The United Kingdom might be uniquely well placed as a country that could undergo a sudden revolution. The state keeps its grip on power and crushes dissent almost entirely bureaucratically. What keeps people in line is the threat of having draconian, punitive sentences handed down by a judge, not any fear of a source of actual, physical power.
And, if you look at English history, there have been multiple occurrences of revolt that were resolved because the government eventually backed down. It's not widely known, for instance, that far from the stiff upper lip, keep-calm-and-carry-on myth we're sold today, London was on the verge of revolution during the blitz. The government was refusing to allow londoners to use the underground stations as bomb shelters (instead forcing them to use anderson shelters, which were entirely useless), out of a fear that they would stay down and refuse to come out and work, even while the great and good had their underground restaurants and underground offices. There were riots. People stormed the locked stations and simply took them over for the night. The government graciously announced a change of policy several days later, once it became clear the only alternative was sending in the army, which would have fomented even greater revolt.
English history has been a long series of near-revolutions that were typically (though not always; see Ireland and the highland clearances for two alternative solutions) solved by the government of the day eventually reaching out to compromise with the people. The hindsight view of it is reframed as "nothing ever happens" and "nothing changed", but that ignores all that
did change, or how at the very least the government's impositions rolled back and the status quo ante was restored. That willingness to compromise and to
generally leave people alone is what kept the country so stable post-cromwell, but it seems the contract was broken as part of the post-war settlement, as we've since had a succession of rulers who delight in telling people how to behave, right up to today and Starmer's temu cromwell act.
The Irish are white, immigrants as a whole are just awful—we've known this since the Tervingi crossed the Danube circa 370AD.
One of the reasons why the whole "you replaced poles with pakis you deserve everything you get!" line is so stupid. I like poles. My cousin is married to a pole. I still don't want them turning up en masse, driving down wages and displacing my culture, while they export cash to the home country. I'd feel the same way if a million swedes turned up every year.