At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
In short, multi culturalism has failed
Hardly surprising, even the people behind the experiment admit they hadn’t properly thought it through.
Yes, multiculturalism is a desperate failure. We have basically fucked the country for a stupid theory dreamed up by cranks
The unfucking will be difficult and messy, but someone will eventually have to do it. We will see the same pattern repeated across Europe
I agree with you but would ask why it hasn’t worked here but in the US it has - a huge proportion of people in the US identify as “something-American”, so Irish American, Italian American etc. they all have large areas where certain immigrant communities settled and still are prevalent. You have areas of high Swedish, German, Spanish immigrant domination. The languages are often still spoken alongside English. Cultural events, shops, religious buildings are all there and yet for some reason they are insanely proud “Americans”. They will all be shouting “USA, USA, USA”. They will sing the national anthem as proudly as any WASP, daughter of the revolution, anyone who is American.
What has happened where this sort of American multiculturalism has made being “American” the ultimate identity to them where in the UK it’s almost an embarrassment or actively disliked to identify as ultimately “British” wherever you or your ancestors hailed from?
The American elite, until recently, loved America
In Britain the intellectual elite has despised Britain for a century. As Orwell noted:
"England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality. In left-wing circles it is always felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman and that it is a duty to snigger at every English institution, from horse racing to suet puddings. It is a strange fact, but it is unquestionably true that almost any English intellectual would feel more ashamed of standing to attention during “God Save the King” than of stealing from a poor box.’
Liberals everywhere (I am a liberal) cringe at lumpen patriotism. I don’t think this is a uniquely British thing.
As for the Orwell quote, someone seems to post this about once a month. We need a counter or something.
Remarkable that this isn't getting more attention. A school states it may close and move to online learning because of threats being made. Or do people just shrug their shoulders and say 'just another school in London.'
Not just London. A school in Burton had to close for the afternoon a couple of years back for similar reasons.
What is the country coming too?
We had teachers back in the day who would have beaten the **** out of a student for less than that with no recourse.
Perhaps hangers and floggers like Jenrick, Priti and Suella are indeed onto something.
If we behave like that as a nation
Not sure what you mean by that? Or just another attempt by a mainstream leftie to deflect attention away from thuggish men making threats against schools.
Public safety for a school should not directly be a matter for the school at all, which, as long as it is acting lawfully, should be allowed to get on with its daily life. Those who don't like its lawful policies will find another school more to their liking. It is the police, not schools, who are our law enforcers.
If law enforcers and politicians are pusillanimous in protecting heads and others making judgements and acting for the general good chaos will ensue and schools will be intimidated into pandering to aggressive groups who make and imply threats.
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
Ruling classes have always been self-serving.
Not entirely. A lot of them accepted that death or permanent injury in battle was the price tag that came attached to their privileges.
The current lot think that their privileges come for free.
Thatcher didn't make that happen (the tendency has always been there, and long periods of peace and prosperity will make a society decadent), but she was a long way from discouraging or constraining that instinct.
The Victorian Values stuff, the Grantham Methodism, wasn't just cant, it was needed to make the project work. Without it, you end up with... roughly what the Conservatives have decended to.
I don't think I'm being unfair in assuming that, if the worst did happen, a fair significant chunk of the current governing party would bugger off to a private island for the duration.
Much of the Conservative Party is indeed disgusting. I don’t recognise what I enthusiastically joined in 1985. But, I also worry about Labour.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
If I understand correctly, British immigration of late has been at a *larger scale*, per capita, than anything experienced in American history.
It’s mind-boggling.
You understand correctly. More people are coming into Britain - per capita - than came into America during the 1890s or 1920s or any time in the history of the USA
Voters are only just noticing this. We discussed this yesterday. British voters UNDERestimate the scale of inwards migration by about 500%. But now they are beginning to see
It could get messy
I asked my family which is higher legal or illegal immigration
They all said illegal
They are not really interested in politics and it does indicate how much illegal dominates the media generally
I should add that when I said approx 1.5 million in the last 2 years they were astonished
And the legal migrants are here because, one way or another, we need them.
Foreign students prop up our universities and, since they're the customers, they get to say under what terms they are prepared to come here.
Foreign workers prop up a lot of the economy, especially in the public sector. We're desperate, so they have leverage.
Neither of those is inevitable, but I don't think we'd like the necessary changes to avoid them.
Much easier to make a noise about a much smaller flow.
And of course Ukrainians and Hong Kong immigrants added to those numbers but I do agree that we need a good number of legal immigration, especially in health care
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
In short, multi culturalism has failed
Hardly surprising, even the people behind the experiment admit they hadn’t properly thought it through.
Yes, multiculturalism is a desperate failure. We have basically fucked the country for a stupid theory dreamed up by cranks
The unfucking will be difficult and messy, but someone will eventually have to do it. We will see the same pattern repeated across Europe
I agree with you but would ask why it hasn’t worked here but in the US it has - a huge proportion of people in the US identify as “something-American”, so Irish American, Italian American etc. they all have large areas where certain immigrant communities settled and still are prevalent. You have areas of high Swedish, German, Spanish immigrant domination. The languages are often still spoken alongside English. Cultural events, shops, religious buildings are all there and yet for some reason they are insanely proud “Americans”. They will all be shouting “USA, USA, USA”. They will sing the national anthem as proudly as any WASP, daughter of the revolution, anyone who is American.
What has happened where this sort of American multiculturalism has made being “American” the ultimate identity to them where in the UK it’s almost an embarrassment or actively disliked to identify as ultimately “British” wherever you or your ancestors hailed from?
The American elite, until recently, loved America
In Britain the intellectual elite has despised Britain for a century. As Orwell noted:
"England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality. In left-wing circles it is always felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman and that it is a duty to snigger at every English institution, from horse racing to suet puddings. It is a strange fact, but it is unquestionably true that almost any English intellectual would feel more ashamed of standing to attention during “God Save the King” than of stealing from a poor box.’
It was bollocks when he wrote it and is still bollocks.
Not least because George Orwell was one of our leading left wing intellectuals when he said it, and definitely a patriot.
Gilbert would have disagreed:
Then the idiot who praises, with enthusiastic tone All centuries but this, and every country but his own; ...I don't think she'd be missed — I'm sure she'd not be missed! (sic)
The solution is presumably to go back to the immigration policies of the early 1990s, which wasn’t that long ago, was it?
It has something fundamental changed in the global economy such that we simply can no longer control immigration volumes.
Immigration is a bit like crack. Economies seem to become addicted to it. I am in favour of moderate-to-high immigration, but my definition of that is probably 100-200k per annum, not 1m+ per annum.
You could understand it, if massive immigration generated massive economic growth.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
In short, multi culturalism has failed
Hardly surprising, even the people behind the experiment admit they hadn’t properly thought it through.
Yes, multiculturalism is a desperate failure. We have basically fucked the country for a stupid theory dreamed up by cranks
The unfucking will be difficult and messy, but someone will eventually have to do it. We will see the same pattern repeated across Europe
I agree with you but would ask why it hasn’t worked here but in the US it has - a huge proportion of people in the US identify as “something-American”, so Irish American, Italian American etc. they all have large areas where certain immigrant communities settled and still are prevalent. You have areas of high Swedish, German, Spanish immigrant domination. The languages are often still spoken alongside English. Cultural events, shops, religious buildings are all there and yet for some reason they are insanely proud “Americans”. They will all be shouting “USA, USA, USA”. They will sing the national anthem as proudly as any WASP, daughter of the revolution, anyone who is American.
What has happened where this sort of American multiculturalism has made being “American” the ultimate identity to them where in the UK it’s almost an embarrassment or actively disliked to identify as ultimately “British” wherever you or your ancestors hailed from?
The American elite, until recently, loved America
In Britain the intellectual elite has despised Britain for a century. As Orwell noted:
"England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality. In left-wing circles it is always felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman and that it is a duty to snigger at every English institution, from horse racing to suet puddings. It is a strange fact, but it is unquestionably true that almost any English intellectual would feel more ashamed of standing to attention during “God Save the King” than of stealing from a poor box.’
Liberals everywhere (I am a liberal) cringe at lumpen patriotism. I don’t think this is a uniquely British thing.
As for the Orwell quote, someone seems to post this about once a month. We need a counter or something.
It is regularly quoted because it is absolutely true, and startling that it was true as long ago as 1940, when he wrote it. And Orwell was on the left, he knew whereof he spake
Incidentally I see this British disease - elite contempt for their own country - has finally infected America. and badly. Woke distate for white America, its contempt for the Founding Fathers, the attempt to trash American history and values as all racist and evil, it's the exact same thing coming from the very same people. The academic and "intellectual" left
The difference in America is that the right is much less supine, it is armed and numerous and willing to vote for nutters like Trump, if that is what it takes to fight back
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
In short, multi culturalism has failed
Hardly surprising, even the people behind the experiment admit they hadn’t properly thought it through.
Yes, multiculturalism is a desperate failure. We have basically fucked the country for a stupid theory dreamed up by cranks
The unfucking will be difficult and messy, but someone will eventually have to do it. We will see the same pattern repeated across Europe
I agree with you but would ask why it hasn’t worked here but in the US it has - a huge proportion of people in the US identify as “something-American”, so Irish American, Italian American etc. they all have large areas where certain immigrant communities settled and still are prevalent. You have areas of high Swedish, German, Spanish immigrant domination. The languages are often still spoken alongside English. Cultural events, shops, religious buildings are all there and yet for some reason they are insanely proud “Americans”. They will all be shouting “USA, USA, USA”. They will sing the national anthem as proudly as any WASP, daughter of the revolution, anyone who is American.
What has happened where this sort of American multiculturalism has made being “American” the ultimate identity to them where in the UK it’s almost an embarrassment or actively disliked to identify as ultimately “British” wherever you or your ancestors hailed from?
The American elite, until recently, loved America
In Britain the intellectual elite has despised Britain for a century. As Orwell noted:
"England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality. In left-wing circles it is always felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman and that it is a duty to snigger at every English institution, from horse racing to suet puddings. It is a strange fact, but it is unquestionably true that almost any English intellectual would feel more ashamed of standing to attention during “God Save the King” than of stealing from a poor box.’
It was bollocks when he wrote it and is still bollocks.
Ah, the provincial quack who knows better than George Orwell. Never change, PB
I have read everything that Orwell has ever published, so know his work well.
A lot of right wingers selectively quote him to support ideas that would have been anathema to him.
In any case, he was an Englishman of his time, with many of the prejudices of his time, not an author of holy writ.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
If I understand correctly, British immigration of late has been at a *larger scale*, per capita, than anything experienced in American history.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
In short, multi culturalism has failed
Hardly surprising, even the people behind the experiment admit they hadn’t properly thought it through.
Yes, multiculturalism is a desperate failure. We have basically fucked the country for a stupid theory dreamed up by cranks
The unfucking will be difficult and messy, but someone will eventually have to do it. We will see the same pattern repeated across Europe
I agree with you but would ask why it hasn’t worked here but in the US it has - a huge proportion of people in the US identify as “something-American”, so Irish American, Italian American etc. they all have large areas where certain immigrant communities settled and still are prevalent. You have areas of high Swedish, German, Spanish immigrant domination. The languages are often still spoken alongside English. Cultural events, shops, religious buildings are all there and yet for some reason they are insanely proud “Americans”. They will all be shouting “USA, USA, USA”. They will sing the national anthem as proudly as any WASP, daughter of the revolution, anyone who is American.
What has happened where this sort of American multiculturalism has made being “American” the ultimate identity to them where in the UK it’s almost an embarrassment or actively disliked to identify as ultimately “British” wherever you or your ancestors hailed from?
The American elite, until recently, loved America
In Britain the intellectual elite has despised Britain for a century. As Orwell noted:
"England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality. In left-wing circles it is always felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman and that it is a duty to snigger at every English institution, from horse racing to suet puddings. It is a strange fact, but it is unquestionably true that almost any English intellectual would feel more ashamed of standing to attention during “God Save the King” than of stealing from a poor box.’
It was bollocks when he wrote it and is still bollocks.
Ah, the provincial quack who knows better than George Orwell. Never change, PB
You think Orwell is indisputably correct about things? Are you also a democratic socialist committed to a planned economy under the Labour Party?
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
In short, multi culturalism has failed
Hardly surprising, even the people behind the experiment admit they hadn’t properly thought it through.
Yes, multiculturalism is a desperate failure. We have basically fucked the country for a stupid theory dreamed up by cranks
The unfucking will be difficult and messy, but someone will eventually have to do it. We will see the same pattern repeated across Europe
I agree with you but would ask why it hasn’t worked here but in the US it has - a huge proportion of people in the US identify as “something-American”, so Irish American, Italian American etc. they all have large areas where certain immigrant communities settled and still are prevalent. You have areas of high Swedish, German, Spanish immigrant domination. The languages are often still spoken alongside English. Cultural events, shops, religious buildings are all there and yet for some reason they are insanely proud “Americans”. They will all be shouting “USA, USA, USA”. They will sing the national anthem as proudly as any WASP, daughter of the revolution, anyone who is American.
What has happened where this sort of American multiculturalism has made being “American” the ultimate identity to them where in the UK it’s almost an embarrassment or actively disliked to identify as ultimately “British” wherever you or your ancestors hailed from?
The American elite, until recently, loved America
In Britain the intellectual elite has despised Britain for a century. As Orwell noted:
"England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality. In left-wing circles it is always felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman and that it is a duty to snigger at every English institution, from horse racing to suet puddings. It is a strange fact, but it is unquestionably true that almost any English intellectual would feel more ashamed of standing to attention during “God Save the King” than of stealing from a poor box.’
It was bollocks when he wrote it and is still bollocks.
Ah, the provincial quack who knows better than George Orwell. Never change, PB
I have read everything that Orwell has ever published, so know his work well.
A lot of right wingers selectively quote him to support ideas that would have been anathema to him.
In any case, he was an Englishman of his time, with many of the prejudices of his time, not an author of holy writ.
Orwell was actually Indian. By birth. Little known fact. Born in Bengal, child of Empire
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
In short, multi culturalism has failed
Hardly surprising, even the people behind the experiment admit they hadn’t properly thought it through.
Yes, multiculturalism is a desperate failure. We have basically fucked the country for a stupid theory dreamed up by cranks
The unfucking will be difficult and messy, but someone will eventually have to do it. We will see the same pattern repeated across Europe
I agree with you but would ask why it hasn’t worked here but in the US it has - a huge proportion of people in the US identify as “something-American”, so Irish American, Italian American etc. they all have large areas where certain immigrant communities settled and still are prevalent. You have areas of high Swedish, German, Spanish immigrant domination. The languages are often still spoken alongside English. Cultural events, shops, religious buildings are all there and yet for some reason they are insanely proud “Americans”. They will all be shouting “USA, USA, USA”. They will sing the national anthem as proudly as any WASP, daughter of the revolution, anyone who is American.
What has happened where this sort of American multiculturalism has made being “American” the ultimate identity to them where in the UK it’s almost an embarrassment or actively disliked to identify as ultimately “British” wherever you or your ancestors hailed from?
The American elite, until recently, loved America
In Britain the intellectual elite has despised Britain for a century. As Orwell noted:
"England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality. In left-wing circles it is always felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman and that it is a duty to snigger at every English institution, from horse racing to suet puddings. It is a strange fact, but it is unquestionably true that almost any English intellectual would feel more ashamed of standing to attention during “God Save the King” than of stealing from a poor box.’
It was bollocks when he wrote it and is still bollocks.
Not least because George Orwell was one of our leading left wing intellectuals when he said it, and definitely a patriot.
Gilbert would have disagreed:
Then the idiot who praises, with enthusiastic tone All centuries but this, and every country but his own; ...I don't think she'd be missed — I'm sure she'd not be missed! (sic)
Well indeed.
It is noticeably the PB right wingers that are rubbishing the state of the country and praising other countries, not the left, and completely ignoring the fact that they have been in charge these last 14 years, including the last two year of peak immigration!
If you edited Orwells comments to say right wing commentator rather than left wing intellectual it would be much closer to the truth.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
If I understand correctly, British immigration of late has been at a *larger scale*, per capita, than anything experienced in American history.
It’s mind-boggling.
You understand correctly. More people are coming into Britain - per capita - than came into America during the 1890s or 1920s or any time in the history of the USA
Voters are only just noticing this. We discussed this yesterday. British voters UNDERestimate the scale of inwards migration by about 500%. But now they are beginning to see
It could get messy
I asked my family which is higher legal or illegal immigration
They all said illegal
They are not really interested in politics and it does indicate how much illegal dominates the media generally
I should add that when I said approx 1.5 million in the last 2 years they were astonished
And the legal migrants are here because, one way or another, we need them.
Foreign students prop up our universities and, since they're the customers, they get to say under what terms they are prepared to come here.
Foreign workers prop up a lot of the economy, especially in the public sector. We're desperate, so they have leverage.
Neither of those is inevitable, but I don't think we'd like the necessary changes to avoid them.
Much easier to make a noise about a much smaller flow.
And of course Ukrainians and Hong Kong immigrants added to those numbers but I do agree that we need a good number of legal immigration, especially in health care
They should just formalise a split in immigration figure reporting:
Immigrants General 2024, 84,290
Imported people to wipe your parents’ backsides, feed them meals, administer their medicine to avoid you having to have them move in with you when they are needing help which would ruin your lifestyle 2024, 154,078.
Imported people to serve you coffee, drive your tube, clean your street 2024, 110,520.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
In short, multi culturalism has failed
Hardly surprising, even the people behind the experiment admit they hadn’t properly thought it through.
Yes, multiculturalism is a desperate failure. We have basically fucked the country for a stupid theory dreamed up by cranks
The unfucking will be difficult and messy, but someone will eventually have to do it. We will see the same pattern repeated across Europe
I don’t see how the unfucking is possible. Google a speech called “The Road to National Suicide”. Made 47 years ago, by… you know who. He thought it possible, but now it’s too late
For all this, the other day I was with my children over a park in outer London and they were playing with another young boy. My Dad & I got chatting with the parents who were from Syhlet in Bangladesh, but living in Rainham. Lovely people and we all went to the cafe afterwards for Hot Chocolate and cake. The Mum was talking to her boy in Bangladeshi and English which should have wound me up if we are talking about stats I’d read in a paper, but it didn’t & I found myself noting the irony of what I say on here and what I was doing in real life that day.
But, sad to say it, I don’t think extrapolating my experience last week equals life in cities on the whole
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
In short, multi culturalism has failed
Hardly surprising, even the people behind the experiment admit they hadn’t properly thought it through.
Yes, multiculturalism is a desperate failure. We have basically fucked the country for a stupid theory dreamed up by cranks
The unfucking will be difficult and messy, but someone will eventually have to do it. We will see the same pattern repeated across Europe
I agree with you but would ask why it hasn’t worked here but in the US it has - a huge proportion of people in the US identify as “something-American”, so Irish American, Italian American etc. they all have large areas where certain immigrant communities settled and still are prevalent. You have areas of high Swedish, German, Spanish immigrant domination. The languages are often still spoken alongside English. Cultural events, shops, religious buildings are all there and yet for some reason they are insanely proud “Americans”. They will all be shouting “USA, USA, USA”. They will sing the national anthem as proudly as any WASP, daughter of the revolution, anyone who is American.
What has happened where this sort of American multiculturalism has made being “American” the ultimate identity to them where in the UK it’s almost an embarrassment or actively disliked to identify as ultimately “British” wherever you or your ancestors hailed from?
The American elite, until recently, loved America
In Britain the intellectual elite has despised Britain for a century. As Orwell noted:
"England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality. In left-wing circles it is always felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman and that it is a duty to snigger at every English institution, from horse racing to suet puddings. It is a strange fact, but it is unquestionably true that almost any English intellectual would feel more ashamed of standing to attention during “God Save the King” than of stealing from a poor box.’
Liberals everywhere (I am a liberal) cringe at lumpen patriotism. I don’t think this is a uniquely British thing.
As for the Orwell quote, someone seems to post this about once a month. We need a counter or something.
It is regularly quoted because it is absolutely true, and startling that it was true as long ago as 1940, when he wrote it. And Orwell was on the left, he knew whereof he spake
Incidentally I see this British disease - elite contempt for their own country - has finally infected America. and badly. Woke distate for white America, its contempt for the Founding Fathers, the attempt to trash American history and values as all racist and evil, it's the exact same thing coming from the very same people. The academic and "intellectual" left
The difference in America is that the right is much less supine, it is armed and numerous and willing to vote for nutters like Trump, if that is what it takes to fight back
Trump is part of the same disease. He’s a coward, far more interested in persecuting enemies at home, than sticking up for the US abroad.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
If I understand correctly, British immigration of late has been at a *larger scale*, per capita, than anything experienced in American history.
It’s mind-boggling.
You understand correctly. More people are coming into Britain - per capita - than came into America during the 1890s or 1920s or any time in the history of the USA
Voters are only just noticing this. We discussed this yesterday. British voters UNDERestimate the scale of inwards migration by about 500%. But now they are beginning to see
It could get messy
And yet population growth as a percentage is less in the UK today than it was in the UK in the 1950s and 1960s.
Population growth is entirely fine, so long as we invest accordingly to improve our infrastructure.
In the 50s and 60s we were investing in the country. Building homes, motorways and other investments that allowed us to absorb a growing population and ensure the existing population had improving living standards too.
The problem at the moment isn't that our population is growing faster than it has before, its simply not the case, but that the population is growing while our infrastructure is not which worsens living standards.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
In short, multi culturalism has failed
Hardly surprising, even the people behind the experiment admit they hadn’t properly thought it through.
Yes, multiculturalism is a desperate failure. We have basically fucked the country for a stupid theory dreamed up by cranks
The unfucking will be difficult and messy, but someone will eventually have to do it. We will see the same pattern repeated across Europe
I agree with you but would ask why it hasn’t worked here but in the US it has - a huge proportion of people in the US identify as “something-American”, so Irish American, Italian American etc. they all have large areas where certain immigrant communities settled and still are prevalent. You have areas of high Swedish, German, Spanish immigrant domination. The languages are often still spoken alongside English. Cultural events, shops, religious buildings are all there and yet for some reason they are insanely proud “Americans”. They will all be shouting “USA, USA, USA”. They will sing the national anthem as proudly as any WASP, daughter of the revolution, anyone who is American.
What has happened where this sort of American multiculturalism has made being “American” the ultimate identity to them where in the UK it’s almost an embarrassment or actively disliked to identify as ultimately “British” wherever you or your ancestors hailed from?
Yebbut doesn’t polling on identity show that immigrants and their children are the strongest identifiers with Britishness (whatever that is)?
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
In short, multi culturalism has failed
Hardly surprising, even the people behind the experiment admit they hadn’t properly thought it through.
Yes, multiculturalism is a desperate failure. We have basically fucked the country for a stupid theory dreamed up by cranks
The unfucking will be difficult and messy, but someone will eventually have to do it. We will see the same pattern repeated across Europe
I agree with you but would ask why it hasn’t worked here but in the US it has - a huge proportion of people in the US identify as “something-American”, so Irish American, Italian American etc. they all have large areas where certain immigrant communities settled and still are prevalent. You have areas of high Swedish, German, Spanish immigrant domination. The languages are often still spoken alongside English. Cultural events, shops, religious buildings are all there and yet for some reason they are insanely proud “Americans”. They will all be shouting “USA, USA, USA”. They will sing the national anthem as proudly as any WASP, daughter of the revolution, anyone who is American.
What has happened where this sort of American multiculturalism has made being “American” the ultimate identity to them where in the UK it’s almost an embarrassment or actively disliked to identify as ultimately “British” wherever you or your ancestors hailed from?
The American elite, until recently, loved America
In Britain the intellectual elite has despised Britain for a century. As Orwell noted:
"England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality. In left-wing circles it is always felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman and that it is a duty to snigger at every English institution, from horse racing to suet puddings. It is a strange fact, but it is unquestionably true that almost any English intellectual would feel more ashamed of standing to attention during “God Save the King” than of stealing from a poor box.’
It was bollocks when he wrote it and is still bollocks.
Ah, the provincial quack who knows better than George Orwell. Never change, PB
You think Orwell is indisputably correct about things? Are you also a democratic socialist committed to a planned economy under the Labour Party?
He was certainly in a position to speak accurately about British left wing intellectuals. Given that he spent most of his adult life among them, and arguing with them.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
In short, multi culturalism has failed
Hardly surprising, even the people behind the experiment admit they hadn’t properly thought it through.
Yes, multiculturalism is a desperate failure. We have basically fucked the country for a stupid theory dreamed up by cranks
The unfucking will be difficult and messy, but someone will eventually have to do it. We will see the same pattern repeated across Europe
I agree with you but would ask why it hasn’t worked here but in the US it has - a huge proportion of people in the US identify as “something-American”, so Irish American, Italian American etc. they all have large areas where certain immigrant communities settled and still are prevalent. You have areas of high Swedish, German, Spanish immigrant domination. The languages are often still spoken alongside English. Cultural events, shops, religious buildings are all there and yet for some reason they are insanely proud “Americans”. They will all be shouting “USA, USA, USA”. They will sing the national anthem as proudly as any WASP, daughter of the revolution, anyone who is American.
What has happened where this sort of American multiculturalism has made being “American” the ultimate identity to them where in the UK it’s almost an embarrassment or actively disliked to identify as ultimately “British” wherever you or your ancestors hailed from?
The American elite, until recently, loved America
In Britain the intellectual elite has despised Britain for a century. As Orwell noted:
"England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality. In left-wing circles it is always felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman and that it is a duty to snigger at every English institution, from horse racing to suet puddings. It is a strange fact, but it is unquestionably true that almost any English intellectual would feel more ashamed of standing to attention during “God Save the King” than of stealing from a poor box.’
Liberals everywhere (I am a liberal) cringe at lumpen patriotism. I don’t think this is a uniquely British thing.
As for the Orwell quote, someone seems to post this about once a month. We need a counter or something.
It is regularly quoted because it is absolutely true, and startling that it was true as long ago as 1940, when he wrote it. And Orwell was on the left, he knew whereof he spake
Incidentally I see this British disease - elite contempt for their own country - has finally infected America. and badly. Woke distate for white America, its contempt for the Founding Fathers, the attempt to trash American history and values as all racist and evil, it's the exact same thing coming from the very same people. The academic and "intellectual" left
The difference in America is that the right is much less supine, it is armed and numerous and willing to vote for nutters like Trump, if that is what it takes to fight back
Trump is part of the same disease. He’s a coward, far more interested in persecuting enemies at home, than sticking up for the US abroad.
I don't agree with rhat analysis of Trump, I think he's a painful narcissist, often ludicrous and nearly always vulgar. But I also think he has a basic patriotism, inasmuch as he believes in America Inc, and wants it to win the best deals - not least coz that reflects well on him
He doesn't give much of a fuck about democracy, tho, and he is also now showing signs of senility, like Biden before him
What a choice. Perhaps the worst electoral choice ever offered to a great western nation in modern history?
Although, May v Corbyn was not exactly a high point, either
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
In short, multi culturalism has failed
Hardly surprising, even the people behind the experiment admit they hadn’t properly thought it through.
Yes, multiculturalism is a desperate failure. We have basically fucked the country for a stupid theory dreamed up by cranks
The unfucking will be difficult and messy, but someone will eventually have to do it. We will see the same pattern repeated across Europe
I don’t see how the unfucking is possible.
Google a speech called “The Road to National Suicide”. Made 47 years ago, by… you know who. He thought it possible, but now it’s too late
For all this, the other day I was with my children over a park in outer London and they were playing with another young boy. My Dad & I got chatting with the parents who were from Syhlet in Bangladesh, but living in Rainham. Lovely people and we all went to the cafe afterwards for Hot Chocolate and cake.
So in what way have your new friends "f**ked up" the country?
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
Ruling classes have always been self-serving.
Not entirely. A lot of them accepted that death or permanent injury in battle was the price tag that came attached to their privileges.
The current lot think that their privileges come for free.
Far too positive. The previous lot also thought that those without privileges should also go along willy-nilly to support them and suffer death or permament injury. And the common soldiers always had much worse medical and other treatment than the nobles or officers. Was still the case in the Great War - look at what happened to folk with PTSD. Orficers got a nice sanatorium; too many ORs got nine bullets at dawn.
Officers had many privileges. But, casualty rates were always highest among those ranked Second Lieutenant to Major. Inevitably, as they had to lead the attack.
Oh, sure. Very much so. But they also claimed the right to be the leaders merely on social grounds. Leading to more deaths than otherwise.
The changes in recrruitment from the WW1 and peacetime norm to the more omnivorous type during WW2 are interesting. As is the utter spite and hatred which Evelyn Waugh, that snob and wannabe aristo, had for any not of the right sort: one thinks of Corporal and Captain Trimmer.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
In short, multi culturalism has failed
Hardly surprising, even the people behind the experiment admit they hadn’t properly thought it through.
Yes, multiculturalism is a desperate failure. We have basically fucked the country for a stupid theory dreamed up by cranks
The unfucking will be difficult and messy, but someone will eventually have to do it. We will see the same pattern repeated across Europe
I agree with you but would ask why it hasn’t worked here but in the US it has - a huge proportion of people in the US identify as “something-American”, so Irish American, Italian American etc. they all have large areas where certain immigrant communities settled and still are prevalent. You have areas of high Swedish, German, Spanish immigrant domination. The languages are often still spoken alongside English. Cultural events, shops, religious buildings are all there and yet for some reason they are insanely proud “Americans”. They will all be shouting “USA, USA, USA”. They will sing the national anthem as proudly as any WASP, daughter of the revolution, anyone who is American.
What has happened where this sort of American multiculturalism has made being “American” the ultimate identity to them where in the UK it’s almost an embarrassment or actively disliked to identify as ultimately “British” wherever you or your ancestors hailed from?
Yebbut doesn’t polling on identity show that immigrants and their children are the strongest identifiers with Britishness (whatever that is)?
To be aware of that would have required me to do some research before I typed out my thoughts on PB which would be very in-British of me.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
In short, multi culturalism has failed
Hardly surprising, even the people behind the experiment admit they hadn’t properly thought it through.
Yes, multiculturalism is a desperate failure. We have basically fucked the country for a stupid theory dreamed up by cranks
The unfucking will be difficult and messy, but someone will eventually have to do it. We will see the same pattern repeated across Europe
I agree with you but would ask why it hasn’t worked here but in the US it has - a huge proportion of people in the US identify as “something-American”, so Irish American, Italian American etc. they all have large areas where certain immigrant communities settled and still are prevalent. You have areas of high Swedish, German, Spanish immigrant domination. The languages are often still spoken alongside English. Cultural events, shops, religious buildings are all there and yet for some reason they are insanely proud “Americans”. They will all be shouting “USA, USA, USA”. They will sing the national anthem as proudly as any WASP, daughter of the revolution, anyone who is American.
What has happened where this sort of American multiculturalism has made being “American” the ultimate identity to them where in the UK it’s almost an embarrassment or actively disliked to identify as ultimately “British” wherever you or your ancestors hailed from?
The American elite, until recently, loved America
In Britain the intellectual elite has despised Britain for a century. As Orwell noted:
"England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality. In left-wing circles it is always felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman and that it is a duty to snigger at every English institution, from horse racing to suet puddings. It is a strange fact, but it is unquestionably true that almost any English intellectual would feel more ashamed of standing to attention during “God Save the King” than of stealing from a poor box.’
It was bollocks when he wrote it and is still bollocks.
Ah, the provincial quack who knows better than George Orwell. Never change, PB
You think Orwell is indisputably correct about things? Are you also a democratic socialist committed to a planned economy under the Labour Party?
He was certainly in a position to speak accurately about British left wing intellectuals. Given that he spent most of his adult life among them, and arguing with them.
He didn't have a very good opinion of the British ruling classes either!
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
In short, multi culturalism has failed
Hardly surprising, even the people behind the experiment admit they hadn’t properly thought it through.
Yes, multiculturalism is a desperate failure. We have basically fucked the country for a stupid theory dreamed up by cranks
The unfucking will be difficult and messy, but someone will eventually have to do it. We will see the same pattern repeated across Europe
I don’t see how the unfucking is possible.
Google a speech called “The Road to National Suicide”. Made 47 years ago, by… you know who. He thought it possible, but now it’s too late
For all this, the other day I was with my children over a park in outer London and they were playing with another young boy. My Dad & I got chatting with the parents who were from Syhlet in Bangladesh, but living in Rainham. Lovely people and we all went to the cafe afterwards for Hot Chocolate and cake.
"For all that, the other day I met some people of a different race and they were lovely people."
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
In short, multi culturalism has failed
Hardly surprising, even the people behind the experiment admit they hadn’t properly thought it through.
Yes, multiculturalism is a desperate failure. We have basically fucked the country for a stupid theory dreamed up by cranks
The unfucking will be difficult and messy, but someone will eventually have to do it. We will see the same pattern repeated across Europe
I agree with you but would ask why it hasn’t worked here but in the US it has - a huge proportion of people in the US identify as “something-American”, so Irish American, Italian American etc. they all have large areas where certain immigrant communities settled and still are prevalent. You have areas of high Swedish, German, Spanish immigrant domination. The languages are often still spoken alongside English. Cultural events, shops, religious buildings are all there and yet for some reason they are insanely proud “Americans”. They will all be shouting “USA, USA, USA”. They will sing the national anthem as proudly as any WASP, daughter of the revolution, anyone who is American.
What has happened where this sort of American multiculturalism has made being “American” the ultimate identity to them where in the UK it’s almost an embarrassment or actively disliked to identify as ultimately “British” wherever you or your ancestors hailed from?
The American elite, until recently, loved America
In Britain the intellectual elite has despised Britain for a century. As Orwell noted:
"England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality. In left-wing circles it is always felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman and that it is a duty to snigger at every English institution, from horse racing to suet puddings. It is a strange fact, but it is unquestionably true that almost any English intellectual would feel more ashamed of standing to attention during “God Save the King” than of stealing from a poor box.’
Liberals everywhere (I am a liberal) cringe at lumpen patriotism. I don’t think this is a uniquely British thing.
As for the Orwell quote, someone seems to post this about once a month. We need a counter or something.
It is regularly quoted because it is absolutely true, and startling that it was true as long ago as 1940, when he wrote it. And Orwell was on the left, he knew whereof he spake
Incidentally I see this British disease - elite contempt for their own country - has finally infected America. and badly. Woke distate for white America, its contempt for the Founding Fathers, the attempt to trash American history and values as all racist and evil, it's the exact same thing coming from the very same people. The academic and "intellectual" left
The difference in America is that the right is much less supine, it is armed and numerous and willing to vote for nutters like Trump, if that is what it takes to fight back
Trump is part of the same disease. He’s a coward, far more interested in persecuting enemies at home, than sticking up for the US abroad.
I don't agree with rhat analysis of Trump, I think he's a painful narcissist, often ludicrous and nearly always vulgar. But I also think he has a basic patriotism, inasmuch as he believes in America Inc, and wants it to win the best deals - not least coz that reflects well on him
He doesn't give much of a fuck about democracy, tho, and he is also now showing signs of senility, like Biden before him
What a choice. Perhaps the worst electoral choice ever offered to a great western nation in modern history?
Although, May v Corbyn was not exactly a high point, either
Yep: the senility of both candidates is becoming increasingly obvious.
Only yesterday, Trump attacked Haley on the campaign trail.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
In short, multi culturalism has failed
Hardly surprising, even the people behind the experiment admit they hadn’t properly thought it through.
Yes, multiculturalism is a desperate failure. We have basically fucked the country for a stupid theory dreamed up by cranks
The unfucking will be difficult and messy, but someone will eventually have to do it. We will see the same pattern repeated across Europe
I agree with you but would ask why it hasn’t worked here but in the US it has - a huge proportion of people in the US identify as “something-American”, so Irish American, Italian American etc. they all have large areas where certain immigrant communities settled and still are prevalent. You have areas of high Swedish, German, Spanish immigrant domination. The languages are often still spoken alongside English. Cultural events, shops, religious buildings are all there and yet for some reason they are insanely proud “Americans”. They will all be shouting “USA, USA, USA”. They will sing the national anthem as proudly as any WASP, daughter of the revolution, anyone who is American.
What has happened where this sort of American multiculturalism has made being “American” the ultimate identity to them where in the UK it’s almost an embarrassment or actively disliked to identify as ultimately “British” wherever you or your ancestors hailed from?
The American elite, until recently, loved America
In Britain the intellectual elite has despised Britain for a century. As Orwell noted:
"England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality. In left-wing circles it is always felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman and that it is a duty to snigger at every English institution, from horse racing to suet puddings. It is a strange fact, but it is unquestionably true that almost any English intellectual would feel more ashamed of standing to attention during “God Save the King” than of stealing from a poor box.’
It was bollocks when he wrote it and is still bollocks.
Ah, the provincial quack who knows better than George Orwell. Never change, PB
You think Orwell is indisputably correct about things? Are you also a democratic socialist committed to a planned economy under the Labour Party?
He was certainly in a position to speak accurately about British left wing intellectuals. Given that he spent most of his adult life among them, and arguing with them.
He didn't have a very good opinion of the British ruling classes either!
He was quite rightly opposed to the notion of "my side, right or wrong" though.
Too many today want to insist that there is nothing wrong with people on their side of a political divide, while insisting that the other side is appalling. This leads to the problems with polarism which we have today, and which are much, much worse in America.
Orwell was a left-wing intellectual quite willing to identify flaws in left-wing intellectuals.
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
Ruling classes have always been self-serving.
Not entirely. A lot of them accepted that death or permanent injury in battle was the price tag that came attached to their privileges.
The current lot think that their privileges come for free.
Far too positive. The previous lot also thought that those without privileges should also go along willy-nilly to support them and suffer death or permament injury. And the common soldiers always had much worse medical and other treatment than the nobles or officers. Was still the case in the Great War - look at what happened to folk with PTSD. Orficers got a nice sanatorium; too many ORs got nine bullets at dawn.
Officers had many privileges. But, casualty rates were always highest among those ranked Second Lieutenant to Major. Inevitably, as they had to lead the attack.
Oh, sure. Very much so. But they also claimed the right to be the leaders merely on social grounds. Leading to more deaths than otherwise.
The changes in recrruitment from the WW1 and peacetime norm to the more omnivorous type during WW2 are interesting. As is the utter spite and hatred which Evelyn Waugh, that snob and wannabe aristo, had for any not of the right sort: one thinks of Corporal and Captain Trimmer.
And I imagine their survival rate after being wounded (especially in the spirit) was pretty good compared to the pbi. Not a lot of non commissioned ranks* hanging out with Sassoon and Owen in Craiglockhart I’d think.
“We keep coming up against the fatal tension between the obvious political collapse of this government and the obvious unwillingness of Conservative MPs to put it out of its misery,” one rebel said. “That tension can’t hold for very long. It can only be resolved by removing the PM.”
The Conservatives face two by-elections in February, both of which they are expected to lose, followed by what Tory MPs fear will be a hugely damaging set of local election results. Time, the rebel argues, is running out. “The local elections are the hard stop — realistically we can’t really change after the end of May,” they said. “The party does need to come to this conclusion organically, but may also need a steer.”
I'm not sure what this anonymous rebel is saying. If they go past May then they can't bin Sunak before the GE? I'm pretty sure they can and probably should.
It’s a dice roll, but it’s hard to see anything getting better for them under Sunak. Of course, they could come out of it looking even more ludicrous and making it even worse.
They really made some terrible unforced errors by elevating Truss and Sunak. That said, who is the alternative who is going to be able to ride in and save the day?
Morning all! One benefit of the Tories endlessly swapping PM is that is has disarmed the notion that you vote for a PM. Presidential politics is unhelpful in our system. Perhaps the reason why recent Tory smears against Starmer and Davey haven’t worked is that people are voting for change, not the person.
If they bin off Sunak then the replacement won’t be Braverman. Too many people are prejudiced against people who aren’t as white and male as themselves.
The problem is the leader the right wants isn’t a Tory MP. They could install the ghosts of Powell or Moseley into an empty vessel (Jonathan Gillis perhaps) and the Nigel would still be the one they want.
Have to laugh. As the Tories head towards the abyss, the person they believe can win them victory won just under 4m votes at the height of his powers. Though if the Tory members would like to be down to 4m votes I think we shouldn’t stand in their way.
Strong point this. I deeply doubt that the current Tory membership would ever choose a non-white leader over a white one.
Not convinced with that. It is hard to see someone for instance like Barclay, Dowden or Gove winning a member vote against Badenoch or Braverman.
The whole discussion about whether the Tories would do better with or without a new leader is for the birds.
The party is toxic and riven between the ascendant GB News faction that feels the party isn’t toxic enough and the neutered One Nation faction that seems resigned to declaring the water to be wet as the ship goes down.
In the absence of a dynamic, charismatic figure that could unite the party, drag it back to its senses and persuade the public to give it a second look, the leadership is practically irrelevant.
Seriously, which of these prospects would make any difference at all (in the absence of a serious failure on the part of Labour)?
Anderson: too provocative Badenoch: too wild Barclay: too bland Braverman: too fired Cameron: too previous Cleverly: too gaffe-prone Dowden: too forgettable Farage: too outside Frost: too unelected Gove: too weird Hunt: too unpopular Johnson: too Johnson Mordaunt: too woke Shapps: too schizophrenic Truss: to the pub
You missed off the star of the show:
#Priti4Leader
Haha! Gosh, what an embarrassment of riches a richness of embarrassments they have to choose from! Here’s the updated list, with additions asterisked:
Anderson: too provocative Badenoch: too wild Barclay: too bland Braverman: too fired Cameron: too previous Cleverly: too gaffe-prone Farage: too outside Frost: too unelected Gove: too weird Hunt: too unpopular ***Jenrick: too cruel Johnson: too Johnson Mordaunt: too woke ***Patel: too sinister ***Rees-Mogg: too Victorian Shapps: too schizophrenic Truss: to the pub ***Tugendhat: Tugendhat
If I was a Tory (and thank Richard Dawkins I’m not), I’d want Tugendhat as the next leader out of that lot or even Mordaunt or Cleverly. I suspect they’ll actually go for Badenoch.
You mean the Minister Pretending Not To Be In Charge Of The Post Office?
She'd be great. She could pretend not to be in charge of the country.
In fairness she won't be. She will be LOTO. Any leadership change will come after the election, not before it.
This requires a rather different skill set. From what I have seen Mordaunt has a distinct lead on those skills, whether she can run a department or not. After all, there is little prospect of her ever running a department again.
There is no-one on the Tory side fit to run a car boot sale, frankly. Let alone the country. The current lot are tainted and/or useless.
Time for a new generation - assuming that they can find anyone and that those they do find are capable of and willing to do the hard thinking about what conservatism in the 21st century means. And speak some hard truths to the membership.
There is a fundamental problem with our politics in this and it is not just a Tory problem. A government gets elected with some decent leadership, say Blair and Brown or Cameron and Osborne. They are inexperienced and their team even more so so they inevitably make a lot of mistakes.
They remain in government for an extended period. Original thinkers burn out or get caught up with their ideas not being as clever as they think. Boring but competent managerial types climb the greasy poll. In extended periods, such as our last 3 governments who have all had more than a decade in power, they eventually reach the top. But they have nothing to say and no ideas of what to do.
So they lose to the opposition who by that time have lost all the vaguely competent or at least experienced types that were in the previous government and start the cycle again.
If government is to improve what do we do about this? In the late 60s and 70s we tried switching governments much more frequently. This meant they had some idea of how to govern but it also meant that we had policy chaos. British Steel switching back and forward between private and public ownership comes to mind.
I can set out the problem but I am frankly struggling for an answer.
Jumping in late so apologies if I have missed the discussion.
The fundamental issue is that our constitutional settlement dates to the 17th century when life was simpler and slower. The executive was small and almost part time. That is not feasible in the modern world.
You need to have a full time executive that can be drawn from wherever it is needed. It shouldn’t be limited to the members of the legislature. They have a different and important role: representing the interests of their constituents and scrutinising legislation.
The answer is to separate the roles.
1) have a directly elected head of government (potentially have a “slate” election - so you vote for a core team of, say, 5-6 individuals (PM, FS, Chancellor, HS, may be health and defence - other posts to be appointed).
2) The have the full powers of the executive as at present. Accountable to the legislature but not members of it, they have the prerogative rights but need to convince the legislature to pass laws.
3) Fixed terms for the executive - say 4 years - and a 2x term limit.
4) Independent legislature with two functions: accountability via committees and legislation via the House. Create a meaningful career path outside of cosying up to the government.
Lots of detail to be worked through but this addresses the main issues.
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
Ruling classes have always been self-serving.
Not entirely. A lot of them accepted that death or permanent injury in battle was the price tag that came attached to their privileges.
The current lot think that their privileges come for free.
Far too positive. The previous lot also thought that those without privileges should also go along willy-nilly to support them and suffer death or permament injury. And the common soldiers always had much worse medical and other treatment than the nobles or officers. Was still the case in the Great War - look at what happened to folk with PTSD. Orficers got a nice sanatorium; too many ORs got nine bullets at dawn.
Officers had many privileges. But, casualty rates were always highest among those ranked Second Lieutenant to Major. Inevitably, as they had to lead the attack.
Oh, sure. Very much so. But they also claimed the right to be the leaders merely on social grounds. Leading to more deaths than otherwise.
The changes in recrruitment from the WW1 and peacetime norm to the more omnivorous type during WW2 are interesting. As is the utter spite and hatred which Evelyn Waugh, that snob and wannabe aristo, had for any not of the right sort: one thinks of Corporal and Captain Trimmer.
Slightly in their defence against it being purely a right they claimed on social grounds, in the lead up to WW1 most of the public schools had officer cadets/rifle corps and so they had been “trained” from a young age in advance of joining up and so it made a bit of sense that they might be good to throw in at the deep end in charge of men who had just had basic training. This is not to dismiss that they were also seen as natural leaders but it wasn’t totally baseless in some ways.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
In short, multi culturalism has failed
Hardly surprising, even the people behind the experiment admit they hadn’t properly thought it through.
Yes, multiculturalism is a desperate failure. We have basically fucked the country for a stupid theory dreamed up by cranks
The unfucking will be difficult and messy, but someone will eventually have to do it. We will see the same pattern repeated across Europe
I agree with you but would ask why it hasn’t worked here but in the US it has - a huge proportion of people in the US identify as “something-American”, so Irish American, Italian American etc. they all have large areas where certain immigrant communities settled and still are prevalent. You have areas of high Swedish, German, Spanish immigrant domination. The languages are often still spoken alongside English. Cultural events, shops, religious buildings are all there and yet for some reason they are insanely proud “Americans”. They will all be shouting “USA, USA, USA”. They will sing the national anthem as proudly as any WASP, daughter of the revolution, anyone who is American.
What has happened where this sort of American multiculturalism has made being “American” the ultimate identity to them where in the UK it’s almost an embarrassment or actively disliked to identify as ultimately “British” wherever you or your ancestors hailed from?
The American elite, until recently, loved America
In Britain the intellectual elite has despised Britain for a century. As Orwell noted:
"England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality. In left-wing circles it is always felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman and that it is a duty to snigger at every English institution, from horse racing to suet puddings. It is a strange fact, but it is unquestionably true that almost any English intellectual would feel more ashamed of standing to attention during “God Save the King” than of stealing from a poor box.’
Liberals everywhere (I am a liberal) cringe at lumpen patriotism. I don’t think this is a uniquely British thing.
As for the Orwell quote, someone seems to post this about once a month. We need a counter or something.
It is regularly quoted because it is absolutely true, and startling that it was true as long ago as 1940, when he wrote it. And Orwell was on the left, he knew whereof he spake
Incidentally I see this British disease - elite contempt for their own country - has finally infected America. and badly. Woke distate for white America, its contempt for the Founding Fathers, the attempt to trash American history and values as all racist and evil, it's the exact same thing coming from the very same people. The academic and "intellectual" left
The difference in America is that the right is much less supine, it is armed and numerous and willing to vote for nutters like Trump, if that is what it takes to fight back
Trump is part of the same disease. He’s a coward, far more interested in persecuting enemies at home, than sticking up for the US abroad.
I don't agree with rhat analysis of Trump, I think he's a painful narcissist, often ludicrous and nearly always vulgar. But I also think he has a basic patriotism, inasmuch as he believes in America Inc, and wants it to win the best deals - not least coz that reflects well on him
He doesn't give much of a fuck about democracy, tho, and he is also now showing signs of senility, like Biden before him
What a choice. Perhaps the worst electoral choice ever offered to a great western nation in modern history?
Although, May v Corbyn was not exactly a high point, either
Yep: the senility of both candidates is becoming increasingly obvious.
Only yesterday, Trump attacked Haley on the campaign trail.
Trump confuses winning and losing, confusing Haley and Pelosi* is minor by comparison.
He reminds me of Ronald Reagan, absent mindedly greeting his own Secretary for Housing with 'Good evening Mr Mayor, and it's great to see you at the White House.'
(It was a reception for mayors, in Reagan's defence, but still a remarkable faux pas.)
*That was oh-so-nearly Haley and Pence...which would have been somewhat amusing for everyone else.
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
Ruling classes have always been self-serving.
Not entirely. A lot of them accepted that death or permanent injury in battle was the price tag that came attached to their privileges.
The current lot think that their privileges come for free.
Far too positive. The previous lot also thought that those without privileges should also go along willy-nilly to support them and suffer death or permament injury. And the common soldiers always had much worse medical and other treatment than the nobles or officers. Was still the case in the Great War - look at what happened to folk with PTSD. Orficers got a nice sanatorium; too many ORs got nine bullets at dawn.
Officers had many privileges. But, casualty rates were always highest among those ranked Second Lieutenant to Major. Inevitably, as they had to lead the attack.
Oh, sure. Very much so. But they also claimed the right to be the leaders merely on social grounds. Leading to more deaths than otherwise.
The changes in recrruitment from the WW1 and peacetime norm to the more omnivorous type during WW2 are interesting. As is the utter spite and hatred which Evelyn Waugh, that snob and wannabe aristo, had for any not of the right sort: one thinks of Corporal and Captain Trimmer.
And I imagine their survival rate after being wounded (especially in the spirit) was pretty good compared to the pbi. Not a lot of non commissioned ranks* hanging out with Sassoon and Owen in Craiglockhart I’d think.
*none
To be fair, a large chunk of officers got sent to be treated at Downton Abbey which had appalling mortality rates for even average injuries.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
If I understand correctly, British immigration of late has been at a *larger scale*, per capita, than anything experienced in American history.
It’s mind-boggling.
You understand correctly. More people are coming into Britain - per capita - than came into America during the 1890s or 1920s or any time in the history of the USA
Voters are only just noticing this. We discussed this yesterday. British voters UNDERestimate the scale of inwards migration by about 500%. But now they are beginning to see
It could get messy
Of course it could; and it seems vital that it doesn't. There is lots of discussion as to how to 'stop the boats' (as if that were numerically where the problem lay - which it isn't); and some discussion of reducing the future numbers generally and all that. But suppose the real problem in the mind of many - Tory and Reform voters but not only them - is not stopping the future stuff, but the reality and consequences of that which has already occurred.
At the moment this is only discussed in a proxy form - stopping the future stuff takes its place as a substitute. GB News, Suella, Patel, Reform, The Tory Right etc stick firmly to that agenda, making all their efforts look, as they are, pointless. But will that sticking plaster stick?
The German discussion of deportation shows where this could easily end up, unless we are lucky
No western society will tolerate itself becoming, say, 30-40% Muslim, because at that point the country will be transformed into something utterly unrecognisable - and non western. This is not Islamophobia, westermers want to live in a western country, that is all
Yet the vast migration continues and the demographic trends are relentless
So implacable force :: immovable object? Something will give
The best possible outcome would be for Islam to suddenly experience an Enlightenment, and for its conservative trends to disappear, then integration would be infinitely easier - but there seems no sign of that, sadly
I saw signs of it in East London, as a councillor meeting many Muslim sixth formers. They seemed acutely aware that they lived in two worlds - the relatively conservative environment of their family, and the liberal/western viewpoint of their school (and the internet), and carried what they saw as the future responsibility of their generation to marry the two, surprisingly heavily.
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
Ruling classes have always been self-serving.
Not entirely. A lot of them accepted that death or permanent injury in battle was the price tag that came attached to their privileges.
The current lot think that their privileges come for free.
Far too positive. The previous lot also thought that those without privileges should also go along willy-nilly to support them and suffer death or permament injury. And the common soldiers always had much worse medical and other treatment than the nobles or officers. Was still the case in the Great War - look at what happened to folk with PTSD. Orficers got a nice sanatorium; too many ORs got nine bullets at dawn.
Officers had many privileges. But, casualty rates were always highest among those ranked Second Lieutenant to Major. Inevitably, as they had to lead the attack.
Oh, sure. Very much so. But they also claimed the right to be the leaders merely on social grounds. Leading to more deaths than otherwise.
The changes in recrruitment from the WW1 and peacetime norm to the more omnivorous type during WW2 are interesting. As is the utter spite and hatred which Evelyn Waugh, that snob and wannabe aristo, had for any not of the right sort: one thinks of Corporal and Captain Trimmer.
And I imagine their survival rate after being wounded (especially in the spirit) was pretty good compared to the pbi. Not a lot of non commissioned ranks* hanging out with Sassoon and Owen in Craiglockhart I’d think.
*none
To be fair, a large chunk of officers got sent to be treated at Downton Abbey which had appalling mortality rates for even average injuries.
Really? The episodes I saw had the officers knocking up rather than being knocked off.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
In short, multi culturalism has failed
Hardly surprising, even the people behind the experiment admit they hadn’t properly thought it through.
Yes, multiculturalism is a desperate failure. We have basically fucked the country for a stupid theory dreamed up by cranks
The unfucking will be difficult and messy, but someone will eventually have to do it. We will see the same pattern repeated across Europe
I agree with you but would ask why it hasn’t worked here but in the US it has - a huge proportion of people in the US identify as “something-American”, so Irish American, Italian American etc. they all have large areas where certain immigrant communities settled and still are prevalent. You have areas of high Swedish, German, Spanish immigrant domination. The languages are often still spoken alongside English. Cultural events, shops, religious buildings are all there and yet for some reason they are insanely proud “Americans”. They will all be shouting “USA, USA, USA”. They will sing the national anthem as proudly as any WASP, daughter of the revolution, anyone who is American.
What has happened where this sort of American multiculturalism has made being “American” the ultimate identity to them where in the UK it’s almost an embarrassment or actively disliked to identify as ultimately “British” wherever you or your ancestors hailed from?
The American elite, until recently, loved America
In Britain the intellectual elite has despised Britain for a century. As Orwell noted:
"England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality. In left-wing circles it is always felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman and that it is a duty to snigger at every English institution, from horse racing to suet puddings. It is a strange fact, but it is unquestionably true that almost any English intellectual would feel more ashamed of standing to attention during “God Save the King” than of stealing from a poor box.’
Liberals everywhere (I am a liberal) cringe at lumpen patriotism. I don’t think this is a uniquely British thing.
As for the Orwell quote, someone seems to post this about once a month. We need a counter or something.
It is regularly quoted because it is absolutely true, and startling that it was true as long ago as 1940, when he wrote it. And Orwell was on the left, he knew whereof he spake
Incidentally I see this British disease - elite contempt for their own country - has finally infected America. and badly. Woke distate for white America, its contempt for the Founding Fathers, the attempt to trash American history and values as all racist and evil, it's the exact same thing coming from the very same people. The academic and "intellectual" left
The difference in America is that the right is much less supine, it is armed and numerous and willing to vote for nutters like Trump, if that is what it takes to fight back
Trump is part of the same disease. He’s a coward, far more interested in persecuting enemies at home, than sticking up for the US abroad.
I don't agree with rhat analysis of Trump, I think he's a painful narcissist, often ludicrous and nearly always vulgar. But I also think he has a basic patriotism, inasmuch as he believes in America Inc, and wants it to win the best deals - not least coz that reflects well on him
He doesn't give much of a fuck about democracy, tho, and he is also now showing signs of senility, like Biden before him
What a choice. Perhaps the worst electoral choice ever offered to a great western nation in modern history?
Although, May v Corbyn was not exactly a high point, either
Yep: the senility of both candidates is becoming increasingly obvious.
Only yesterday, Trump attacked Haley on the campaign trail.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
If I understand correctly, British immigration of late has been at a *larger scale*, per capita, than anything experienced in American history.
It’s mind-boggling.
You understand correctly. More people are coming into Britain - per capita - than came into America during the 1890s or 1920s or any time in the history of the USA
Voters are only just noticing this. We discussed this yesterday. British voters UNDERestimate the scale of inwards migration by about 500%. But now they are beginning to see
It could get messy
Of course it could; and it seems vital that it doesn't. There is lots of discussion as to how to 'stop the boats' (as if that were numerically where the problem lay - which it isn't); and some discussion of reducing the future numbers generally and all that. But suppose the real problem in the mind of many - Tory and Reform voters but not only them - is not stopping the future stuff, but the reality and consequences of that which has already occurred.
At the moment this is only discussed in a proxy form - stopping the future stuff takes its place as a substitute. GB News, Suella, Patel, Reform, The Tory Right etc stick firmly to that agenda, making all their efforts look, as they are, pointless. But will that sticking plaster stick?
The German discussion of deportation shows where this could easily end up, unless we are lucky
No western society will tolerate itself becoming, say, 30-40% Muslim, because at that point the country will be transformed into something utterly unrecognisable - and non western. This is not Islamophobia, westermers want to live in a western country, that is all
Yet the vast migration continues and the demographic trends are relentless
So implacable force :: immovable object? Something will give
The best possible outcome would be for Islam to suddenly experience an Enlightenment, and for its conservative trends to disappear, then integration would be infinitely easier - but there seems no sign of that, sadly
I saw signs of it in East London, as a councillor meeting many Muslim sixth formers. They seemed acutely aware that they lived in two worlds - the relatively conservative environment of their family, and the liberal/western viewpoint of their school (and the internet), and carried what they saw as the future responsibility of their generation to marry the two, surprisingly heavily.
Well that is some small reason for very cautious optimism, in what can otherwise be a bleak debate
A good moment to bow out, as it is late late late here, in sultry Phnom Penh
“We keep coming up against the fatal tension between the obvious political collapse of this government and the obvious unwillingness of Conservative MPs to put it out of its misery,” one rebel said. “That tension can’t hold for very long. It can only be resolved by removing the PM.”
The Conservatives face two by-elections in February, both of which they are expected to lose, followed by what Tory MPs fear will be a hugely damaging set of local election results. Time, the rebel argues, is running out. “The local elections are the hard stop — realistically we can’t really change after the end of May,” they said. “The party does need to come to this conclusion organically, but may also need a steer.”
I'm not sure what this anonymous rebel is saying. If they go past May then they can't bin Sunak before the GE? I'm pretty sure they can and probably should.
It’s a dice roll, but it’s hard to see anything getting better for them under Sunak. Of course, they could come out of it looking even more ludicrous and making it even worse.
They really made some terrible unforced errors by elevating Truss and Sunak. That said, who is the alternative who is going to be able to ride in and save the day?
Morning all! One benefit of the Tories endlessly swapping PM is that is has disarmed the notion that you vote for a PM. Presidential politics is unhelpful in our system. Perhaps the reason why recent Tory smears against Starmer and Davey haven’t worked is that people are voting for change, not the person.
If they bin off Sunak then the replacement won’t be Braverman. Too many people are prejudiced against people who aren’t as white and male as themselves.
The problem is the leader the right wants isn’t a Tory MP. They could install the ghosts of Powell or Moseley into an empty vessel (Jonathan Gillis perhaps) and the Nigel would still be the one they want.
Have to laugh. As the Tories head towards the abyss, the person they believe can win them victory won just under 4m votes at the height of his powers. Though if the Tory members would like to be down to 4m votes I think we shouldn’t stand in their way.
Strong point this. I deeply doubt that the current Tory membership would ever choose a non-white leader over a white one.
Not convinced with that. It is hard to see someone for instance like Barclay, Dowden or Gove winning a member vote against Badenoch or Braverman.
The whole discussion about whether the Tories would do better with or without a new leader is for the birds.
The party is toxic and riven between the ascendant GB News faction that feels the party isn’t toxic enough and the neutered One Nation faction that seems resigned to declaring the water to be wet as the ship goes down.
In the absence of a dynamic, charismatic figure that could unite the party, drag it back to its senses and persuade the public to give it a second look, the leadership is practically irrelevant.
Seriously, which of these prospects would make any difference at all (in the absence of a serious failure on the part of Labour)?
Anderson: too provocative Badenoch: too wild Barclay: too bland Braverman: too fired Cameron: too previous Cleverly: too gaffe-prone Dowden: too forgettable Farage: too outside Frost: too unelected Gove: too weird Hunt: too unpopular Johnson: too Johnson Mordaunt: too woke Shapps: too schizophrenic Truss: to the pub
You missed off the star of the show:
#Priti4Leader
Haha! Gosh, what an embarrassment of riches a richness of embarrassments they have to choose from! Here’s the updated list, with additions asterisked:
Anderson: too provocative Badenoch: too wild Barclay: too bland Braverman: too fired Cameron: too previous Cleverly: too gaffe-prone Farage: too outside Frost: too unelected Gove: too weird Hunt: too unpopular ***Jenrick: too cruel Johnson: too Johnson Mordaunt: too woke ***Patel: too sinister ***Rees-Mogg: too Victorian Shapps: too schizophrenic Truss: to the pub ***Tugendhat: Tugendhat
If I was a Tory (and thank Richard Dawkins I’m not), I’d want Tugendhat as the next leader out of that lot or even Mordaunt or Cleverly. I suspect they’ll actually go for Badenoch.
You mean the Minister Pretending Not To Be In Charge Of The Post Office?
She'd be great. She could pretend not to be in charge of the country.
In fairness she won't be. She will be LOTO. Any leadership change will come after the election, not before it.
This requires a rather different skill set. From what I have seen Mordaunt has a distinct lead on those skills, whether she can run a department or not. After all, there is little prospect of her ever running a department again.
There is no-one on the Tory side fit to run a car boot sale, frankly. Let alone the country. The current lot are tainted and/or useless.
Time for a new generation - assuming that they can find anyone and that those they do find are capable of and willing to do the hard thinking about what conservatism in the 21st century means. And speak some hard truths to the membership.
There is a fundamental problem with our politics in this and it is not just a Tory problem. A government gets elected with some decent leadership, say Blair and Brown or Cameron and Osborne. They are inexperienced and their team even more so so they inevitably make a lot of mistakes.
They remain in government for an extended period. Original thinkers burn out or get caught up with their ideas not being as clever as they think. Boring but competent managerial types climb the greasy poll. In extended periods, such as our last 3 governments who have all had more than a decade in power, they eventually reach the top. But they have nothing to say and no ideas of what to do.
So they lose to the opposition who by that time have lost all the vaguely competent or at least experienced types that were in the previous government and start the cycle again.
If government is to improve what do we do about this? In the late 60s and 70s we tried switching governments much more frequently. This meant they had some idea of how to govern but it also meant that we had policy chaos. British Steel switching back and forward between private and public ownership comes to mind.
I can set out the problem but I am frankly struggling for an answer.
Jumping in late so apologies if I have missed the discussion.
The fundamental issue is that our constitutional settlement dates to the 17th century when life was simpler and slower. The executive was small and almost part time. That is not feasible in the modern world.
You need to have a full time executive that can be drawn from wherever it is needed. It shouldn’t be limited to the members of the legislature. They have a different and important role: representing the interests of their constituents and scrutinising legislation.
The answer is to separate the roles.
1) have a directly elected head of government (potentially have a “slate” election - so you vote for a core team of, say, 5-6 individuals (PM, FS, Chancellor, HS, may be health and defence - other posts to be appointed).
2) The have the full powers of the executive as at present. Accountable to the legislature but not members of it, they have the prerogative rights but need to convince the legislature to pass laws.
3) Fixed terms for the executive - say 4 years - and a 2x term limit.
4) Independent legislature with two functions: accountability via committees and legislation via the House. Create a meaningful career path outside of cosying up to the government.
Lots of detail to be worked through but this addresses the main issues.
Errr:
That's the US system. And trust in it is much lower than trust in the UK system.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
If I understand correctly, British immigration of late has been at a *larger scale*, per capita, than anything experienced in American history.
It’s mind-boggling.
You understand correctly. More people are coming into Britain - per capita - than came into America during the 1890s or 1920s or any time in the history of the USA
Voters are only just noticing this. We discussed this yesterday. British voters UNDERestimate the scale of inwards migration by about 500%. But now they are beginning to see
It could get messy
Of course it could; and it seems vital that it doesn't. There is lots of discussion as to how to 'stop the boats' (as if that were numerically where the problem lay - which it isn't); and some discussion of reducing the future numbers generally and all that. But suppose the real problem in the mind of many - Tory and Reform voters but not only them - is not stopping the future stuff, but the reality and consequences of that which has already occurred.
At the moment this is only discussed in a proxy form - stopping the future stuff takes its place as a substitute. GB News, Suella, Patel, Reform, The Tory Right etc stick firmly to that agenda, making all their efforts look, as they are, pointless. But will that sticking plaster stick?
The German discussion of deportation shows where this could easily end up, unless we are lucky
No western society will tolerate itself becoming, say, 30-40% Muslim, because at that point the country will be transformed into something utterly unrecognisable - and non western. This is not Islamophobia, westermers want to live in a western country, that is all
Yet the vast migration continues and the demographic trends are relentless
So implacable force :: immovable object? Something will give
The best possible outcome would be for Islam to suddenly experience an Enlightenment, and for its conservative trends to disappear, then integration would be infinitely easier - but there seems no sign of that, sadly
I saw signs of it in East London, as a councillor meeting many Muslim sixth formers. They seemed acutely aware that they lived in two worlds - the relatively conservative environment of their family, and the liberal/western viewpoint of their school (and the internet), and carried what they saw as the future responsibility of their generation to marry the two, surprisingly heavily.
The immigrants in my immediate family saw multiculturalism as exclusionary - “You can’t be British, you are supposed to remain in your culture”
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
If I understand correctly, British immigration of late has been at a *larger scale*, per capita, than anything experienced in American history.
It’s mind-boggling.
You understand correctly. More people are coming into Britain - per capita - than came into America during the 1890s or 1920s or any time in the history of the USA
Voters are only just noticing this. We discussed this yesterday. British voters UNDERestimate the scale of inwards migration by about 500%. But now they are beginning to see
It could get messy
Of course it could; and it seems vital that it doesn't. There is lots of discussion as to how to 'stop the boats' (as if that were numerically where the problem lay - which it isn't); and some discussion of reducing the future numbers generally and all that. But suppose the real problem in the mind of many - Tory and Reform voters but not only them - is not stopping the future stuff, but the reality and consequences of that which has already occurred.
At the moment this is only discussed in a proxy form - stopping the future stuff takes its place as a substitute. GB News, Suella, Patel, Reform, The Tory Right etc stick firmly to that agenda, making all their efforts look, as they are, pointless. But will that sticking plaster stick?
The German discussion of deportation shows where this could easily end up, unless we are lucky
No western society will tolerate itself becoming, say, 30-40% Muslim, because at that point the country will be transformed into something utterly unrecognisable - and non western. This is not Islamophobia, westermers want to live in a western country, that is all
Yet the vast migration continues and the demographic trends are relentless
So implacable force :: immovable object? Something will give
The best possible outcome would be for Islam to suddenly experience an Enlightenment, and for its conservative trends to disappear, then integration would be infinitely easier - but there seems no sign of that, sadly
I saw signs of it in East London, as a councillor meeting many Muslim sixth formers. They seemed acutely aware that they lived in two worlds - the relatively conservative environment of their family, and the liberal/western viewpoint of their school (and the internet), and carried what they saw as the future responsibility of their generation to marry the two, surprisingly heavily.
Well that is some small reason for very cautious optimism, in what can otherwise be a bleak debate
A good moment to bow out, as it is late late late here, in sultry Phnom Penh
Nightynight
Goodnight.
As someone who extols the delights of a foreign land, drinking and luxuriating while communicating with your home country, how well do you think you have assimilated to Khymer culture and society?
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
If I understand correctly, British immigration of late has been at a *larger scale*, per capita, than anything experienced in American history.
It’s mind-boggling.
You understand correctly. More people are coming into Britain - per capita - than came into America during the 1890s or 1920s or any time in the history of the USA
Voters are only just noticing this. We discussed this yesterday. British voters UNDERestimate the scale of inwards migration by about 500%. But now they are beginning to see
It could get messy
Of course it could; and it seems vital that it doesn't. There is lots of discussion as to how to 'stop the boats' (as if that were numerically where the problem lay - which it isn't); and some discussion of reducing the future numbers generally and all that. But suppose the real problem in the mind of many - Tory and Reform voters but not only them - is not stopping the future stuff, but the reality and consequences of that which has already occurred.
At the moment this is only discussed in a proxy form - stopping the future stuff takes its place as a substitute. GB News, Suella, Patel, Reform, The Tory Right etc stick firmly to that agenda, making all their efforts look, as they are, pointless. But will that sticking plaster stick?
The German discussion of deportation shows where this could easily end up, unless we are lucky
No western society will tolerate itself becoming, say, 30-40% Muslim, because at that point the country will be transformed into something utterly unrecognisable - and non western. This is not Islamophobia, westermers want to live in a western country, that is all
Yet the vast migration continues and the demographic trends are relentless
So implacable force :: immovable object? Something will give
The best possible outcome would be for Islam to suddenly experience an Enlightenment, and for its conservative trends to disappear, then integration would be infinitely easier - but there seems no sign of that, sadly
I saw signs of it in East London, as a councillor meeting many Muslim sixth formers. They seemed acutely aware that they lived in two worlds - the relatively conservative environment of their family, and the liberal/western viewpoint of their school (and the internet), and carried what they saw as the future responsibility of their generation to marry the two, surprisingly heavily.
Where did you meet them? Until 2022 my partner worked in a sixth form in East London that was 100% Muslim
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
Ruling classes have always been self-serving.
Not entirely. A lot of them accepted that death or permanent injury in battle was the price tag that came attached to their privileges.
The current lot think that their privileges come for free.
Far too positive. The previous lot also thought that those without privileges should also go along willy-nilly to support them and suffer death or permament injury. And the common soldiers always had much worse medical and other treatment than the nobles or officers. Was still the case in the Great War - look at what happened to folk with PTSD. Orficers got a nice sanatorium; too many ORs got nine bullets at dawn.
Officers had many privileges. But, casualty rates were always highest among those ranked Second Lieutenant to Major. Inevitably, as they had to lead the attack.
Oh, sure. Very much so. But they also claimed the right to be the leaders merely on social grounds. Leading to more deaths than otherwise.
The changes in recrruitment from the WW1 and peacetime norm to the more omnivorous type during WW2 are interesting. As is the utter spite and hatred which Evelyn Waugh, that snob and wannabe aristo, had for any not of the right sort: one thinks of Corporal and Captain Trimmer.
Slightly in their defence against it being purely a right they claimed on social grounds, in the lead up to WW1 most of the public schools had officer cadets/rifle corps and so they had been “trained” from a young age in advance of joining up and so it made a bit of sense that they might be good to throw in at the deep end in charge of men who had just had basic training. This is not to dismiss that they were also seen as natural leaders but it wasn’t totally baseless in some ways.
Which resulted in Orwell being pretty much dragooned into being an instructor, for a while, in Spain.
Since he was the only man in his group who knew what a safety catch was, IIRC.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
If I understand correctly, British immigration of late has been at a *larger scale*, per capita, than anything experienced in American history.
It’s mind-boggling.
You understand correctly. More people are coming into Britain - per capita - than came into America during the 1890s or 1920s or any time in the history of the USA
Voters are only just noticing this. We discussed this yesterday. British voters UNDERestimate the scale of inwards migration by about 500%. But now they are beginning to see
It could get messy
Of course it could; and it seems vital that it doesn't. There is lots of discussion as to how to 'stop the boats' (as if that were numerically where the problem lay - which it isn't); and some discussion of reducing the future numbers generally and all that. But suppose the real problem in the mind of many - Tory and Reform voters but not only them - is not stopping the future stuff, but the reality and consequences of that which has already occurred.
At the moment this is only discussed in a proxy form - stopping the future stuff takes its place as a substitute. GB News, Suella, Patel, Reform, The Tory Right etc stick firmly to that agenda, making all their efforts look, as they are, pointless. But will that sticking plaster stick?
The German discussion of deportation shows where this could easily end up, unless we are lucky
No western society will tolerate itself becoming, say, 30-40% Muslim, because at that point the country will be transformed into something utterly unrecognisable - and non western. This is not Islamophobia, westermers want to live in a western country, that is all
Yet the vast migration continues and the demographic trends are relentless
So implacable force :: immovable object? Something will give
The best possible outcome would be for Islam to suddenly experience an Enlightenment, and for its conservative trends to disappear, then integration would be infinitely easier - but there seems no sign of that, sadly
I saw signs of it in East London, as a councillor meeting many Muslim sixth formers. They seemed acutely aware that they lived in two worlds - the relatively conservative environment of their family, and the liberal/western viewpoint of their school (and the internet), and carried what they saw as the future responsibility of their generation to marry the two, surprisingly heavily.
Well that is some small reason for very cautious optimism, in what can otherwise be a bleak debate
A good moment to bow out, as it is late late late here, in sultry Phnom Penh
Nightynight
Goodnight.
As someone who extols the delights of a foreign land, drinking and luxuriating while communicating with your home country, how well do you think you have assimilated to Khymer culture and society?
As far as I can tell, most Khmer men spend nearly all the day lolling about doing nothing, apart from gossipping, then snoozing, and lazily eying up younger women, and they only liven up at night when they start drinking and eating dogs
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
If I understand correctly, British immigration of late has been at a *larger scale*, per capita, than anything experienced in American history.
It’s mind-boggling.
You understand correctly. More people are coming into Britain - per capita - than came into America during the 1890s or 1920s or any time in the history of the USA
Voters are only just noticing this. We discussed this yesterday. British voters UNDERestimate the scale of inwards migration by about 500%. But now they are beginning to see
It could get messy
Of course it could; and it seems vital that it doesn't. There is lots of discussion as to how to 'stop the boats' (as if that were numerically where the problem lay - which it isn't); and some discussion of reducing the future numbers generally and all that. But suppose the real problem in the mind of many - Tory and Reform voters but not only them - is not stopping the future stuff, but the reality and consequences of that which has already occurred.
At the moment this is only discussed in a proxy form - stopping the future stuff takes its place as a substitute. GB News, Suella, Patel, Reform, The Tory Right etc stick firmly to that agenda, making all their efforts look, as they are, pointless. But will that sticking plaster stick?
The German discussion of deportation shows where this could easily end up, unless we are lucky
No western society will tolerate itself becoming, say, 30-40% Muslim, because at that point the country will be transformed into something utterly unrecognisable - and non western. This is not Islamophobia, westermers want to live in a western country, that is all
Yet the vast migration continues and the demographic trends are relentless
So implacable force :: immovable object? Something will give
The best possible outcome would be for Islam to suddenly experience an Enlightenment, and for its conservative trends to disappear, then integration would be infinitely easier - but there seems no sign of that, sadly
I saw signs of it in East London, as a councillor meeting many Muslim sixth formers. They seemed acutely aware that they lived in two worlds - the relatively conservative environment of their family, and the liberal/western viewpoint of their school (and the internet), and carried what they saw as the future responsibility of their generation to marry the two, surprisingly heavily.
The immigrants in my immediate family saw multiculturalism as exclusionary - “You can’t be British, you are supposed to remain in your culture”
The whole point of multiculturalism is to be comfortable with multiple cultures.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
If I understand correctly, British immigration of late has been at a *larger scale*, per capita, than anything experienced in American history.
It’s mind-boggling.
You understand correctly. More people are coming into Britain - per capita - than came into America during the 1890s or 1920s or any time in the history of the USA
Voters are only just noticing this. We discussed this yesterday. British voters UNDERestimate the scale of inwards migration by about 500%. But now they are beginning to see
It could get messy
Of course it could; and it seems vital that it doesn't. There is lots of discussion as to how to 'stop the boats' (as if that were numerically where the problem lay - which it isn't); and some discussion of reducing the future numbers generally and all that. But suppose the real problem in the mind of many - Tory and Reform voters but not only them - is not stopping the future stuff, but the reality and consequences of that which has already occurred.
At the moment this is only discussed in a proxy form - stopping the future stuff takes its place as a substitute. GB News, Suella, Patel, Reform, The Tory Right etc stick firmly to that agenda, making all their efforts look, as they are, pointless. But will that sticking plaster stick?
The German discussion of deportation shows where this could easily end up, unless we are lucky
No western society will tolerate itself becoming, say, 30-40% Muslim, because at that point the country will be transformed into something utterly unrecognisable - and non western. This is not Islamophobia, westermers want to live in a western country, that is all
Yet the vast migration continues and the demographic trends are relentless
So implacable force :: immovable object? Something will give
The best possible outcome would be for Islam to suddenly experience an Enlightenment, and for its conservative trends to disappear, then integration would be infinitely easier - but there seems no sign of that, sadly
I saw signs of it in East London, as a councillor meeting many Muslim sixth formers. They seemed acutely aware that they lived in two worlds - the relatively conservative environment of their family, and the liberal/western viewpoint of their school (and the internet), and carried what they saw as the future responsibility of their generation to marry the two, surprisingly heavily.
Well that is some small reason for very cautious optimism, in what can otherwise be a bleak debate
A good moment to bow out, as it is late late late here, in sultry Phnom Penh
Nightynight
Goodnight.
As someone who extols the delights of a foreign land, drinking and luxuriating while communicating with your home country, how well do you think you have assimilated to Khymer culture and society?
As far as I can tell, most Khmer men spend nearly all the day lolling about doing nothing, apart from gossipping, then snoozing, and lazily eying up younger women, and they only liven up at night when they start drinking and eating dogs
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
In short, multi culturalism has failed
Hardly surprising, even the people behind the experiment admit they hadn’t properly thought it through.
Yes, multiculturalism is a desperate failure. We have basically fucked the country for a stupid theory dreamed up by cranks
The unfucking will be difficult and messy, but someone will eventually have to do it. We will see the same pattern repeated across Europe
I don’t see how the unfucking is possible. Google a speech called “The Road to National Suicide”. Made 47 years ago, by… you know who. He thought it possible, but now it’s too late
For all this, the other day I was with my children over a park in outer London and they were playing with another young boy. My Dad & I got chatting with the parents who were from Syhlet in Bangladesh, but living in Rainham. Lovely people and we all went to the cafe afterwards for Hot Chocolate and cake. The Mum was talking to her boy in Bangladeshi and English which should have wound me up if we are talking about stats I’d read in a paper, but it didn’t & I found myself noting the irony of what I say on here and what I was doing in real life that day.
But, sad to say it, I don’t think extrapolating my experience last week equals life in cities on the whole
It probably does, you know. On an individual basis we as a nation, or rather sensible people in this nation have no problem with different cultures.
But talk about something like "white flight" and everyone gets up in arms.
We used to have a poster on here who was very het up about white flight and the "character" of a neighbourhood.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
If I understand correctly, British immigration of late has been at a *larger scale*, per capita, than anything experienced in American history.
It’s mind-boggling.
You understand correctly. More people are coming into Britain - per capita - than came into America during the 1890s or 1920s or any time in the history of the USA
Voters are only just noticing this. We discussed this yesterday. British voters UNDERestimate the scale of inwards migration by about 500%. But now they are beginning to see
It could get messy
Of course it could; and it seems vital that it doesn't. There is lots of discussion as to how to 'stop the boats' (as if that were numerically where the problem lay - which it isn't); and some discussion of reducing the future numbers generally and all that. But suppose the real problem in the mind of many - Tory and Reform voters but not only them - is not stopping the future stuff, but the reality and consequences of that which has already occurred.
At the moment this is only discussed in a proxy form - stopping the future stuff takes its place as a substitute. GB News, Suella, Patel, Reform, The Tory Right etc stick firmly to that agenda, making all their efforts look, as they are, pointless. But will that sticking plaster stick?
The German discussion of deportation shows where this could easily end up, unless we are lucky
No western society will tolerate itself becoming, say, 30-40% Muslim, because at that point the country will be transformed into something utterly unrecognisable - and non western. This is not Islamophobia, westermers want to live in a western country, that is all
Yet the vast migration continues and the demographic trends are relentless
So implacable force :: immovable object? Something will give
The best possible outcome would be for Islam to suddenly experience an Enlightenment, and for its conservative trends to disappear, then integration would be infinitely easier - but there seems no sign of that, sadly
I saw signs of it in East London, as a councillor meeting many Muslim sixth formers. They seemed acutely aware that they lived in two worlds - the relatively conservative environment of their family, and the liberal/western viewpoint of their school (and the internet), and carried what they saw as the future responsibility of their generation to marry the two, surprisingly heavily.
The immigrants in my immediate family saw multiculturalism as exclusionary - “You can’t be British, you are supposed to remain in your culture”
The whole point of multiculturalism is to be comfortable with multiple cultures.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
If I understand correctly, British immigration of late has been at a *larger scale*, per capita, than anything experienced in American history.
It’s mind-boggling.
You understand correctly. More people are coming into Britain - per capita - than came into America during the 1890s or 1920s or any time in the history of the USA
Voters are only just noticing this. We discussed this yesterday. British voters UNDERestimate the scale of inwards migration by about 500%. But now they are beginning to see
It could get messy
Of course it could; and it seems vital that it doesn't. There is lots of discussion as to how to 'stop the boats' (as if that were numerically where the problem lay - which it isn't); and some discussion of reducing the future numbers generally and all that. But suppose the real problem in the mind of many - Tory and Reform voters but not only them - is not stopping the future stuff, but the reality and consequences of that which has already occurred.
At the moment this is only discussed in a proxy form - stopping the future stuff takes its place as a substitute. GB News, Suella, Patel, Reform, The Tory Right etc stick firmly to that agenda, making all their efforts look, as they are, pointless. But will that sticking plaster stick?
The German discussion of deportation shows where this could easily end up, unless we are lucky
No western society will tolerate itself becoming, say, 30-40% Muslim, because at that point the country will be transformed into something utterly unrecognisable - and non western. This is not Islamophobia, westermers want to live in a western country, that is all
Yet the vast migration continues and the demographic trends are relentless
So implacable force :: immovable object? Something will give
The best possible outcome would be for Islam to suddenly experience an Enlightenment, and for its conservative trends to disappear, then integration would be infinitely easier - but there seems no sign of that, sadly
I saw signs of it in East London, as a councillor meeting many Muslim sixth formers. They seemed acutely aware that they lived in two worlds - the relatively conservative environment of their family, and the liberal/western viewpoint of their school (and the internet), and carried what they saw as the future responsibility of their generation to marry the two, surprisingly heavily.
Well that is some small reason for very cautious optimism, in what can otherwise be a bleak debate
A good moment to bow out, as it is late late late here, in sultry Phnom Penh
Nightynight
Goodnight.
As someone who extols the delights of a foreign land, drinking and luxuriating while communicating with your home country, how well do you think you have assimilated to Khymer culture and society?
As far as I can tell, most Khmer men spend nearly all the day lolling about doing nothing, apart from gossipping, then snoozing, and lazily eying up younger women, and they only liven up at night when they start drinking and eating dogs
So, yeah, I think I'm integrating pretty well
You sound like a Rochdale taxi driver!
Is that a step up or step down from an Albanian taxi driver?
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
If I understand correctly, British immigration of late has been at a *larger scale*, per capita, than anything experienced in American history.
It’s mind-boggling.
You understand correctly. More people are coming into Britain - per capita - than came into America during the 1890s or 1920s or any time in the history of the USA
Voters are only just noticing this. We discussed this yesterday. British voters UNDERestimate the scale of inwards migration by about 500%. But now they are beginning to see
It could get messy
Of course it could; and it seems vital that it doesn't. There is lots of discussion as to how to 'stop the boats' (as if that were numerically where the problem lay - which it isn't); and some discussion of reducing the future numbers generally and all that. But suppose the real problem in the mind of many - Tory and Reform voters but not only them - is not stopping the future stuff, but the reality and consequences of that which has already occurred.
At the moment this is only discussed in a proxy form - stopping the future stuff takes its place as a substitute. GB News, Suella, Patel, Reform, The Tory Right etc stick firmly to that agenda, making all their efforts look, as they are, pointless. But will that sticking plaster stick?
The German discussion of deportation shows where this could easily end up, unless we are lucky
No western society will tolerate itself becoming, say, 30-40% Muslim, because at that point the country will be transformed into something utterly unrecognisable - and non western. This is not Islamophobia, westermers want to live in a western country, that is all
Yet the vast migration continues and the demographic trends are relentless
So implacable force :: immovable object? Something will give
The best possible outcome would be for Islam to suddenly experience an Enlightenment, and for its conservative trends to disappear, then integration would be infinitely easier - but there seems no sign of that, sadly
I saw signs of it in East London, as a councillor meeting many Muslim sixth formers. They seemed acutely aware that they lived in two worlds - the relatively conservative environment of their family, and the liberal/western viewpoint of their school (and the internet), and carried what they saw as the future responsibility of their generation to marry the two, surprisingly heavily.
The immigrants in my immediate family saw multiculturalism as exclusionary - “You can’t be British, you are supposed to remain in your culture”
The whole point of multiculturalism is to be comfortable with multiple cultures.
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
The mainstream political left has always been a vehicle for lobbies that felt poorly treated by the system. The right dominated by people with money and class aspirations. Thatcher must have been rooted in the wartime experience of 1939-45. Many of the younger people who lapped up her freedoms were not. Blair gets a lot of grief but I think in his own way he was patriotic. He just thought success equaled being modern and didn't understand the decay taking place.
I don't think we can ignore Europe. For those who saw our future in the EU, Gaitskell's 1000 years of history was a millstone around our necks. The best bet was to try and ignore our roots and become part of something else.
Of course Tony Blair was (and is) patriotic. This country is a blessed nation. The British are special. The world knows it. In our innermost thoughts, we know it. This is the greatest nation on Earth.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
If I understand correctly, British immigration of late has been at a *larger scale*, per capita, than anything experienced in American history.
It’s mind-boggling.
You understand correctly. More people are coming into Britain - per capita - than came into America during the 1890s or 1920s or any time in the history of the USA
Voters are only just noticing this. We discussed this yesterday. British voters UNDERestimate the scale of inwards migration by about 500%. But now they are beginning to see
It could get messy
Of course it could; and it seems vital that it doesn't. There is lots of discussion as to how to 'stop the boats' (as if that were numerically where the problem lay - which it isn't); and some discussion of reducing the future numbers generally and all that. But suppose the real problem in the mind of many - Tory and Reform voters but not only them - is not stopping the future stuff, but the reality and consequences of that which has already occurred.
At the moment this is only discussed in a proxy form - stopping the future stuff takes its place as a substitute. GB News, Suella, Patel, Reform, The Tory Right etc stick firmly to that agenda, making all their efforts look, as they are, pointless. But will that sticking plaster stick?
The German discussion of deportation shows where this could easily end up, unless we are lucky
No western society will tolerate itself becoming, say, 30-40% Muslim, because at that point the country will be transformed into something utterly unrecognisable - and non western. This is not Islamophobia, westermers want to live in a western country, that is all
Yet the vast migration continues and the demographic trends are relentless
So implacable force :: immovable object? Something will give
The best possible outcome would be for Islam to suddenly experience an Enlightenment, and for its conservative trends to disappear, then integration would be infinitely easier - but there seems no sign of that, sadly
I saw signs of it in East London, as a councillor meeting many Muslim sixth formers. They seemed acutely aware that they lived in two worlds - the relatively conservative environment of their family, and the liberal/western viewpoint of their school (and the internet), and carried what they saw as the future responsibility of their generation to marry the two, surprisingly heavily.
Well that is some small reason for very cautious optimism, in what can otherwise be a bleak debate
A good moment to bow out, as it is late late late here, in sultry Phnom Penh
Nightynight
Goodnight.
As someone who extols the delights of a foreign land, drinking and luxuriating while communicating with your home country, how well do you think you have assimilated to Khymer culture and society?
Do you usually assimilate yourself into the culture of every country you holiday in for a couple of weeks or do you enjoy experiencing it, well the good bits you enjoy on holiday, before returning home to where you live?
Personally I feel guilty for not becoming a bushman last time I went to Botswana but we can’t all be perfect.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
In short, multi culturalism has failed
Hardly surprising, even the people behind the experiment admit they hadn’t properly thought it through.
Yes, multiculturalism is a desperate failure. We have basically fucked the country for a stupid theory dreamed up by cranks
The unfucking will be difficult and messy, but someone will eventually have to do it. We will see the same pattern repeated across Europe
I agree with you but would ask why it hasn’t worked here but in the US it has - a huge proportion of people in the US identify as “something-American”, so Irish American, Italian American etc. they all have large areas where certain immigrant communities settled and still are prevalent. You have areas of high Swedish, German, Spanish immigrant domination. The languages are often still spoken alongside English. Cultural events, shops, religious buildings are all there and yet for some reason they are insanely proud “Americans”. They will all be shouting “USA, USA, USA”. They will sing the national anthem as proudly as any WASP, daughter of the revolution, anyone who is American.
What has happened where this sort of American multiculturalism has made being “American” the ultimate identity to them where in the UK it’s almost an embarrassment or actively disliked to identify as ultimately “British” wherever you or your ancestors hailed from?
The American elite, until recently, loved America
In Britain the intellectual elite has despised Britain for a century. As Orwell noted:
"England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality. In left-wing circles it is always felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman and that it is a duty to snigger at every English institution, from horse racing to suet puddings. It is a strange fact, but it is unquestionably true that almost any English intellectual would feel more ashamed of standing to attention during “God Save the King” than of stealing from a poor box.’
It was bollocks when he wrote it and is still bollocks.
Ah, the provincial quack who knows better than George Orwell. Never change, PB
You think Orwell is indisputably correct about things? Are you also a democratic socialist committed to a planned economy under the Labour Party?
He was certainly in a position to speak accurately about British left wing intellectuals. Given that he spent most of his adult life among them, and arguing with them.
He didn't have a very good opinion of the British ruling classes either!
He was quite rightly opposed to the notion of "my side, right or wrong" though.
Too many today want to insist that there is nothing wrong with people on their side of a political divide, while insisting that the other side is appalling. This leads to the problems with polarism which we have today, and which are much, much worse in America.
Orwell was a left-wing intellectual quite willing to identify flaws in left-wing intellectuals.
We should all aspire to have such integrity.
Bill Maher is doing a really good job in the US. He’s continually making the point that we all need to stop listing to an angry 10% on the extremes of each side, and concentrate on what unites the country. He also does it with humour, as did Jon Stewart before him.
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
Ruling classes have always been self-serving.
Not entirely. A lot of them accepted that death or permanent injury in battle was the price tag that came attached to their privileges.
The current lot think that their privileges come for free.
Far too positive. The previous lot also thought that those without privileges should also go along willy-nilly to support them and suffer death or permament injury. And the common soldiers always had much worse medical and other treatment than the nobles or officers. Was still the case in the Great War - look at what happened to folk with PTSD. Orficers got a nice sanatorium; too many ORs got nine bullets at dawn.
Officers had many privileges. But, casualty rates were always highest among those ranked Second Lieutenant to Major. Inevitably, as they had to lead the attack.
Highest were the young subalterns straight out of public school. Lieutenant George in Blackadder. Life expectancy for junior officers at the start of the war? Six weeks.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
In short, multi culturalism has failed
Hardly surprising, even the people behind the experiment admit they hadn’t properly thought it through.
Yes, multiculturalism is a desperate failure. We have basically fucked the country for a stupid theory dreamed up by cranks
The unfucking will be difficult and messy, but someone will eventually have to do it. We will see the same pattern repeated across Europe
I don’t see how the unfucking is possible. Google a speech called “The Road to National Suicide”. Made 47 years ago, by… you know who. He thought it possible, but now it’s too late
For all this, the other day I was with my children over a park in outer London and they were playing with another young boy. My Dad & I got chatting with the parents who were from Syhlet in Bangladesh, but living in Rainham. Lovely people and we all went to the cafe afterwards for Hot Chocolate and cake. The Mum was talking to her boy in Bangladeshi and English which should have wound me up if we are talking about stats I’d read in a paper, but it didn’t & I found myself noting the irony of what I say on here and what I was doing in real life that day.
But, sad to say it, I don’t think extrapolating my experience last week equals life in cities on the whole
It probably does, you know. On an individual basis we as a nation, or rather sensible people in this nation have no problem with different cultures.
But talk about something like "white flight" and everyone gets up in arms.
We used to have a poster on here who was very het up about white flight and the "character" of a neighbourhood.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
If I understand correctly, British immigration of late has been at a *larger scale*, per capita, than anything experienced in American history.
It’s mind-boggling.
You understand correctly. More people are coming into Britain - per capita - than came into America during the 1890s or 1920s or any time in the history of the USA
Voters are only just noticing this. We discussed this yesterday. British voters UNDERestimate the scale of inwards migration by about 500%. But now they are beginning to see
It could get messy
Of course it could; and it seems vital that it doesn't. There is lots of discussion as to how to 'stop the boats' (as if that were numerically where the problem lay - which it isn't); and some discussion of reducing the future numbers generally and all that. But suppose the real problem in the mind of many - Tory and Reform voters but not only them - is not stopping the future stuff, but the reality and consequences of that which has already occurred.
At the moment this is only discussed in a proxy form - stopping the future stuff takes its place as a substitute. GB News, Suella, Patel, Reform, The Tory Right etc stick firmly to that agenda, making all their efforts look, as they are, pointless. But will that sticking plaster stick?
The German discussion of deportation shows where this could easily end up, unless we are lucky
No western society will tolerate itself becoming, say, 30-40% Muslim, because at that point the country will be transformed into something utterly unrecognisable - and non western. This is not Islamophobia, westermers want to live in a western country, that is all
Yet the vast migration continues and the demographic trends are relentless
So implacable force :: immovable object? Something will give
The best possible outcome would be for Islam to suddenly experience an Enlightenment, and for its conservative trends to disappear, then integration would be infinitely easier - but there seems no sign of that, sadly
I saw signs of it in East London, as a councillor meeting many Muslim sixth formers. They seemed acutely aware that they lived in two worlds - the relatively conservative environment of their family, and the liberal/western viewpoint of their school (and the internet), and carried what they saw as the future responsibility of their generation to marry the two, surprisingly heavily.
The immigrants in my immediate family saw multiculturalism as exclusionary - “You can’t be British, you are supposed to remain in your culture”
The whole point of multiculturalism is to be comfortable with multiple cultures.
The problem with it is; it doesn’t work
But your example earlier was of it working.
Yes, on an individual basis in a friendly environment of course, most people are friendly, that’s normal. That’s not multiculturalism working!!! That’s a crazy interpretation. People from different races & religions can be best friends, that’s true since the dawn of time. I’m sure there are many examples people on here could give.
But that’s completely different from expecting a country to adapt to its whole identity being changed
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
If I understand correctly, British immigration of late has been at a *larger scale*, per capita, than anything experienced in American history.
It’s mind-boggling.
You understand correctly. More people are coming into Britain - per capita - than came into America during the 1890s or 1920s or any time in the history of the USA
Voters are only just noticing this. We discussed this yesterday. British voters UNDERestimate the scale of inwards migration by about 500%. But now they are beginning to see
It could get messy
Of course it could; and it seems vital that it doesn't. There is lots of discussion as to how to 'stop the boats' (as if that were numerically where the problem lay - which it isn't); and some discussion of reducing the future numbers generally and all that. But suppose the real problem in the mind of many - Tory and Reform voters but not only them - is not stopping the future stuff, but the reality and consequences of that which has already occurred.
At the moment this is only discussed in a proxy form - stopping the future stuff takes its place as a substitute. GB News, Suella, Patel, Reform, The Tory Right etc stick firmly to that agenda, making all their efforts look, as they are, pointless. But will that sticking plaster stick?
The German discussion of deportation shows where this could easily end up, unless we are lucky
No western society will tolerate itself becoming, say, 30-40% Muslim, because at that point the country will be transformed into something utterly unrecognisable - and non western. This is not Islamophobia, westermers want to live in a western country, that is all
Yet the vast migration continues and the demographic trends are relentless
So implacable force :: immovable object? Something will give
The best possible outcome would be for Islam to suddenly experience an Enlightenment, and for its conservative trends to disappear, then integration would be infinitely easier - but there seems no sign of that, sadly
I saw signs of it in East London, as a councillor meeting many Muslim sixth formers. They seemed acutely aware that they lived in two worlds - the relatively conservative environment of their family, and the liberal/western viewpoint of their school (and the internet), and carried what they saw as the future responsibility of their generation to marry the two, surprisingly heavily.
Well that is some small reason for very cautious optimism, in what can otherwise be a bleak debate
A good moment to bow out, as it is late late late here, in sultry Phnom Penh
Nightynight
Not sure if this article on the BBC has been quoted in discussion, the idea of banning AfD in Germany. As if that is a good solution to the issue.
Douglas Murray has been saying that the danger is that eventually all this culminates in a nativist revolt, and a theme in his recent work is warning about this. 'Far right' parties are a way of addressing the issue by vocalising concerns. If you try and bury the concerns, ie by outlawing them through "hate speech" legislation, the eventual revolt just gets more nasty and brutal.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
In short, multi culturalism has failed
Hardly surprising, even the people behind the experiment admit they hadn’t properly thought it through.
Yes, multiculturalism is a desperate failure. We have basically fucked the country for a stupid theory dreamed up by cranks
The unfucking will be difficult and messy, but someone will eventually have to do it. We will see the same pattern repeated across Europe
I don’t see how the unfucking is possible. Google a speech called “The Road to National Suicide”. Made 47 years ago, by… you know who. He thought it possible, but now it’s too late
For all this, the other day I was with my children over a park in outer London and they were playing with another young boy. My Dad & I got chatting with the parents who were from Syhlet in Bangladesh, but living in Rainham. Lovely people and we all went to the cafe afterwards for Hot Chocolate and cake. The Mum was talking to her boy in Bangladeshi and English which should have wound me up if we are talking about stats I’d read in a paper, but it didn’t & I found myself noting the irony of what I say on here and what I was doing in real life that day.
But, sad to say it, I don’t think extrapolating my experience last week equals life in cities on the whole
It probably does, you know. On an individual basis we as a nation, or rather sensible people in this nation have no problem with different cultures.
But talk about something like "white flight" and everyone gets up in arms.
We used to have a poster on here who was very het up about white flight and the "character" of a neighbourhood.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
If I understand correctly, British immigration of late has been at a *larger scale*, per capita, than anything experienced in American history.
It’s mind-boggling.
You understand correctly. More people are coming into Britain - per capita - than came into America during the 1890s or 1920s or any time in the history of the USA
Voters are only just noticing this. We discussed this yesterday. British voters UNDERestimate the scale of inwards migration by about 500%. But now they are beginning to see
It could get messy
Of course it could; and it seems vital that it doesn't. There is lots of discussion as to how to 'stop the boats' (as if that were numerically where the problem lay - which it isn't); and some discussion of reducing the future numbers generally and all that. But suppose the real problem in the mind of many - Tory and Reform voters but not only them - is not stopping the future stuff, but the reality and consequences of that which has already occurred.
At the moment this is only discussed in a proxy form - stopping the future stuff takes its place as a substitute. GB News, Suella, Patel, Reform, The Tory Right etc stick firmly to that agenda, making all their efforts look, as they are, pointless. But will that sticking plaster stick?
The German discussion of deportation shows where this could easily end up, unless we are lucky
No western society will tolerate itself becoming, say, 30-40% Muslim, because at that point the country will be transformed into something utterly unrecognisable - and non western. This is not Islamophobia, westermers want to live in a western country, that is all
Yet the vast migration continues and the demographic trends are relentless
So implacable force :: immovable object? Something will give
The best possible outcome would be for Islam to suddenly experience an Enlightenment, and for its conservative trends to disappear, then integration would be infinitely easier - but there seems no sign of that, sadly
I saw signs of it in East London, as a councillor meeting many Muslim sixth formers. They seemed acutely aware that they lived in two worlds - the relatively conservative environment of their family, and the liberal/western viewpoint of their school (and the internet), and carried what they saw as the future responsibility of their generation to marry the two, surprisingly heavily.
The immigrants in my immediate family saw multiculturalism as exclusionary - “You can’t be British, you are supposed to remain in your culture”
The whole point of multiculturalism is to be comfortable with multiple cultures.
The problem with it is; it doesn’t work
But your example earlier was of it working.
Yes, on an individual basis in a friendly environment of course, most people are friendly, that’s normal. That’s not multiculturalism working!!! That’s a crazy interpretation. People from different races & religions can be best friends, that’s true since the dawn of time. I’m sure there are many examples people on here could give.
But that’s completely different from expecting a country to adapt to its whole identity being changed
A country is nothing more than a collection of individuals. It - its history and culture and literature - was invented by individuals. And one day - no matter what the country is - it will cease to exist. One day, indeed, there will not be a single human being that has even heard the word "Britain".
With that said... nations have proved the best way (so far) for humans to organize themselves.
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
Ruling classes have always been self-serving.
Not entirely. A lot of them accepted that death or permanent injury in battle was the price tag that came attached to their privileges.
The current lot think that their privileges come for free.
Far too positive. The previous lot also thought that those without privileges should also go along willy-nilly to support them and suffer death or permament injury. And the common soldiers always had much worse medical and other treatment than the nobles or officers. Was still the case in the Great War - look at what happened to folk with PTSD. Orficers got a nice sanatorium; too many ORs got nine bullets at dawn.
Officers had many privileges. But, casualty rates were always highest among those ranked Second Lieutenant to Major. Inevitably, as they had to lead the attack.
Oh, sure. Very much so. But they also claimed the right to be the leaders merely on social grounds. Leading to more deaths than otherwise.
The changes in recrruitment from the WW1 and peacetime norm to the more omnivorous type during WW2 are interesting. As is the utter spite and hatred which Evelyn Waugh, that snob and wannabe aristo, had for any not of the right sort: one thinks of Corporal and Captain Trimmer.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
In short, multi culturalism has failed
Hardly surprising, even the people behind the experiment admit they hadn’t properly thought it through.
Yes, multiculturalism is a desperate failure. We have basically fucked the country for a stupid theory dreamed up by cranks
The unfucking will be difficult and messy, but someone will eventually have to do it. We will see the same pattern repeated across Europe
I don’t see how the unfucking is possible. Google a speech called “The Road to National Suicide”. Made 47 years ago, by… you know who. He thought it possible, but now it’s too late
For all this, the other day I was with my children over a park in outer London and they were playing with another young boy. My Dad & I got chatting with the parents who were from Syhlet in Bangladesh, but living in Rainham. Lovely people and we all went to the cafe afterwards for Hot Chocolate and cake. The Mum was talking to her boy in Bangladeshi and English which should have wound me up if we are talking about stats I’d read in a paper, but it didn’t & I found myself noting the irony of what I say on here and what I was doing in real life that day.
But, sad to say it, I don’t think extrapolating my experience last week equals life in cities on the whole
It probably does, you know. On an individual basis we as a nation, or rather sensible people in this nation have no problem with different cultures.
But talk about something like "white flight" and everyone gets up in arms.
We used to have a poster on here who was very het up about white flight and the "character" of a neighbourhood.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
If I understand correctly, British immigration of late has been at a *larger scale*, per capita, than anything experienced in American history.
It’s mind-boggling.
You understand correctly. More people are coming into Britain - per capita - than came into America during the 1890s or 1920s or any time in the history of the USA
Voters are only just noticing this. We discussed this yesterday. British voters UNDERestimate the scale of inwards migration by about 500%. But now they are beginning to see
It could get messy
Of course it could; and it seems vital that it doesn't. There is lots of discussion as to how to 'stop the boats' (as if that were numerically where the problem lay - which it isn't); and some discussion of reducing the future numbers generally and all that. But suppose the real problem in the mind of many - Tory and Reform voters but not only them - is not stopping the future stuff, but the reality and consequences of that which has already occurred.
At the moment this is only discussed in a proxy form - stopping the future stuff takes its place as a substitute. GB News, Suella, Patel, Reform, The Tory Right etc stick firmly to that agenda, making all their efforts look, as they are, pointless. But will that sticking plaster stick?
The German discussion of deportation shows where this could easily end up, unless we are lucky
No western society will tolerate itself becoming, say, 30-40% Muslim, because at that point the country will be transformed into something utterly unrecognisable - and non western. This is not Islamophobia, westermers want to live in a western country, that is all
Yet the vast migration continues and the demographic trends are relentless
So implacable force :: immovable object? Something will give
The best possible outcome would be for Islam to suddenly experience an Enlightenment, and for its conservative trends to disappear, then integration would be infinitely easier - but there seems no sign of that, sadly
I saw signs of it in East London, as a councillor meeting many Muslim sixth formers. They seemed acutely aware that they lived in two worlds - the relatively conservative environment of their family, and the liberal/western viewpoint of their school (and the internet), and carried what they saw as the future responsibility of their generation to marry the two, surprisingly heavily.
The immigrants in my immediate family saw multiculturalism as exclusionary - “You can’t be British, you are supposed to remain in your culture”
The whole point of multiculturalism is to be comfortable with multiple cultures.
The problem with it is; it doesn’t work
But your example earlier was of it working.
Yes, on an individual basis in a friendly environment of course, most people are friendly, that’s normal. That’s not multiculturalism working!!! That’s a crazy interpretation. People from different races & religions can be best friends, that’s true since the dawn of time. I’m sure there are many examples people on here could give.
But that’s completely different from expecting a whole country to adapt to its whole identity being changed
No it isn't, socialising across cultures is obviously not the entirety of multiculturalism, but it is the usual entrypoint.
No culture is set in aspic, they constantly evolve, merge, and take on new traits.
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
Ruling classes have always been self-serving.
Not entirely. A lot of them accepted that death or permanent injury in battle was the price tag that came attached to their privileges.
The current lot think that their privileges come for free.
Far too positive. The previous lot also thought that those without privileges should also go along willy-nilly to support them and suffer death or permament injury. And the common soldiers always had much worse medical and other treatment than the nobles or officers. Was still the case in the Great War - look at what happened to folk with PTSD. Orficers got a nice sanatorium; too many ORs got nine bullets at dawn.
Officers had many privileges. But, casualty rates were always highest among those ranked Second Lieutenant to Major. Inevitably, as they had to lead the attack.
Oh, sure. Very much so. But they also claimed the right to be the leaders merely on social grounds. Leading to more deaths than otherwise.
The changes in recrruitment from the WW1 and peacetime norm to the more omnivorous type during WW2 are interesting. As is the utter spite and hatred which Evelyn Waugh, that snob and wannabe aristo, had for any not of the right sort: one thinks of Corporal and Captain Trimmer.
Worth pointing out that for all his personal foibles, and they were legion, Waugh's "Sword of Honour" trilogy is quite possibly the finest fictional account to come out of the Second World War. Required reading if your interested in the Greek campaign, or just enjoy superlative writing.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
If I understand correctly, British immigration of late has been at a *larger scale*, per capita, than anything experienced in American history.
It’s mind-boggling.
You understand correctly. More people are coming into Britain - per capita - than came into America during the 1890s or 1920s or any time in the history of the USA
Voters are only just noticing this. We discussed this yesterday. British voters UNDERestimate the scale of inwards migration by about 500%. But now they are beginning to see
It could get messy
Of course it could; and it seems vital that it doesn't. There is lots of discussion as to how to 'stop the boats' (as if that were numerically where the problem lay - which it isn't); and some discussion of reducing the future numbers generally and all that. But suppose the real problem in the mind of many - Tory and Reform voters but not only them - is not stopping the future stuff, but the reality and consequences of that which has already occurred.
At the moment this is only discussed in a proxy form - stopping the future stuff takes its place as a substitute. GB News, Suella, Patel, Reform, The Tory Right etc stick firmly to that agenda, making all their efforts look, as they are, pointless. But will that sticking plaster stick?
The German discussion of deportation shows where this could easily end up, unless we are lucky
No western society will tolerate itself becoming, say, 30-40% Muslim, because at that point the country will be transformed into something utterly unrecognisable - and non western. This is not Islamophobia, westermers want to live in a western country, that is all
Yet the vast migration continues and the demographic trends are relentless
So implacable force :: immovable object? Something will give
The best possible outcome would be for Islam to suddenly experience an Enlightenment, and for its conservative trends to disappear, then integration would be infinitely easier - but there seems no sign of that, sadly
I saw signs of it in East London, as a councillor meeting many Muslim sixth formers. They seemed acutely aware that they lived in two worlds - the relatively conservative environment of their family, and the liberal/western viewpoint of their school (and the internet), and carried what they saw as the future responsibility of their generation to marry the two, surprisingly heavily.
Well that is some small reason for very cautious optimism, in what can otherwise be a bleak debate
A good moment to bow out, as it is late late late here, in sultry Phnom Penh
Nightynight
Goodnight.
As someone who extols the delights of a foreign land, drinking and luxuriating while communicating with your home country, how well do you think you have assimilated to Khymer culture and society?
As far as I can tell, most Khmer men spend nearly all the day lolling about doing nothing, apart from gossipping, then snoozing, and lazily eying up younger women, and they only liven up at night when they start drinking and eating dogs
So, yeah, I think I'm integrating pretty well
My younger son’s father-in-law is Khmer, although he’s lived in Thailand for many years. Nice, cheerful, hard-working chap. Prosperous farm.
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
Ruling classes have always been self-serving.
Not entirely. A lot of them accepted that death or permanent injury in battle was the price tag that came attached to their privileges.
The current lot think that their privileges come for free.
Far too positive. The previous lot also thought that those without privileges should also go along willy-nilly to support them and suffer death or permament injury. And the common soldiers always had much worse medical and other treatment than the nobles or officers. Was still the case in the Great War - look at what happened to folk with PTSD. Orficers got a nice sanatorium; too many ORs got nine bullets at dawn.
Officers had many privileges. But, casualty rates were always highest among those ranked Second Lieutenant to Major. Inevitably, as they had to lead the attack.
Oh, sure. Very much so. But they also claimed the right to be the leaders merely on social grounds. Leading to more deaths than otherwise.
The changes in recrruitment from the WW1 and peacetime norm to the more omnivorous type during WW2 are interesting. As is the utter spite and hatred which Evelyn Waugh, that snob and wannabe aristo, had for any not of the right sort: one thinks of Corporal and Captain Trimmer.
Worth pointing out that for all his personal foibles, and they were legion, Waugh's "Sword of Honour" trilogy is quite possibly the finest fictional account to come out of the Second World War. Required reading if your interested in the Greek campaign, or just enjoy superlative writing.
Oh, indeed, as I had just said, ratther more earthily, two posts down!
Edit: Read it when I was at school, and several times since.
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
Ruling classes have always been self-serving.
Not entirely. A lot of them accepted that death or permanent injury in battle was the price tag that came attached to their privileges.
The current lot think that their privileges come for free.
Far too positive. The previous lot also thought that those without privileges should also go along willy-nilly to support them and suffer death or permament injury. And the common soldiers always had much worse medical and other treatment than the nobles or officers. Was still the case in the Great War - look at what happened to folk with PTSD. Orficers got a nice sanatorium; too many ORs got nine bullets at dawn.
Officers had many privileges. But, casualty rates were always highest among those ranked Second Lieutenant to Major. Inevitably, as they had to lead the attack.
Highest were the young subalterns straight out of public school. Lieutenant George in Blackadder. Life expectancy for junior officers at the start of the war? Six weeks.
It was shocking. I had a daily reminder at school for five years where every morning I would walk through the War Cloister which was the memorial to the school’s dead in WW1 and then added to with the WW2 dead. There were 500 boys names on there from WW1 and they were pretty much all around my age when I left or was pissing it up at university.
The one that always brought it home was John Thynne, Viscount Weymouth. Absolutely everything to live for in most other periods of life but dead at 21 pointlessly. At least he is remembered if only by a few people as there were millions who weren’t.
My old place put together a website which has the stories and details of every old boy they have records of who died in any war since foundation and some crazy stories. It’s obviously important to me as it could have been me but good that people care about their memories.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
In short, multi culturalism has failed
Hardly surprising, even the people behind the experiment admit they hadn’t properly thought it through.
Yes, multiculturalism is a desperate failure. We have basically fucked the country for a stupid theory dreamed up by cranks
The unfucking will be difficult and messy, but someone will eventually have to do it. We will see the same pattern repeated across Europe
I don’t see how the unfucking is possible. Google a speech called “The Road to National Suicide”. Made 47 years ago, by… you know who. He thought it possible, but now it’s too late
For all this, the other day I was with my children over a park in outer London and they were playing with another young boy. My Dad & I got chatting with the parents who were from Syhlet in Bangladesh, but living in Rainham. Lovely people and we all went to the cafe afterwards for Hot Chocolate and cake. The Mum was talking to her boy in Bangladeshi and English which should have wound me up if we are talking about stats I’d read in a paper, but it didn’t & I found myself noting the irony of what I say on here and what I was doing in real life that day.
But, sad to say it, I don’t think extrapolating my experience last week equals life in cities on the whole
It probably does, you know. On an individual basis we as a nation, or rather sensible people in this nation have no problem with different cultures.
But talk about something like "white flight" and everyone gets up in arms.
We used to have a poster on here who was very het up about white flight and the "character" of a neighbourhood.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
If I understand correctly, British immigration of late has been at a *larger scale*, per capita, than anything experienced in American history.
It’s mind-boggling.
You understand correctly. More people are coming into Britain - per capita - than came into America during the 1890s or 1920s or any time in the history of the USA
Voters are only just noticing this. We discussed this yesterday. British voters UNDERestimate the scale of inwards migration by about 500%. But now they are beginning to see
It could get messy
Of course it could; and it seems vital that it doesn't. There is lots of discussion as to how to 'stop the boats' (as if that were numerically where the problem lay - which it isn't); and some discussion of reducing the future numbers generally and all that. But suppose the real problem in the mind of many - Tory and Reform voters but not only them - is not stopping the future stuff, but the reality and consequences of that which has already occurred.
At the moment this is only discussed in a proxy form - stopping the future stuff takes its place as a substitute. GB News, Suella, Patel, Reform, The Tory Right etc stick firmly to that agenda, making all their efforts look, as they are, pointless. But will that sticking plaster stick?
The German discussion of deportation shows where this could easily end up, unless we are lucky
No western society will tolerate itself becoming, say, 30-40% Muslim, because at that point the country will be transformed into something utterly unrecognisable - and non western. This is not Islamophobia, westermers want to live in a western country, that is all
Yet the vast migration continues and the demographic trends are relentless
So implacable force :: immovable object? Something will give
The best possible outcome would be for Islam to suddenly experience an Enlightenment, and for its conservative trends to disappear, then integration would be infinitely easier - but there seems no sign of that, sadly
I saw signs of it in East London, as a councillor meeting many Muslim sixth formers. They seemed acutely aware that they lived in two worlds - the relatively conservative environment of their family, and the liberal/western viewpoint of their school (and the internet), and carried what they saw as the future responsibility of their generation to marry the two, surprisingly heavily.
The immigrants in my immediate family saw multiculturalism as exclusionary - “You can’t be British, you are supposed to remain in your culture”
The whole point of multiculturalism is to be comfortable with multiple cultures.
The problem with it is; it doesn’t work
But your example earlier was of it working.
Yes, on an individual basis in a friendly environment of course, most people are friendly, that’s normal. That’s not multiculturalism working!!! That’s a crazy interpretation. People from different races & religions can be best friends, that’s true since the dawn of time. I’m sure there are many examples people on here could give.
But that’s completely different from expecting a whole country to adapt to its whole identity being changed
No it isn't, socialising across cultures is obviously not the entirety of multiculturalism, but it is the usual entrypoint.
No culture is set in aspic, they constantly evolve, merge, and take on new traits.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
In short, multi culturalism has failed
Hardly surprising, even the people behind the experiment admit they hadn’t properly thought it through.
Yes, multiculturalism is a desperate failure. We have basically fucked the country for a stupid theory dreamed up by cranks
The unfucking will be difficult and messy, but someone will eventually have to do it. We will see the same pattern repeated across Europe
I agree with you but would ask why it hasn’t worked here but in the US it has - a huge proportion of people in the US identify as “something-American”, so Irish American, Italian American etc. they all have large areas where certain immigrant communities settled and still are prevalent. You have areas of high Swedish, German, Spanish immigrant domination. The languages are often still spoken alongside English. Cultural events, shops, religious buildings are all there and yet for some reason they are insanely proud “Americans”. They will all be shouting “USA, USA, USA”. They will sing the national anthem as proudly as any WASP, daughter of the revolution, anyone who is American.
What has happened where this sort of American multiculturalism has made being “American” the ultimate identity to them where in the UK it’s almost an embarrassment or actively disliked to identify as ultimately “British” wherever you or your ancestors hailed from?
The American elite, until recently, loved America
In Britain the intellectual elite has despised Britain for a century. As Orwell noted:
"England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality. In left-wing circles it is always felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman and that it is a duty to snigger at every English institution, from horse racing to suet puddings. It is a strange fact, but it is unquestionably true that almost any English intellectual would feel more ashamed of standing to attention during “God Save the King” than of stealing from a poor box.’
Liberals everywhere (I am a liberal) cringe at lumpen patriotism. I don’t think this is a uniquely British thing.
As for the Orwell quote, someone seems to post this about once a month. We need a counter or something.
It is regularly quoted because it is absolutely true, and startling that it was true as long ago as 1940, when he wrote it. And Orwell was on the left, he knew whereof he spake
Incidentally I see this British disease - elite contempt for their own country - has finally infected America. and badly. Woke distate for white America, its contempt for the Founding Fathers, the attempt to trash American history and values as all racist and evil, it's the exact same thing coming from the very same people. The academic and "intellectual" left
The difference in America is that the right is much less supine, it is armed and numerous and willing to vote for nutters like Trump, if that is what it takes to fight back
Trump is part of the same disease. He’s a coward, far more interested in persecuting enemies at home, than sticking up for the US abroad.
I don't agree with rhat analysis of Trump, I think he's a painful narcissist, often ludicrous and nearly always vulgar. But I also think he has a basic patriotism, inasmuch as he believes in America Inc, and wants it to win the best deals - not least coz that reflects well on him
He doesn't give much of a fuck about democracy, tho, and he is also now showing signs of senility, like Biden before him
What a choice. Perhaps the worst electoral choice ever offered to a great western nation in modern history?
Although, May v Corbyn was not exactly a high point, either
With respect, you're too relaxed about Trump. Everything about him - the grandiosity, the lying about everything, appaling personal morality, contempt for the constitution, cult of the leader, ignorance, grievance mongering, saluting of the flag - you name it really, is basically fascist. We need to understand this - and pray for Joe Biden.
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
Ruling classes have always been self-serving.
Not entirely. A lot of them accepted that death or permanent injury in battle was the price tag that came attached to their privileges.
The current lot think that their privileges come for free.
Far too positive. The previous lot also thought that those without privileges should also go along willy-nilly to support them and suffer death or permament injury. And the common soldiers always had much worse medical and other treatment than the nobles or officers. Was still the case in the Great War - look at what happened to folk with PTSD. Orficers got a nice sanatorium; too many ORs got nine bullets at dawn.
Officers had many privileges. But, casualty rates were always highest among those ranked Second Lieutenant to Major. Inevitably, as they had to lead the attack.
Highest were the young subalterns straight out of public school. Lieutenant George in Blackadder. Life expectancy for junior officers at the start of the war? Six weeks.
It was shocking. I had a daily reminder at school for five years where every morning I would walk through the War Cloister which was the memorial to the school’s dead in WW1 and then added to with the WW2 dead. There were 500 boys names on there from WW1 and they were pretty much all around my age when I left or was pissing it up at university.
The one that always brought it home was John Thynne, Viscount Weymouth. Absolutely everything to live for in most other periods of life but dead at 21 pointlessly. At least he is remembered if only by a few people as there were millions who weren’t.
My old place put together a website which has the stories and details of every old boy they have records of who died in any war since foundation and some crazy stories. It’s obviously important to me as it could have been me but good that people care about their memories.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
In short, multi culturalism has failed
Hardly surprising, even the people behind the experiment admit they hadn’t properly thought it through.
Yes, multiculturalism is a desperate failure. We have basically fucked the country for a stupid theory dreamed up by cranks
The unfucking will be difficult and messy, but someone will eventually have to do it. We will see the same pattern repeated across Europe
I don’t see how the unfucking is possible. Google a speech called “The Road to National Suicide”. Made 47 years ago, by… you know who. He thought it possible, but now it’s too late
For all this, the other day I was with my children over a park in outer London and they were playing with another young boy. My Dad & I got chatting with the parents who were from Syhlet in Bangladesh, but living in Rainham. Lovely people and we all went to the cafe afterwards for Hot Chocolate and cake. The Mum was talking to her boy in Bangladeshi and English which should have wound me up if we are talking about stats I’d read in a paper, but it didn’t & I found myself noting the irony of what I say on here and what I was doing in real life that day.
But, sad to say it, I don’t think extrapolating my experience last week equals life in cities on the whole
It probably does, you know. On an individual basis we as a nation, or rather sensible people in this nation have no problem with different cultures.
But talk about something like "white flight" and everyone gets up in arms.
We used to have a poster on here who was very het up about white flight and the "character" of a neighbourhood.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
If I understand correctly, British immigration of late has been at a *larger scale*, per capita, than anything experienced in American history.
It’s mind-boggling.
You understand correctly. More people are coming into Britain - per capita - than came into America during the 1890s or 1920s or any time in the history of the USA
Voters are only just noticing this. We discussed this yesterday. British voters UNDERestimate the scale of inwards migration by about 500%. But now they are beginning to see
It could get messy
Of course it could; and it seems vital that it doesn't. There is lots of discussion as to how to 'stop the boats' (as if that were numerically where the problem lay - which it isn't); and some discussion of reducing the future numbers generally and all that. But suppose the real problem in the mind of many - Tory and Reform voters but not only them - is not stopping the future stuff, but the reality and consequences of that which has already occurred.
At the moment this is only discussed in a proxy form - stopping the future stuff takes its place as a substitute. GB News, Suella, Patel, Reform, The Tory Right etc stick firmly to that agenda, making all their efforts look, as they are, pointless. But will that sticking plaster stick?
The German discussion of deportation shows where this could easily end up, unless we are lucky
No western society will tolerate itself becoming, say, 30-40% Muslim, because at that point the country will be transformed into something utterly unrecognisable - and non western. This is not Islamophobia, westermers want to live in a western country, that is all
Yet the vast migration continues and the demographic trends are relentless
So implacable force :: immovable object? Something will give
The best possible outcome would be for Islam to suddenly experience an Enlightenment, and for its conservative trends to disappear, then integration would be infinitely easier - but there seems no sign of that, sadly
I saw signs of it in East London, as a councillor meeting many Muslim sixth formers. They seemed acutely aware that they lived in two worlds - the relatively conservative environment of their family, and the liberal/western viewpoint of their school (and the internet), and carried what they saw as the future responsibility of their generation to marry the two, surprisingly heavily.
The immigrants in my immediate family saw multiculturalism as exclusionary - “You can’t be British, you are supposed to remain in your culture”
The whole point of multiculturalism is to be comfortable with multiple cultures.
The problem with it is; it doesn’t work
But your example earlier was of it working.
Yes, on an individual basis in a friendly environment of course, most people are friendly, that’s normal. That’s not multiculturalism working!!! That’s a crazy interpretation. People from different races & religions can be best friends, that’s true since the dawn of time. I’m sure there are many examples people on here could give.
But that’s completely different from expecting a country to adapt to its whole identity being changed
A country is nothing more than a collection of individuals. It - its history and culture and literature - was invented by individuals. And one day - no matter what the country is - it will cease to exist. One day, indeed, there will not be a single human being that has even heard the word "Britain".
With that said... nations have proved the best way (so far) for humans to organize themselves.
Though the idea of "nations" being culturally distict and sovereign is a relatively recent one, generally said to have begun with the treaty of Westphalia in 1648.
Prior to that allegiance was familial, and to monarch, and most kingdoms were explicitly multicultural*, up to a century ago with the disintegration of the multicultural empires of the Ottomans and Austro-Hungarians. It isn't obvious that ethnic states were dramatically better for their citizens than what went before.
For that matter, Britain is explicitly multicultural too, comprising the distinct Welsh, Scottish and English cultures.
*albeit often with an ethnic or religious group dominating.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
If I understand correctly, British immigration of late has been at a *larger scale*, per capita, than anything experienced in American history.
It’s mind-boggling.
You understand correctly. More people are coming into Britain - per capita - than came into America during the 1890s or 1920s or any time in the history of the USA
Voters are only just noticing this. We discussed this yesterday. British voters UNDERestimate the scale of inwards migration by about 500%. But now they are beginning to see
It could get messy
Of course it could; and it seems vital that it doesn't. There is lots of discussion as to how to 'stop the boats' (as if that were numerically where the problem lay - which it isn't); and some discussion of reducing the future numbers generally and all that. But suppose the real problem in the mind of many - Tory and Reform voters but not only them - is not stopping the future stuff, but the reality and consequences of that which has already occurred.
At the moment this is only discussed in a proxy form - stopping the future stuff takes its place as a substitute. GB News, Suella, Patel, Reform, The Tory Right etc stick firmly to that agenda, making all their efforts look, as they are, pointless. But will that sticking plaster stick?
The German discussion of deportation shows where this could easily end up, unless we are lucky
No western society will tolerate itself becoming, say, 30-40% Muslim, because at that point the country will be transformed into something utterly unrecognisable - and non western. This is not Islamophobia, westermers want to live in a western country, that is all
Yet the vast migration continues and the demographic trends are relentless
So implacable force :: immovable object? Something will give
The best possible outcome would be for Islam to suddenly experience an Enlightenment, and for its conservative trends to disappear, then integration would be infinitely easier - but there seems no sign of that, sadly
I saw signs of it in East London, as a councillor meeting many Muslim sixth formers. They seemed acutely aware that they lived in two worlds - the relatively conservative environment of their family, and the liberal/western viewpoint of their school (and the internet), and carried what they saw as the future responsibility of their generation to marry the two, surprisingly heavily.
The immigrants in my immediate family saw multiculturalism as exclusionary - “You can’t be British, you are supposed to remain in your culture”
The whole point of multiculturalism is to be comfortable with multiple cultures.
You mean a well intentioned idea turned out not to work, and even offend some of those it was supposed to help?
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
In short, multi culturalism has failed
Hardly surprising, even the people behind the experiment admit they hadn’t properly thought it through.
Yes, multiculturalism is a desperate failure. We have basically fucked the country for a stupid theory dreamed up by cranks
The unfucking will be difficult and messy, but someone will eventually have to do it. We will see the same pattern repeated across Europe
I agree with you but would ask why it hasn’t worked here but in the US it has - a huge proportion of people in the US identify as “something-American”, so Irish American, Italian American etc. they all have large areas where certain immigrant communities settled and still are prevalent. You have areas of high Swedish, German, Spanish immigrant domination. The languages are often still spoken alongside English. Cultural events, shops, religious buildings are all there and yet for some reason they are insanely proud “Americans”. They will all be shouting “USA, USA, USA”. They will sing the national anthem as proudly as any WASP, daughter of the revolution, anyone who is American.
What has happened where this sort of American multiculturalism has made being “American” the ultimate identity to them where in the UK it’s almost an embarrassment or actively disliked to identify as ultimately “British” wherever you or your ancestors hailed from?
The American elite, until recently, loved America
In Britain the intellectual elite has despised Britain for a century. As Orwell noted:
"England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality. In left-wing circles it is always felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman and that it is a duty to snigger at every English institution, from horse racing to suet puddings. It is a strange fact, but it is unquestionably true that almost any English intellectual would feel more ashamed of standing to attention during “God Save the King” than of stealing from a poor box.’
Liberals everywhere (I am a liberal) cringe at lumpen patriotism. I don’t think this is a uniquely British thing.
As for the Orwell quote, someone seems to post this about once a month. We need a counter or something.
It is regularly quoted because it is absolutely true, and startling that it was true as long ago as 1940, when he wrote it. And Orwell was on the left, he knew whereof he spake
Incidentally I see this British disease - elite contempt for their own country - has finally infected America. and badly. Woke distate for white America, its contempt for the Founding Fathers, the attempt to trash American history and values as all racist and evil, it's the exact same thing coming from the very same people. The academic and "intellectual" left
The difference in America is that the right is much less supine, it is armed and numerous and willing to vote for nutters like Trump, if that is what it takes to fight back
Trump is part of the same disease. He’s a coward, far more interested in persecuting enemies at home, than sticking up for the US abroad.
I don't agree with rhat analysis of Trump, I think he's a painful narcissist, often ludicrous and nearly always vulgar. But I also think he has a basic patriotism, inasmuch as he believes in America Inc, and wants it to win the best deals - not least coz that reflects well on him
He doesn't give much of a fuck about democracy, tho, and he is also now showing signs of senility, like Biden before him
What a choice. Perhaps the worst electoral choice ever offered to a great western nation in modern history?
Although, May v Corbyn was not exactly a high point, either
With respect, you're too relaxed about Trump. Everything about him - the grandiosity, the lying about everything, appaling personal morality, contempt for the constitution, cult of the leader, ignorance, grievance mongering, saluting of the flag - you name it really, is basically fascist. We need to understand this - and pray for Joe Biden.
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
Ruling classes have always been self-serving.
Not entirely. A lot of them accepted that death or permanent injury in battle was the price tag that came attached to their privileges.
The current lot think that their privileges come for free.
Far too positive. The previous lot also thought that those without privileges should also go along willy-nilly to support them and suffer death or permament injury. And the common soldiers always had much worse medical and other treatment than the nobles or officers. Was still the case in the Great War - look at what happened to folk with PTSD. Orficers got a nice sanatorium; too many ORs got nine bullets at dawn.
Officers had many privileges. But, casualty rates were always highest among those ranked Second Lieutenant to Major. Inevitably, as they had to lead the attack.
Oh, sure. Very much so. But they also claimed the right to be the leaders merely on social grounds. Leading to more deaths than otherwise.
The changes in recrruitment from the WW1 and peacetime norm to the more omnivorous type during WW2 are interesting. As is the utter spite and hatred which Evelyn Waugh, that snob and wannabe aristo, had for any not of the right sort: one thinks of Corporal and Captain Trimmer.
Worth pointing out that for all his personal foibles, and they were legion, Waugh's "Sword of Honour" trilogy is quite possibly the finest fictional account to come out of the Second World War. Required reading if your interested in the Greek campaign, or just enjoy superlative writing.
Oh, indeed, as I had just said, ratther more earthily, two posts down!
Edit: Read it when I was at school, and several times since.
Funny how distinguished WW2 fiction has been delivered through trilogies. As well as Waugh, there's the three volumes from Anthony Powell's Dance to the Music of Time (Valley of Bones, Soldier's Art, Military Philosophers) and Olivia Manning's Fortunes of War.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
If I understand correctly, British immigration of late has been at a *larger scale*, per capita, than anything experienced in American history.
It’s mind-boggling.
You understand correctly. More people are coming into Britain - per capita - than came into America during the 1890s or 1920s or any time in the history of the USA
Voters are only just noticing this. We discussed this yesterday. British voters UNDERestimate the scale of inwards migration by about 500%. But now they are beginning to see
It could get messy
Of course it could; and it seems vital that it doesn't. There is lots of discussion as to how to 'stop the boats' (as if that were numerically where the problem lay - which it isn't); and some discussion of reducing the future numbers generally and all that. But suppose the real problem in the mind of many - Tory and Reform voters but not only them - is not stopping the future stuff, but the reality and consequences of that which has already occurred.
At the moment this is only discussed in a proxy form - stopping the future stuff takes its place as a substitute. GB News, Suella, Patel, Reform, The Tory Right etc stick firmly to that agenda, making all their efforts look, as they are, pointless. But will that sticking plaster stick?
The German discussion of deportation shows where this could easily end up, unless we are lucky
No western society will tolerate itself becoming, say, 30-40% Muslim, because at that point the country will be transformed into something utterly unrecognisable - and non western. This is not Islamophobia, westermers want to live in a western country, that is all
Yet the vast migration continues and the demographic trends are relentless
So implacable force :: immovable object? Something will give
The best possible outcome would be for Islam to suddenly experience an Enlightenment, and for its conservative trends to disappear, then integration would be infinitely easier - but there seems no sign of that, sadly
I saw signs of it in East London, as a councillor meeting many Muslim sixth formers. They seemed acutely aware that they lived in two worlds - the relatively conservative environment of their family, and the liberal/western viewpoint of their school (and the internet), and carried what they saw as the future responsibility of their generation to marry the two, surprisingly heavily.
The immigrants in my immediate family saw multiculturalism as exclusionary - “You can’t be British, you are supposed to remain in your culture”
The whole point of multiculturalism is to be comfortable with multiple cultures.
The problem with it is; it doesn’t work
What is the alternative?
For example, Jews were expelled from England in the 13th century, but they were allowed back in the 17th, and since then they have been allowed to retain their culture and practice their religion.
What do people who refuse to tolerate different cultures in this country actually want? Do they want those with different cultures to be expelled, or do they want forced cultural assimilation?
People blather on about British values, but how is either of those consistent with British values?
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
In short, multi culturalism has failed
Hardly surprising, even the people behind the experiment admit they hadn’t properly thought it through.
Yes, multiculturalism is a desperate failure. We have basically fucked the country for a stupid theory dreamed up by cranks
The unfucking will be difficult and messy, but someone will eventually have to do it. We will see the same pattern repeated across Europe
I don’t see how the unfucking is possible. Google a speech called “The Road to National Suicide”. Made 47 years ago, by… you know who. He thought it possible, but now it’s too late
For all this, the other day I was with my children over a park in outer London and they were playing with another young boy. My Dad & I got chatting with the parents who were from Syhlet in Bangladesh, but living in Rainham. Lovely people and we all went to the cafe afterwards for Hot Chocolate and cake. The Mum was talking to her boy in Bangladeshi and English which should have wound me up if we are talking about stats I’d read in a paper, but it didn’t & I found myself noting the irony of what I say on here and what I was doing in real life that day.
But, sad to say it, I don’t think extrapolating my experience last week equals life in cities on the whole
It probably does, you know. On an individual basis we as a nation, or rather sensible people in this nation have no problem with different cultures.
But talk about something like "white flight" and everyone gets up in arms.
We used to have a poster on here who was very het up about white flight and the "character" of a neighbourhood.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
If I understand correctly, British immigration of late has been at a *larger scale*, per capita, than anything experienced in American history.
It’s mind-boggling.
You understand correctly. More people are coming into Britain - per capita - than came into America during the 1890s or 1920s or any time in the history of the USA
Voters are only just noticing this. We discussed this yesterday. British voters UNDERestimate the scale of inwards migration by about 500%. But now they are beginning to see
It could get messy
Of course it could; and it seems vital that it doesn't. There is lots of discussion as to how to 'stop the boats' (as if that were numerically where the problem lay - which it isn't); and some discussion of reducing the future numbers generally and all that. But suppose the real problem in the mind of many - Tory and Reform voters but not only them - is not stopping the future stuff, but the reality and consequences of that which has already occurred.
At the moment this is only discussed in a proxy form - stopping the future stuff takes its place as a substitute. GB News, Suella, Patel, Reform, The Tory Right etc stick firmly to that agenda, making all their efforts look, as they are, pointless. But will that sticking plaster stick?
The German discussion of deportation shows where this could easily end up, unless we are lucky
No western society will tolerate itself becoming, say, 30-40% Muslim, because at that point the country will be transformed into something utterly unrecognisable - and non western. This is not Islamophobia, westermers want to live in a western country, that is all
Yet the vast migration continues and the demographic trends are relentless
So implacable force :: immovable object? Something will give
The best possible outcome would be for Islam to suddenly experience an Enlightenment, and for its conservative trends to disappear, then integration would be infinitely easier - but there seems no sign of that, sadly
I saw signs of it in East London, as a councillor meeting many Muslim sixth formers. They seemed acutely aware that they lived in two worlds - the relatively conservative environment of their family, and the liberal/western viewpoint of their school (and the internet), and carried what they saw as the future responsibility of their generation to marry the two, surprisingly heavily.
The immigrants in my immediate family saw multiculturalism as exclusionary - “You can’t be British, you are supposed to remain in your culture”
The whole point of multiculturalism is to be comfortable with multiple cultures.
The problem with it is; it doesn’t work
But your example earlier was of it working.
Yes, on an individual basis in a friendly environment of course, most people are friendly, that’s normal. That’s not multiculturalism working!!! That’s a crazy interpretation. People from different races & religions can be best friends, that’s true since the dawn of time. I’m sure there are many examples people on here could give.
But that’s completely different from expecting a country to adapt to its whole identity being changed
I would add that if you want to live in a liberal democratic country, you need to make an active pitch of a common culture based on those values.
Otherwise, if you bring together multiple cultures, geographically, you will have Balkanisation.
There’s a reason that is not considered ideal.
Think Switzerland - where the French, Italians and Germans live together in harmony, creating what most observers would regard as a functional and pleasant society.
Remarkable that this isn't getting more attention. A school states it may close and move to online learning because of threats being made. Or do people just shrug their shoulders and say 'just another school in London.'
Not just London. A school in Burton had to close for the afternoon a couple of years back for similar reasons.
What is the country coming too?
We had teachers back in the day who would have beaten the **** out of a student for less than that with no recourse.
Perhaps hangers and floggers like Jenrick, Priti and Suella are indeed onto something.
If we behave like that as a nation
Not sure what you mean by that? Or just another attempt by a mainstream leftie to deflect attention away from thuggish men making threats against schools.
Public safety for a school should not directly be a matter for the school at all, which, as long as it is acting lawfully, should be allowed to get on with its daily life. Those who don't like its lawful policies will find another school more to their liking. It is the police, not schools, who are our law enforcers.
If law enforcers and politicians are pusillanimous in protecting heads and others making judgements and acting for the general good chaos will ensue and schools will be intimidated into pandering to aggressive groups who make and imply threats.
To be fair, we won't know whether the policy is lawful until the judge has judged.
The policy being that this is a secular school, with no prayer room, and religious bullying is not tolerated.
It’s also the best school in the whole country, in terms of improving the lot of kids from poor backgrounds.
Edit: more important is the wider question of allowing ‘pupils’ who are definitely not supported by religious activist groups to sue schools, and for considerable amounts of public money to end up being spent arguing both sides of such a case, distracting the leadership of the school from their primary mission of educating the kids.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
If I understand correctly, British immigration of late has been at a *larger scale*, per capita, than anything experienced in American history.
It’s mind-boggling.
You understand correctly. More people are coming into Britain - per capita - than came into America during the 1890s or 1920s or any time in the history of the USA
Voters are only just noticing this. We discussed this yesterday. British voters UNDERestimate the scale of inwards migration by about 500%. But now they are beginning to see
It could get messy
Of course it could; and it seems vital that it doesn't. There is lots of discussion as to how to 'stop the boats' (as if that were numerically where the problem lay - which it isn't); and some discussion of reducing the future numbers generally and all that. But suppose the real problem in the mind of many - Tory and Reform voters but not only them - is not stopping the future stuff, but the reality and consequences of that which has already occurred.
At the moment this is only discussed in a proxy form - stopping the future stuff takes its place as a substitute. GB News, Suella, Patel, Reform, The Tory Right etc stick firmly to that agenda, making all their efforts look, as they are, pointless. But will that sticking plaster stick?
The German discussion of deportation shows where this could easily end up, unless we are lucky
No western society will tolerate itself becoming, say, 30-40% Muslim, because at that point the country will be transformed into something utterly unrecognisable - and non western. This is not Islamophobia, westermers want to live in a western country, that is all
Yet the vast migration continues and the demographic trends are relentless
So implacable force :: immovable object? Something will give
The best possible outcome would be for Islam to suddenly experience an Enlightenment, and for its conservative trends to disappear, then integration would be infinitely easier - but there seems no sign of that, sadly
I saw signs of it in East London, as a councillor meeting many Muslim sixth formers. They seemed acutely aware that they lived in two worlds - the relatively conservative environment of their family, and the liberal/western viewpoint of their school (and the internet), and carried what they saw as the future responsibility of their generation to marry the two, surprisingly heavily.
Well that is some small reason for very cautious optimism, in what can otherwise be a bleak debate
A good moment to bow out, as it is late late late here, in sultry Phnom Penh
Nightynight
Not sure if this article on the BBC has been quoted in discussion, the idea of banning AfD in Germany. As if that is a good solution to the issue.
Douglas Murray has been saying that the danger is that eventually all this culminates in a nativist revolt, and a theme in his recent work is warning about this. 'Far right' parties are a way of addressing the issue by vocalising concerns. If you try and bury the concerns, ie by outlawing them through "hate speech" legislation, the eventual revolt just gets more nasty and brutal.
I don't think the AfD will be banned, and the article shows little support for that. However, given its history, it's hardly surprising that a lot of German people are concerned about the rise of a political party that explains that country's challenges by focusing on 'outgroups' and what to do about them.
Despite what Douglas Murray says, it doesn't take much to transform from 'vocalising concerns' to beating the shit out of immigrants, for those who are susceptible to such ideas.
Where's the proof that multiculturalism doesn't work ? It works in the country that, effectively, invented it, Canada.
Both greater acceptance of immigrants and slightly greater enthusiasm for integration than here. Having said all that, the UK and Holland are probably actually already the two most successfully multicultural countries of Europe, and at times it already works well enough, here. A lot of all that also might be affected by what one means by the word, too, ofcourse. To me successful multiculturalism is the kind of very successful two-way street that you do see in places in Britain.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
In short, multi culturalism has failed
Hardly surprising, even the people behind the experiment admit they hadn’t properly thought it through.
Yes, multiculturalism is a desperate failure. We have basically fucked the country for a stupid theory dreamed up by cranks
The unfucking will be difficult and messy, but someone will eventually have to do it. We will see the same pattern repeated across Europe
I don’t see how the unfucking is possible. Google a speech called “The Road to National Suicide”. Made 47 years ago, by… you know who. He thought it possible, but now it’s too late
For all this, the other day I was with my children over a park in outer London and they were playing with another young boy. My Dad & I got chatting with the parents who were from Syhlet in Bangladesh, but living in Rainham. Lovely people and we all went to the cafe afterwards for Hot Chocolate and cake. The Mum was talking to her boy in Bangladeshi and English which should have wound me up if we are talking about stats I’d read in a paper, but it didn’t & I found myself noting the irony of what I say on here and what I was doing in real life that day.
But, sad to say it, I don’t think extrapolating my experience last week equals life in cities on the whole
It probably does, you know. On an individual basis we as a nation, or rather sensible people in this nation have no problem with different cultures.
But talk about something like "white flight" and everyone gets up in arms.
We used to have a poster on here who was very het up about white flight and the "character" of a neighbourhood.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
If I understand correctly, British immigration of late has been at a *larger scale*, per capita, than anything experienced in American history.
It’s mind-boggling.
You understand correctly. More people are coming into Britain - per capita - than came into America during the 1890s or 1920s or any time in the history of the USA
Voters are only just noticing this. We discussed this yesterday. British voters UNDERestimate the scale of inwards migration by about 500%. But now they are beginning to see
It could get messy
Of course it could; and it seems vital that it doesn't. There is lots of discussion as to how to 'stop the boats' (as if that were numerically where the problem lay - which it isn't); and some discussion of reducing the future numbers generally and all that. But suppose the real problem in the mind of many - Tory and Reform voters but not only them - is not stopping the future stuff, but the reality and consequences of that which has already occurred.
At the moment this is only discussed in a proxy form - stopping the future stuff takes its place as a substitute. GB News, Suella, Patel, Reform, The Tory Right etc stick firmly to that agenda, making all their efforts look, as they are, pointless. But will that sticking plaster stick?
The German discussion of deportation shows where this could easily end up, unless we are lucky
No western society will tolerate itself becoming, say, 30-40% Muslim, because at that point the country will be transformed into something utterly unrecognisable - and non western. This is not Islamophobia, westermers want to live in a western country, that is all
Yet the vast migration continues and the demographic trends are relentless
So implacable force :: immovable object? Something will give
The best possible outcome would be for Islam to suddenly experience an Enlightenment, and for its conservative trends to disappear, then integration would be infinitely easier - but there seems no sign of that, sadly
I saw signs of it in East London, as a councillor meeting many Muslim sixth formers. They seemed acutely aware that they lived in two worlds - the relatively conservative environment of their family, and the liberal/western viewpoint of their school (and the internet), and carried what they saw as the future responsibility of their generation to marry the two, surprisingly heavily.
The immigrants in my immediate family saw multiculturalism as exclusionary - “You can’t be British, you are supposed to remain in your culture”
The whole point of multiculturalism is to be comfortable with multiple cultures.
The problem with it is; it doesn’t work
But your example earlier was of it working.
Yes, on an individual basis in a friendly environment of course, most people are friendly, that’s normal. That’s not multiculturalism working!!! That’s a crazy interpretation. People from different races & religions can be best friends, that’s true since the dawn of time. I’m sure there are many examples people on here could give.
But that’s completely different from expecting a whole country to adapt to its whole identity being changed
No it isn't, socialising across cultures is obviously not the entirety of multiculturalism, but it is the usual entrypoint.
No culture is set in aspic, they constantly evolve, merge, and take on new traits.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
In short, multi culturalism has failed
Hardly surprising, even the people behind the experiment admit they hadn’t properly thought it through.
Yes, multiculturalism is a desperate failure. We have basically fucked the country for a stupid theory dreamed up by cranks
The unfucking will be difficult and messy, but someone will eventually have to do it. We will see the same pattern repeated across Europe
I agree with you but would ask why it hasn’t worked here but in the US it has - a huge proportion of people in the US identify as “something-American”, so Irish American, Italian American etc. they all have large areas where certain immigrant communities settled and still are prevalent. You have areas of high Swedish, German, Spanish immigrant domination. The languages are often still spoken alongside English. Cultural events, shops, religious buildings are all there and yet for some reason they are insanely proud “Americans”. They will all be shouting “USA, USA, USA”. They will sing the national anthem as proudly as any WASP, daughter of the revolution, anyone who is American.
What has happened where this sort of American multiculturalism has made being “American” the ultimate identity to them where in the UK it’s almost an embarrassment or actively disliked to identify as ultimately “British” wherever you or your ancestors hailed from?
The American elite, until recently, loved America
In Britain the intellectual elite has despised Britain for a century. As Orwell noted:
"England is perhaps the only great country whose intellectuals are ashamed of their own nationality. In left-wing circles it is always felt that there is something slightly disgraceful in being an Englishman and that it is a duty to snigger at every English institution, from horse racing to suet puddings. It is a strange fact, but it is unquestionably true that almost any English intellectual would feel more ashamed of standing to attention during “God Save the King” than of stealing from a poor box.’
Liberals everywhere (I am a liberal) cringe at lumpen patriotism. I don’t think this is a uniquely British thing.
As for the Orwell quote, someone seems to post this about once a month. We need a counter or something.
It is regularly quoted because it is absolutely true, and startling that it was true as long ago as 1940, when he wrote it. And Orwell was on the left, he knew whereof he spake
Incidentally I see this British disease - elite contempt for their own country - has finally infected America. and badly. Woke distate for white America, its contempt for the Founding Fathers, the attempt to trash American history and values as all racist and evil, it's the exact same thing coming from the very same people. The academic and "intellectual" left
The difference in America is that the right is much less supine, it is armed and numerous and willing to vote for nutters like Trump, if that is what it takes to fight back
Trump is part of the same disease. He’s a coward, far more interested in persecuting enemies at home, than sticking up for the US abroad.
I don't agree with rhat analysis of Trump, I think he's a painful narcissist, often ludicrous and nearly always vulgar. But I also think he has a basic patriotism, inasmuch as he believes in America Inc, and wants it to win the best deals - not least coz that reflects well on him
He doesn't give much of a fuck about democracy, tho, and he is also now showing signs of senility, like Biden before him
What a choice. Perhaps the worst electoral choice ever offered to a great western nation in modern history?
Although, May v Corbyn was not exactly a high point, either
With respect, you're too relaxed about Trump. Everything about him - the grandiosity, the lying about everything, appaling personal morality, contempt for the constitution, cult of the leader, ignorance, grievance mongering, saluting of the flag - you name it really, is basically fascist. We need to understand this - and pray for Joe Biden.
…to stand aside for someone more suitable?
If there was someone... but at this moment, there isn't. Not if "has best chance of beating Trump" is the main criterion, which is damn well ought to be.
And if they're both far too old to do the job, ask yourself this. Which one is more likely to be a late Reganite "it's mid afternoon in America, time for me to take a nap" President who leaves the real.work to others? And who is insisting on being the Great I Am who is going to destroy all the insufficiently loyal minions?
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
In short, multi culturalism has failed
Hardly surprising, even the people behind the experiment admit they hadn’t properly thought it through.
Yes, multiculturalism is a desperate failure. We have basically fucked the country for a stupid theory dreamed up by cranks
The unfucking will be difficult and messy, but someone will eventually have to do it. We will see the same pattern repeated across Europe
I don’t see how the unfucking is possible. Google a speech called “The Road to National Suicide”. Made 47 years ago, by… you know who. He thought it possible, but now it’s too late
For all this, the other day I was with my children over a park in outer London and they were playing with another young boy. My Dad & I got chatting with the parents who were from Syhlet in Bangladesh, but living in Rainham. Lovely people and we all went to the cafe afterwards for Hot Chocolate and cake. The Mum was talking to her boy in Bangladeshi and English which should have wound me up if we are talking about stats I’d read in a paper, but it didn’t & I found myself noting the irony of what I say on here and what I was doing in real life that day.
But, sad to say it, I don’t think extrapolating my experience last week equals life in cities on the whole
It probably does, you know. On an individual basis we as a nation, or rather sensible people in this nation have no problem with different cultures.
But talk about something like "white flight" and everyone gets up in arms.
We used to have a poster on here who was very het up about white flight and the "character" of a neighbourhood.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
If I understand correctly, British immigration of late has been at a *larger scale*, per capita, than anything experienced in American history.
It’s mind-boggling.
You understand correctly. More people are coming into Britain - per capita - than came into America during the 1890s or 1920s or any time in the history of the USA
Voters are only just noticing this. We discussed this yesterday. British voters UNDERestimate the scale of inwards migration by about 500%. But now they are beginning to see
It could get messy
Of course it could; and it seems vital that it doesn't. There is lots of discussion as to how to 'stop the boats' (as if that were numerically where the problem lay - which it isn't); and some discussion of reducing the future numbers generally and all that. But suppose the real problem in the mind of many - Tory and Reform voters but not only them - is not stopping the future stuff, but the reality and consequences of that which has already occurred.
At the moment this is only discussed in a proxy form - stopping the future stuff takes its place as a substitute. GB News, Suella, Patel, Reform, The Tory Right etc stick firmly to that agenda, making all their efforts look, as they are, pointless. But will that sticking plaster stick?
The German discussion of deportation shows where this could easily end up, unless we are lucky
No western society will tolerate itself becoming, say, 30-40% Muslim, because at that point the country will be transformed into something utterly unrecognisable - and non western. This is not Islamophobia, westermers want to live in a western country, that is all
Yet the vast migration continues and the demographic trends are relentless
So implacable force :: immovable object? Something will give
The best possible outcome would be for Islam to suddenly experience an Enlightenment, and for its conservative trends to disappear, then integration would be infinitely easier - but there seems no sign of that, sadly
I saw signs of it in East London, as a councillor meeting many Muslim sixth formers. They seemed acutely aware that they lived in two worlds - the relatively conservative environment of their family, and the liberal/western viewpoint of their school (and the internet), and carried what they saw as the future responsibility of their generation to marry the two, surprisingly heavily.
The immigrants in my immediate family saw multiculturalism as exclusionary - “You can’t be British, you are supposed to remain in your culture”
The whole point of multiculturalism is to be comfortable with multiple cultures.
The problem with it is; it doesn’t work
But your example earlier was of it working.
Yes, on an individual basis in a friendly environment of course, most people are friendly, that’s normal. That’s not multiculturalism working!!! That’s a crazy interpretation. People from different races & religions can be best friends, that’s true since the dawn of time. I’m sure there are many examples people on here could give.
But that’s completely different from expecting a country to adapt to its whole identity being changed
A country is nothing more than a collection of individuals. It - its history and culture and literature - was invented by individuals. And one day - no matter what the country is - it will cease to exist. One day, indeed, there will not be a single human being that has even heard the word "Britain".
With that said... nations have proved the best way (so far) for humans to organize themselves.
Though the idea of "nations" being culturally distict and sovereign is a relatively recent one, generally said to have begun with the treaty of Westphalia in 1648.
Prior to that allegiance was familial, and to monarch, and most kingdoms were explicitly multicultural*, up to a century ago with the disintegration of the multicultural empires of the Ottomans and Austro-Hungarians. It isn't obvious that ethnic states were dramatically better for their citizens than what went before.
For that matter, Britain is explicitly multicultural too, comprising the distinct Welsh, Scottish and English cultures.
*albeit often with an ethnic or religious group dominating.
Is there, or was there historically, an ‘English’, as opposed to, for example, a Yorkshire or Geordie culture?
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
If I understand correctly, British immigration of late has been at a *larger scale*, per capita, than anything experienced in American history.
It’s mind-boggling.
You understand correctly. More people are coming into Britain - per capita - than came into America during the 1890s or 1920s or any time in the history of the USA
Voters are only just noticing this. We discussed this yesterday. British voters UNDERestimate the scale of inwards migration by about 500%. But now they are beginning to see
It could get messy
Of course it could; and it seems vital that it doesn't. There is lots of discussion as to how to 'stop the boats' (as if that were numerically where the problem lay - which it isn't); and some discussion of reducing the future numbers generally and all that. But suppose the real problem in the mind of many - Tory and Reform voters but not only them - is not stopping the future stuff, but the reality and consequences of that which has already occurred.
At the moment this is only discussed in a proxy form - stopping the future stuff takes its place as a substitute. GB News, Suella, Patel, Reform, The Tory Right etc stick firmly to that agenda, making all their efforts look, as they are, pointless. But will that sticking plaster stick?
The German discussion of deportation shows where this could easily end up, unless we are lucky
No western society will tolerate itself becoming, say, 30-40% Muslim, because at that point the country will be transformed into something utterly unrecognisable - and non western. This is not Islamophobia, westermers want to live in a western country, that is all
Yet the vast migration continues and the demographic trends are relentless
So implacable force :: immovable object? Something will give
The best possible outcome would be for Islam to suddenly experience an Enlightenment, and for its conservative trends to disappear, then integration would be infinitely easier - but there seems no sign of that, sadly
I saw signs of it in East London, as a councillor meeting many Muslim sixth formers. They seemed acutely aware that they lived in two worlds - the relatively conservative environment of their family, and the liberal/western viewpoint of their school (and the internet), and carried what they saw as the future responsibility of their generation to marry the two, surprisingly heavily.
The immigrants in my immediate family saw multiculturalism as exclusionary - “You can’t be British, you are supposed to remain in your culture”
The whole point of multiculturalism is to be comfortable with multiple cultures.
The problem with it is; it doesn’t work
What is the alternative?
For example, Jews were expelled from England in the 13th century, but they were allowed back in the 17th, and since then they have been allowed to retain their culture and practice their religion.
What do people who refuse to tolerate different cultures in this country actually want? Do they want those with different cultures to be expelled, or do they want forced cultural assimilation?
People blather on about British values, but how is either of those consistent with British values?
I personally never blather on about British values. I wouldn’t consider myself a patriotic person, it seems a bit odd to be proud of something just because you happened to have been born there.
I don’t know that people refuse to tolerate different cultures, it’s more that they wish those cultures weren’t there, mainly because they feel it’s made their lives more difficult
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
In short, multi culturalism has failed
Hardly surprising, even the people behind the experiment admit they hadn’t properly thought it through.
Yes, multiculturalism is a desperate failure. We have basically fucked the country for a stupid theory dreamed up by cranks
The unfucking will be difficult and messy, but someone will eventually have to do it. We will see the same pattern repeated across Europe
I don’t see how the unfucking is possible. Google a speech called “The Road to National Suicide”. Made 47 years ago, by… you know who. He thought it possible, but now it’s too late
For all this, the other day I was with my children over a park in outer London and they were playing with another young boy. My Dad & I got chatting with the parents who were from Syhlet in Bangladesh, but living in Rainham. Lovely people and we all went to the cafe afterwards for Hot Chocolate and cake. The Mum was talking to her boy in Bangladeshi and English which should have wound me up if we are talking about stats I’d read in a paper, but it didn’t & I found myself noting the irony of what I say on here and what I was doing in real life that day.
But, sad to say it, I don’t think extrapolating my experience last week equals life in cities on the whole
It probably does, you know. On an individual basis we as a nation, or rather sensible people in this nation have no problem with different cultures.
But talk about something like "white flight" and everyone gets up in arms.
We used to have a poster on here who was very het up about white flight and the "character" of a neighbourhood.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
If I understand correctly, British immigration of late has been at a *larger scale*, per capita, than anything experienced in American history.
It’s mind-boggling.
You understand correctly. More people are coming into Britain - per capita - than came into America during the 1890s or 1920s or any time in the history of the USA
Voters are only just noticing this. We discussed this yesterday. British voters UNDERestimate the scale of inwards migration by about 500%. But now they are beginning to see
It could get messy
Of course it could; and it seems vital that it doesn't. There is lots of discussion as to how to 'stop the boats' (as if that were numerically where the problem lay - which it isn't); and some discussion of reducing the future numbers generally and all that. But suppose the real problem in the mind of many - Tory and Reform voters but not only them - is not stopping the future stuff, but the reality and consequences of that which has already occurred.
At the moment this is only discussed in a proxy form - stopping the future stuff takes its place as a substitute. GB News, Suella, Patel, Reform, The Tory Right etc stick firmly to that agenda, making all their efforts look, as they are, pointless. But will that sticking plaster stick?
The German discussion of deportation shows where this could easily end up, unless we are lucky
No western society will tolerate itself becoming, say, 30-40% Muslim, because at that point the country will be transformed into something utterly unrecognisable - and non western. This is not Islamophobia, westermers want to live in a western country, that is all
Yet the vast migration continues and the demographic trends are relentless
So implacable force :: immovable object? Something will give
The best possible outcome would be for Islam to suddenly experience an Enlightenment, and for its conservative trends to disappear, then integration would be infinitely easier - but there seems no sign of that, sadly
I saw signs of it in East London, as a councillor meeting many Muslim sixth formers. They seemed acutely aware that they lived in two worlds - the relatively conservative environment of their family, and the liberal/western viewpoint of their school (and the internet), and carried what they saw as the future responsibility of their generation to marry the two, surprisingly heavily.
The immigrants in my immediate family saw multiculturalism as exclusionary - “You can’t be British, you are supposed to remain in your culture”
The whole point of multiculturalism is to be comfortable with multiple cultures.
The problem with it is; it doesn’t work
But your example earlier was of it working.
Yes, on an individual basis in a friendly environment of course, most people are friendly, that’s normal. That’s not multiculturalism working!!! That’s a crazy interpretation. People from different races & religions can be best friends, that’s true since the dawn of time. I’m sure there are many examples people on here could give.
But that’s completely different from expecting a country to adapt to its whole identity being changed
A country is nothing more than a collection of individuals. It - its history and culture and literature - was invented by individuals. And one day - no matter what the country is - it will cease to exist. One day, indeed, there will not be a single human being that has even heard the word "Britain".
With that said... nations have proved the best way (so far) for humans to organize themselves.
Though the idea of "nations" being culturally distict and sovereign is a relatively recent one, generally said to have begun with the treaty of Westphalia in 1648.
Prior to that allegiance was familial, and to monarch, and most kingdoms were explicitly multicultural*, up to a century ago with the disintegration of the multicultural empires of the Ottomans and Austro-Hungarians. It isn't obvious that ethnic states were dramatically better for their citizens than what went before.
For that matter, Britain is explicitly multicultural too, comprising the distinct Welsh, Scottish and English cultures.
*albeit often with an ethnic or religious group dominating.
Is there, or was there historically, an ‘English’, as opposed to, for example, a Yorkshire or Geordie culture?
Cultures are rather fractal!
Is there a single Yorkshire or Geordie culture? Or is the culture of a pit village different to that of the Dales?
Where's the proof that multiculturalosm doesn't work ? It works in the country that, effectively, invented it, Canada.
Both greater acceptance of immigrants and slightly greater enthusiasm for integration than here. Having said all that, the UK and Holland are probably actually already the two most successfully multicultural countries of Europe, and at times it already works well enough, here. A lot of all that also might hinge on what one means by the word, too, ofcourse. To me successful multiculturalism is the kind of very successful two-way street that you do see in places in Britain.
Agree. In this country, one hears an awful lot about occasional instances of multiculturalism not working, and relations not being harmonious. But, of course, the millions and millions of daily interactions where people of different cultures rub along just fine aren't newsworthy.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
If I understand correctly, British immigration of late has been at a *larger scale*, per capita, than anything experienced in American history.
It’s mind-boggling.
You understand correctly. More people are coming into Britain - per capita - than came into America during the 1890s or 1920s or any time in the history of the USA
Voters are only just noticing this. We discussed this yesterday. British voters UNDERestimate the scale of inwards migration by about 500%. But now they are beginning to see
It could get messy
Of course it could; and it seems vital that it doesn't. There is lots of discussion as to how to 'stop the boats' (as if that were numerically where the problem lay - which it isn't); and some discussion of reducing the future numbers generally and all that. But suppose the real problem in the mind of many - Tory and Reform voters but not only them - is not stopping the future stuff, but the reality and consequences of that which has already occurred.
At the moment this is only discussed in a proxy form - stopping the future stuff takes its place as a substitute. GB News, Suella, Patel, Reform, The Tory Right etc stick firmly to that agenda, making all their efforts look, as they are, pointless. But will that sticking plaster stick?
The German discussion of deportation shows where this could easily end up, unless we are lucky
No western society will tolerate itself becoming, say, 30-40% Muslim, because at that point the country will be transformed into something utterly unrecognisable - and non western. This is not Islamophobia, westermers want to live in a western country, that is all
Yet the vast migration continues and the demographic trends are relentless
So implacable force :: immovable object? Something will give
The best possible outcome would be for Islam to suddenly experience an Enlightenment, and for its conservative trends to disappear, then integration would be infinitely easier - but there seems no sign of that, sadly
I saw signs of it in East London, as a councillor meeting many Muslim sixth formers. They seemed acutely aware that they lived in two worlds - the relatively conservative environment of their family, and the liberal/western viewpoint of their school (and the internet), and carried what they saw as the future responsibility of their generation to marry the two, surprisingly heavily.
The immigrants in my immediate family saw multiculturalism as exclusionary - “You can’t be British, you are supposed to remain in your culture”
The whole point of multiculturalism is to be comfortable with multiple cultures.
The problem with it is; it doesn’t work
What is the alternative?
For example, Jews were expelled from England in the 13th century, but they were allowed back in the 17th, and since then they have been allowed to retain their culture and practice their religion.
What do people who refuse to tolerate different cultures in this country actually want? Do they want those with different cultures to be expelled, or do they want forced cultural assimilation?
People blather on about British values, but how is either of those consistent with British values?
I think the idea that you can move to a new country, live their without bothering to learn the language and expect services to cater for your inability to speak said language is an example. Nobody expects immigrants to immediately become clones of Brits in everything they do, but an expectation of speaking the language is reasonable. Having multiple cultures introduced the U.K. has been largely beneficial, not least for the sheer diversity of the diet and the vitality of the creative arts. But it’s naive to imagine there are no downsides to large numbers of incomes who do not attempt to assimilate at all, and often seem to hold British values of toleration (religious, sexual etc) in contempt.
When I first started travelling to Finland over a decade ago it had a 'far right' party, the 'true Finns', which were at points the second biggest party, albeit in a multi-party PR system. However I have always had the impression that this party have a high level of respect in society and culture even though they are privately detested by a lot of people. A lot of effort was made to integrate them in to the political system. There was never the situation with the AfD or the Sweden Democrats where there was an attempt to freeze the 'far right' out of politics ending in abysmal failure and an inevitable forced U turn. Their successors are still around and part of the government now. Certainly things are not perfect in Finland but as a result of this presence in politics there was more caution about migration and the situation now seems to be a lot better than Sweden and Germany.
I am waiting patiently for the moment when you call AI a "robust" system.
And then I will throw a lot of Post Office-flavoured ordure at you.
No system - not even AI - is or ever will be 100% correct or entirely reliable and those who think that every thing can be outsourced to any such system or that it alone can be relied on are being the biggest bloody fools around.
At some stage, and it’s not entirely clear when, the British governing class abandoned the British national *project*.
I think David Edgerton is probably the best writer on this, his thesis is that 1945 represented the creation of a new British state that was - contra to received opinion - surprisingly advanced and puissant - but that the neo-liberal age since 1979 has seen its slow and now rapid dismantlement.
Why should Britain retain the ability to manufacture steel? Why should Britain maintain armed forces and be concerned about Russian aggression? Why shouldn’t it import a million immigrants a year? Why shouldn’t Scotland go its own way? Why shouldn’t Britain run a massive trade deficit? Why should we keep the BBC?
The modern dispensation barely knows how to answer these questions.
That sounds as if it is up there with Ken Loach's Spirit Of '45 stuff? Deride the turn taken post-1979 all you want but to pretend it all came out of nowhere...........
Some posters may be overly focused on 1979 as the turning point. The point still stands: the British governing class don’t seem to really care about *Britain*.
This is not even a left or right point, as it seems widely prevalent.
I quite agree. Our governing class cares largely about the fruits of office.
But, the decay in the calibre of governing classes seems widespread in rich world countries. There’s no comparison between the leaders of 30 years ago, and the dross we have today.
A subtly different point, with which I agree.
My point is more that Britain lacks a sense of national project. So the government keeps making decisions that are essentially corrosive of British identity and longer-term prosperity.
For what should be obvious reasons, this diagnosis doesn’t apply to the US and NZ.
The obvious reason (British identity) is that USA and NZ are not British, but you imply there is more. Do let us into the secret.
Settler nations, founded in “modern” times.
Few in America doubt a sense of American destiny.
New Zealanders are all pretty clear that they have a unique cultural and geographical inheritance and that the world doesn’t owe them a living.
The huge scale of modern migration has not helped. Parts of Britain have gone from feeling like a homeland - a home - to feeling like a hotel. And quite a rundown hotel, with too many guests. Everything has an air of transience. The fridge has milk bottles with names on
This is NOT the fault of immigrants, it is however what happens with epochal-scale immigration. America knew this so it made damn sure the migrants all went in the melting pot (at least until recently) and forced them to BECOME Americans, with shared rituals, devotions and holidays - from July 4th to Thanksgiving. Multiculti Britain does not do that
Everyone lurks in their own room, playing very different video games
If I understand correctly, British immigration of late has been at a *larger scale*, per capita, than anything experienced in American history.
It’s mind-boggling.
You understand correctly. More people are coming into Britain - per capita - than came into America during the 1890s or 1920s or any time in the history of the USA
Voters are only just noticing this. We discussed this yesterday. British voters UNDERestimate the scale of inwards migration by about 500%. But now they are beginning to see
It could get messy
Of course it could; and it seems vital that it doesn't. There is lots of discussion as to how to 'stop the boats' (as if that were numerically where the problem lay - which it isn't); and some discussion of reducing the future numbers generally and all that. But suppose the real problem in the mind of many - Tory and Reform voters but not only them - is not stopping the future stuff, but the reality and consequences of that which has already occurred.
At the moment this is only discussed in a proxy form - stopping the future stuff takes its place as a substitute. GB News, Suella, Patel, Reform, The Tory Right etc stick firmly to that agenda, making all their efforts look, as they are, pointless. But will that sticking plaster stick?
The German discussion of deportation shows where this could easily end up, unless we are lucky
No western society will tolerate itself becoming, say, 30-40% Muslim, because at that point the country will be transformed into something utterly unrecognisable - and non western. This is not Islamophobia, westermers want to live in a western country, that is all
Yet the vast migration continues and the demographic trends are relentless
So implacable force :: immovable object? Something will give
The best possible outcome would be for Islam to suddenly experience an Enlightenment, and for its conservative trends to disappear, then integration would be infinitely easier - but there seems no sign of that, sadly
I saw signs of it in East London, as a councillor meeting many Muslim sixth formers. They seemed acutely aware that they lived in two worlds - the relatively conservative environment of their family, and the liberal/western viewpoint of their school (and the internet), and carried what they saw as the future responsibility of their generation to marry the two, surprisingly heavily.
The immigrants in my immediate family saw multiculturalism as exclusionary - “You can’t be British, you are supposed to remain in your culture”
The whole point of multiculturalism is to be comfortable with multiple cultures.
The problem with it is; it doesn’t work
What is the alternative?
For example, Jews were expelled from England in the 13th century, but they were allowed back in the 17th, and since then they have been allowed to retain their culture and practice their religion.
What do people who refuse to tolerate different cultures in this country actually want? Do they want those with different cultures to be expelled, or do they want forced cultural assimilation?
People blather on about British values, but how is either of those consistent with British values?
I think the idea that you can move to a new country, live their without bothering to learn the language and expect services to cater for your inability to speak said language is an example. Nobody expects immigrants to immediately become clones of Brits in everything they do, but an expectation of speaking the language is reasonable. Having multiple cultures introduced the U.K. has been largely beneficial, not least for the sheer diversity of the diet and the vitality of the creative arts. But it’s naive to imagine there are no downsides to large numbers of incomes who do not attempt to assimilate at all, and often seem to hold British values of toleration (religious, sexual etc) in contempt.
I agree, and countries do make learning the language etc compulsory as part of citizenship application. Indeed a Dutch colleague informed me that it is compulsory to be able to bicycle for a Dutch application!
Remarkable that this isn't getting more attention. A school states it may close and move to online learning because of threats being made. Or do people just shrug their shoulders and say 'just another school in London.'
Not just London. A school in Burton had to close for the afternoon a couple of years back for similar reasons.
What is the country coming too?
We had teachers back in the day who would have beaten the **** out of a student for less than that with no recourse.
Perhaps hangers and floggers like Jenrick, Priti and Suella are indeed onto something.
If we behave like that as a nation
Not sure what you mean by that? Or just another attempt by a mainstream leftie to deflect attention away from thuggish men making threats against schools.
Public safety for a school should not directly be a matter for the school at all, which, as long as it is acting lawfully, should be allowed to get on with its daily life. Those who don't like its lawful policies will find another school more to their liking. It is the police, not schools, who are our law enforcers.
If law enforcers and politicians are pusillanimous in protecting heads and others making judgements and acting for the general good chaos will ensue and schools will be intimidated into pandering to aggressive groups who make and imply threats.
To be fair, we won't know whether the policy is lawful until the judge has judged.
The policy being that this is a secular school, with no prayer room, and religious bullying is not tolerated.
It’s also the best school in the whole country, in terms of improving the lot of kids from poor backgrounds.
Edit: more important is the wider question of allowing ‘pupils’ who are definitely not supported by religious activist groups to sue schools, and for considerable amounts of public money to end up being spent arguing both sides of such a case, distracting the leadership of the school from their primary mission of educating the kids.
Both geographically and professionally, I'm closer to the situation than I understand you to be. And yes, MCS does what it does very well.
However, lots of secular places have prayer rooms. Airports, shopping centres, plenty of secular schools. It's saying "we, as a community, are not religious, but we respect that religious practices are part of who some of us are."
What Katharine Birbalsingh is arguing is that it's impossible for her school to provide such a space for short periods of time during the lunchtime period. Which follows from her school's approach of attempting to manage every minute of every day.
From today's Times,
The claimant says that she regards herself as on a break during that period … She says it looks like a break, it feels like a break and it is a break … That is not the school’s view. We say that is simply wrong.
Occupational hazard for teachers, to think "if only we could control more things, the outcomes would be better...
“We keep coming up against the fatal tension between the obvious political collapse of this government and the obvious unwillingness of Conservative MPs to put it out of its misery,” one rebel said. “That tension can’t hold for very long. It can only be resolved by removing the PM.”
The Conservatives face two by-elections in February, both of which they are expected to lose, followed by what Tory MPs fear will be a hugely damaging set of local election results. Time, the rebel argues, is running out. “The local elections are the hard stop — realistically we can’t really change after the end of May,” they said. “The party does need to come to this conclusion organically, but may also need a steer.”
I'm not sure what this anonymous rebel is saying. If they go past May then they can't bin Sunak before the GE? I'm pretty sure they can and probably should.
It’s a dice roll, but it’s hard to see anything getting better for them under Sunak. Of course, they could come out of it looking even more ludicrous and making it even worse.
They really made some terrible unforced errors by elevating Truss and Sunak. That said, who is the alternative who is going to be able to ride in and save the day?
Morning all! One benefit of the Tories endlessly swapping PM is that is has disarmed the notion that you vote for a PM. Presidential politics is unhelpful in our system. Perhaps the reason why recent Tory smears against Starmer and Davey haven’t worked is that people are voting for change, not the person.
If they bin off Sunak then the replacement won’t be Braverman. Too many people are prejudiced against people who aren’t as white and male as themselves.
The problem is the leader the right wants isn’t a Tory MP. They could install the ghosts of Powell or Moseley into an empty vessel (Jonathan Gillis perhaps) and the Nigel would still be the one they want.
Have to laugh. As the Tories head towards the abyss, the person they believe can win them victory won just under 4m votes at the height of his powers. Though if the Tory members would like to be down to 4m votes I think we shouldn’t stand in their way.
Strong point this. I deeply doubt that the current Tory membership would ever choose a non-white leader over a white one.
Not convinced with that. It is hard to see someone for instance like Barclay, Dowden or Gove winning a member vote against Badenoch or Braverman.
The whole discussion about whether the Tories would do better with or without a new leader is for the birds.
The party is toxic and riven between the ascendant GB News faction that feels the party isn’t toxic enough and the neutered One Nation faction that seems resigned to declaring the water to be wet as the ship goes down.
In the absence of a dynamic, charismatic figure that could unite the party, drag it back to its senses and persuade the public to give it a second look, the leadership is practically irrelevant.
Seriously, which of these prospects would make any difference at all (in the absence of a serious failure on the part of Labour)?
Anderson: too provocative Badenoch: too wild Barclay: too bland Braverman: too fired Cameron: too previous Cleverly: too gaffe-prone Dowden: too forgettable Farage: too outside Frost: too unelected Gove: too weird Hunt: too unpopular Johnson: too Johnson Mordaunt: too woke Shapps: too schizophrenic Truss: to the pub
You missed off the star of the show:
#Priti4Leader
Haha! Gosh, what an embarrassment of riches a richness of embarrassments they have to choose from! Here’s the updated list, with additions asterisked:
Anderson: too provocative Badenoch: too wild Barclay: too bland Braverman: too fired Cameron: too previous Cleverly: too gaffe-prone Farage: too outside Frost: too unelected Gove: too weird Hunt: too unpopular ***Jenrick: too cruel Johnson: too Johnson Mordaunt: too woke ***Patel: too sinister ***Rees-Mogg: too Victorian Shapps: too schizophrenic Truss: to the pub ***Tugendhat: Tugendhat
If I was a Tory (and thank Richard Dawkins I’m not), I’d want Tugendhat as the next leader out of that lot or even Mordaunt or Cleverly. I suspect they’ll actually go for Badenoch.
You mean the Minister Pretending Not To Be In Charge Of The Post Office?
She'd be great. She could pretend not to be in charge of the country.
In fairness she won't be. She will be LOTO. Any leadership change will come after the election, not before it.
This requires a rather different skill set. From what I have seen Mordaunt has a distinct lead on those skills, whether she can run a department or not. After all, there is little prospect of her ever running a department again.
There is no-one on the Tory side fit to run a car boot sale, frankly. Let alone the country. The current lot are tainted and/or useless.
Time for a new generation - assuming that they can find anyone and that those they do find are capable of and willing to do the hard thinking about what conservatism in the 21st century means. And speak some hard truths to the membership.
There is a fundamental problem with our politics in this and it is not just a Tory problem. A government gets elected with some decent leadership, say Blair and Brown or Cameron and Osborne. They are inexperienced and their team even more so so they inevitably make a lot of mistakes.
They remain in government for an extended period. Original thinkers burn out or get caught up with their ideas not being as clever as they think. Boring but competent managerial types climb the greasy poll. In extended periods, such as our last 3 governments who have all had more than a decade in power, they eventually reach the top. But they have nothing to say and no ideas of what to do.
So they lose to the opposition who by that time have lost all the vaguely competent or at least experienced types that were in the previous government and start the cycle again.
If government is to improve what do we do about this? In the late 60s and 70s we tried switching governments much more frequently. This meant they had some idea of how to govern but it also meant that we had policy chaos. British Steel switching back and forward between private and public ownership comes to mind.
I can set out the problem but I am frankly struggling for an answer.
Jumping in late so apologies if I have missed the discussion.
The fundamental issue is that our constitutional settlement dates to the 17th century when life was simpler and slower. The executive was small and almost part time. That is not feasible in the modern world.
You need to have a full time executive that can be drawn from wherever it is needed. It shouldn’t be limited to the members of the legislature. They have a different and important role: representing the interests of their constituents and scrutinising legislation.
The answer is to separate the roles.
1) have a directly elected head of government (potentially have a “slate” election - so you vote for a core team of, say, 5-6 individuals (PM, FS, Chancellor, HS, may be health and defence - other posts to be appointed).
2) The have the full powers of the executive as at present. Accountable to the legislature but not members of it, they have the prerogative rights but need to convince the legislature to pass laws.
3) Fixed terms for the executive - say 4 years - and a 2x term limit.
4) Independent legislature with two functions: accountability via committees and legislation via the House. Create a meaningful career path outside of cosying up to the government.
Lots of detail to be worked through but this addresses the main issues.
Errr:
That's the US system. And trust in it is much lower than trust in the UK system.
I am waiting patiently for the moment when you call AI a "robust" system.
And then I will throw a lot of Post Office-flavoured ordure at you.
No system - not even AI - is or ever will be 100% correct or entirely reliable and those who think that every thing can be outsourced to any such system or that it alone can be relied on are being the biggest bloody fools around.
I am sure self interest plays a part, if Trump can come back after losing office to Biden in 2020 Boris will think, why not him too if Rishi loses the next general election to Starmer
Russia's RZhD rail giant has apologised to the owners of a cat who died after being thrown off a company train by a conductor in freezing temperatures.
"We sincerely regret that the cat Twix died", the state-owned RZhD said, vowing to change its regulations.
Footage earlier emerged apparently showing the ginger-and-white cat being unceremoniously dumped into the snow in the central Kirov city on 11 January.
That’s not what he says in the clip. Personally I think that if anyone can get here, however, and qualifies for asylum, then they should stay.
It’s what it says in the article
“ After seeing off the right-wing revolt over his Rwanda scheme, Rishi Sunak claimed that the Labour opposition has “no plan” to stop the boats.
He is wrong. Labour has a credible plan – but doesn’t really want to talk about it.
After a below-the-radar diplomatic offensive with EU leaders by Keir Starmer and shadow ministers, there is growing confidence inside Labour that a Starmer government could secure a returns agreement with the EU to allow migrants crossing the Channel to be sent back to France.”
Comments
As for the Orwell quote, someone seems to post this about once a month. We need a counter or something.
Then the idiot who praises, with enthusiastic tone
All centuries but this, and every country but his own;
...I don't think she'd be missed — I'm sure she'd not be missed! (sic)
But, it doesn’t. What the hell is the benefit?
Incidentally I see this British disease - elite contempt for their own country - has finally infected America. and badly. Woke distate for white America, its contempt for the Founding Fathers, the attempt to trash American history and values as all racist and evil, it's the exact same thing coming from the very same people. The academic and "intellectual" left
The difference in America is that the right is much less supine, it is armed and numerous and willing to vote for nutters like Trump, if that is what it takes to fight back
A lot of right wingers selectively quote him to support ideas that would have been anathema to him.
In any case, he was an Englishman of his time, with many of the prejudices of his time, not an author of holy writ.
It is noticeably the PB right wingers that are rubbishing the state of the country and praising other countries, not the left, and completely ignoring the fact that they have been in charge these last 14 years, including the last two year of peak immigration!
If you edited Orwells comments to say right wing commentator rather than left wing intellectual it would be much closer to the truth.
Immigrants General 2024, 84,290
Imported people to wipe your parents’ backsides, feed them meals, administer their medicine to avoid you having to have them move in with you when they are needing help which would ruin your lifestyle 2024, 154,078.
Imported people to serve you coffee, drive your tube, clean your street 2024, 110,520.
Google a speech called “The Road to National Suicide”. Made 47 years ago, by… you know who. He thought it possible, but now it’s too late
For all this, the other day I was with my children over a park in outer London and they were playing with another young boy. My Dad & I got chatting with the parents who were from Syhlet in Bangladesh, but living in Rainham. Lovely people and we all went to the cafe afterwards for Hot Chocolate and cake. The Mum was talking to her boy in Bangladeshi and English which should have wound me up if we are talking about stats I’d read in a paper, but it didn’t & I found myself noting the irony of what I say on here and what I was doing in real life that day.
But, sad to say it, I don’t think extrapolating my experience last week equals life in cities on the whole
Population growth is entirely fine, so long as we invest accordingly to improve our infrastructure.
In the 50s and 60s we were investing in the country. Building homes, motorways and other investments that allowed us to absorb a growing population and ensure the existing population had improving living standards too.
The problem at the moment isn't that our population is growing faster than it has before, its simply not the case, but that the population is growing while our infrastructure is not which worsens living standards.
He doesn't give much of a fuck about democracy, tho, and he is also now showing signs of senility, like Biden before him
What a choice. Perhaps the worst electoral choice ever offered to a great western nation in modern history?
Although, May v Corbyn was not exactly a high point, either
The changes in recrruitment from the WW1 and peacetime norm to the more omnivorous type during WW2 are interesting. As is the utter spite and hatred which Evelyn Waugh, that snob and wannabe aristo, had for any not of the right sort: one thinks of Corporal and Captain Trimmer.
Ye Gods.
Only yesterday, Trump attacked Haley on the campaign trail.
Not that surprising right?
Until the bit where he accused Haley - the woman he'd made US Ambassador to the UN - of... errr... turning down 10,000 troops to defend the Capitol.
Wait. Is Trump confusing Haley and Pelosi?
Quite shameless, the thievery
Too many today want to insist that there is nothing wrong with people on their side of a political divide, while insisting that the other side is appalling. This leads to the problems with polarism which we have today, and which are much, much worse in America.
Orwell was a left-wing intellectual quite willing to identify flaws in left-wing intellectuals.
We should all aspire to have such integrity.
*none
The fundamental issue is that our constitutional settlement dates to the 17th century when life was simpler and slower. The executive was small and almost part time. That is not feasible in the modern world.
You need to have a full time executive that can be drawn from wherever it is needed. It shouldn’t be limited to the members of the legislature. They have a different and important role: representing the interests of their constituents and scrutinising legislation.
The answer is to separate the roles.
1) have a directly elected head of government (potentially have a “slate” election - so you vote for a core team of, say, 5-6 individuals (PM, FS, Chancellor, HS, may be health and defence - other posts to be appointed).
2) The have the full powers of the executive as at present. Accountable to the legislature but not members of it, they have the prerogative rights but need to convince the legislature to pass laws.
3) Fixed terms for the executive - say 4 years - and a 2x term limit.
4) Independent legislature with two functions: accountability via committees and legislation via the House. Create a meaningful career path outside of cosying up to the government.
Lots of detail to be worked through but this addresses the main issues.
He reminds me of Ronald Reagan, absent mindedly greeting his own Secretary for Housing with 'Good evening Mr Mayor, and it's great to see you at the White House.'
(It was a reception for mayors, in Reagan's defence, but still a remarkable faux pas.)
*That was oh-so-nearly Haley and Pence...which would have been somewhat amusing for everyone else.
Pictured: the Post Office victims who died without justice
Many suffered in silence for years and some wrongly died in shame. These are their stories
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/post-office-scandal-victims-died-without-justice-lhpxj0hp6
One hopes, in the nicest possible way, that they both get too ill to contest the election
A good moment to bow out, as it is late late late here, in sultry Phnom Penh
Nightynight
That's the US system. And trust in it is much lower than trust in the UK system.
As someone who extols the delights of a foreign land, drinking and luxuriating while communicating with your home country, how well do you think you have assimilated to Khymer culture and society?
Since he was the only man in his group who knew what a safety catch was, IIRC.
So, yeah, I think I'm integrating pretty well
But talk about something like "white flight" and everyone gets up in arms.
We used to have a poster on here who was very het up about white flight and the "character" of a neighbourhood.
And he was right.
Personally I feel guilty for not becoming a bushman last time I went to Botswana but we can’t all be perfect.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=8ksrvkEDpig
“The battle for the soul of this country isn’t right vs left, it’s normal vs crazy”. Well said.
But that’s completely different from expecting a country to adapt to its whole identity being changed
He now advocates for him to be re-elected.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68029232
Douglas Murray has been saying that the danger is that eventually all this culminates in a nativist revolt, and a theme in his recent work is warning about this. 'Far right' parties are a way of addressing the issue by vocalising concerns. If you try and bury the concerns, ie by outlawing them through "hate speech" legislation, the eventual revolt just gets more nasty and brutal.
With that said... nations have proved the best way (so far) for humans to organize themselves.
No culture is set in aspic, they constantly evolve, merge, and take on new traits.
Edit: Read it when I was at school, and several times since.
The one that always brought it home was John Thynne, Viscount Weymouth. Absolutely everything to live for in most other periods of life but dead at 21 pointlessly. At least he is remembered if only by a few people as there were millions who weren’t.
My old place put together a website which has the stories and details of every old boy they have records of who died in any war since foundation and some crazy stories. It’s obviously important to me as it could have been me but good that people care about their memories.
https://www.winchestercollegeatwar.com/Authenticated/Browse.aspx
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Reflections-Revolution-Europe-Immigration-Islam/dp/0141027770
A patriot on behalf, not of Great Britain but of Great Boris.
Prior to that allegiance was familial, and to monarch, and most kingdoms were explicitly multicultural*, up to a century ago with the disintegration of the multicultural empires of the Ottomans and Austro-Hungarians. It isn't obvious that ethnic states were dramatically better for their citizens than what went before.
For that matter, Britain is explicitly multicultural too, comprising the distinct Welsh, Scottish and English cultures.
*albeit often with an ethnic or religious group dominating.
For example, Jews were expelled from England in the 13th century, but they were allowed back in the 17th, and since then they have been allowed to retain their culture and practice their religion.
What do people who refuse to tolerate different cultures in this country actually want? Do they want those with different cultures to be expelled, or do they want forced cultural assimilation?
People blather on about British values, but how is either of those consistent with British values?
Otherwise, if you bring together multiple cultures, geographically, you will have Balkanisation.
There’s a reason that is not considered ideal.
Think Switzerland - where the French, Italians and Germans live together in harmony, creating what most observers would regard as a functional and pleasant society.
It’s also the best school in the whole country, in terms of improving the lot of kids from poor backgrounds.
Edit: more important is the wider question of allowing ‘pupils’ who are definitely not supported by religious activist groups to sue schools, and for considerable amounts of public money to end up being spent arguing both sides of such a case, distracting the leadership of the school from their primary mission of educating the kids.
However, given its history, it's hardly surprising that a lot of German people are concerned about the rise of a political party that explains that country's challenges by focusing on 'outgroups' and what to do about them.
Despite what Douglas Murray says, it doesn't take much to transform from 'vocalising concerns' to beating the shit out of immigrants, for those who are susceptible to such ideas.
Both greater acceptance of immigrants and slightly greater enthusiasm for integration than here. Having said all that, the UK and Holland are probably actually already the two most successfully multicultural countries of Europe, and at times it already works well enough, here. A lot of all that also might be affected by what one means by the word, too, ofcourse. To me successful multiculturalism is the kind of very successful two-way street that you do see in places in Britain.
Generation M: Young Muslims Changing the World https://amzn.eu/d/hspvJFO
And if they're both far too old to do the job, ask yourself this. Which one is more likely to be a late Reganite "it's mid afternoon in America, time for me to take a nap" President who leaves the real.work to others? And who is insisting on being the Great I Am who is going to destroy all the insufficiently loyal minions?
I don’t know that people refuse to tolerate different cultures, it’s more that they wish those cultures weren’t there, mainly because they feel it’s made their lives more difficult
Is there a single Yorkshire or Geordie culture? Or is the culture of a pit village different to that of the Dales?
Having multiple cultures introduced the U.K. has been largely beneficial, not least for the sheer diversity of the diet and the vitality of the creative arts. But it’s naive to imagine there are no downsides to large numbers of incomes who do not attempt to assimilate at all, and often seem to hold British values of toleration (religious, sexual etc) in contempt.
And then I will throw a lot of Post Office-flavoured ordure at you.
No system - not even AI - is or ever will be 100% correct or entirely reliable and those who think that every thing can be outsourced to any such system or that it alone can be relied on are being the biggest bloody fools around.
https://x.com/politlcsuk/status/1748785571831398768?s=46&t=CW4pL-mMpTqsJXCdjW0Z6Q
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-12983807/BORIS-JOHNSON-negronis-Trump-presidency-just-world-needs.html
However, lots of secular places have prayer rooms. Airports, shopping centres, plenty of secular schools. It's saying "we, as a community, are not religious, but we respect that religious practices are part of who some of us are."
What Katharine Birbalsingh is arguing is that it's impossible for her school to provide such a space for short periods of time during the lunchtime period. Which follows from her school's approach of attempting to manage every minute of every day.
From today's Times,
The claimant says that she regards herself as on a break during that period … She says it looks like a break, it feels like a break and it is a break … That is not the school’s view. We say that is simply wrong.
Occupational hazard for teachers, to think "if only we could control more things, the outcomes would be better...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_verification
But, there can of course be be other errors such as from the hardware... CPU bugs seem to becoming more prominent these days.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68043891
Russia: Cat thrown off train into snow found dead
Russia's RZhD rail giant has apologised to the owners of a cat who died after being thrown off a company train by a conductor in freezing temperatures.
"We sincerely regret that the cat Twix died", the state-owned RZhD said, vowing to change its regulations.
Footage earlier emerged apparently showing the ginger-and-white cat being unceremoniously dumped into the snow in the central Kirov city on 11 January.
“ After seeing off the right-wing revolt over his Rwanda scheme, Rishi Sunak claimed that the Labour opposition has “no plan” to stop the boats.
He is wrong. Labour has a credible plan – but doesn’t really want to talk about it.
After a below-the-radar diplomatic offensive with EU leaders by Keir Starmer and shadow ministers, there is growing confidence inside Labour that a Starmer government could secure a returns agreement with the EU to allow migrants crossing the Channel to be sent back to France.”