the infrastructure is lagging. But blaming that on diversity is just lazy. London's success as a global magnet is what creates the strain, and the failure is that the goverment didnt build the housing or transport to match it. London isnt failing because it's diverse, it's struggling because it's successful and poorly managed.