Re: The big immigration row : Sat Feb 22, 2014 12:59 am  

I think cultural influences from the media have a far greater effect on British culture than immigration. Rap music/culture in particular has resulted in white kids from all over the country talking like they come "Straight Outta Compton".

Re: The big immigration row : Sat Feb 22, 2014 7:37 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

What is "British Culture" though ?

What element have we historically had that has made us unique from any other culture in the world ?

And what element of the "culture" have we lost ?

There's a reason I said "English culture".

I do think that at least some of what is happening is to do with being in a recently (comparatively) post-empire state.

It might have been called the British Empire, but certainly from a cultural perspective – it was English. Where the Scots, Welsh and even the Northern Irish still, in different ways, battled away to retain their own cultural identity, I don't think that the English did in the same way.

Just compare how differently the assorted countries' saints days have been marked over the last decades.

The English didn't need to big up St George's Day as a way of affirming cultural identity: our place in the world had, in effect, done that for us.

But that's gone. Even politicians remain wedded to an insane idea of our being players at a global top table, as though it's vital to the country as a whole.

Take that and combine it with the massive – and very speedy – changes in the country over the last 30 years (the loss of vast amounts of skilled, manual jobs; local and regional identities subsumed to brands and franchises that have homogenised; the dehumanising aspects of technology; the increasing Americanisation of entertainment etc etc) and I think you have a lot of people who feel a bit lost, and insecure, and who blame the one thing that they can most obviously see and be aware of.

Although it's worth noting that they don't just blame immigration. I suspect that many of the same people will blame some or all of the following as well: chavs, benefit 'culture', the EU, the demise of corporal punishment ...

And of course, there are some who make the most of that for whatever reason. And as you yourself have pointed out, more than once, most of the mainstream media plays up to all those things for various reasons. And, if you keep repeating it long enough ...

One could, as a very recent example, cite an article in the Spectator by Edwina Currie, on food banks, blaming the rise of such for the demise of small, local shops. This is patent bonkersness – quite apart from anything else, that demise began when she was in government and planning permission was granted, willy nilly, to all the major supermarkets. There's a reason that the percentage of the UK grocery retail trade in the hands of the major supermarket players went from 20% to 80% in a generation and a half. And it isn't because of food banks.

The Spectator ended up having to give space for a vast correction article by the Trussell Trust – but the overwhelming amount of comments after that correction piece were not about the fictions and fantasies and inaccuracies of Currie's original piece (and she's repeated some of the same fictions elsewhere, including on that 'Benefits Street row' programme), but about how food banks were clearly a problem because people had to be referred to them by 'professionals' in various fields and obviously those 'professionals' were public sector workers and therefore, part of the engorged state and the problem themselves.

And bear in mind that this was the Spectator – not the Daily Sport of even the Daily Mail. Our standard of public discourse is, in general, absolutely atrocious.

Re: The big immigration row : Mon Feb 24, 2014 12:24 pm  

It can't be, can it? Surely not, the Daily Mail wrong on immigration? Pah, don't believe it myself http://tompride.wordpress.com/2014/02/2 ... ll-notice/

It can't be, can it? Surely not, the Daily Mail wrong on immigration? Pah, don't believe it myself http://tompride.wordpress.com/2014/02/2 ... ll-notice/

Re: The big immigration row : Wed Feb 26, 2014 2:55 pm  

Mintball wrote:

It might have been called the British Empire, but certainly from a cultural perspective – it was English. Where the Scots, Welsh and even the Northern Irish still, in different ways, battled away to retain their own cultural identity, I don't think that the English did in the same way.

There is a very solid argument that the British Empire was effectively the English Empire, and that it began to develop from the Age of Discovery, in England's case with John Cabot. The interesting point is that this expansion began under the Tudors, a Welsh dynasty that ruled England, followed by a Scottish dynasty, the Stuarts, followed by a series of German and Dutch houses that we have retained right up to this day (albeit now as ceremonial figureheads rather than absolute rulers). Leading to the claim that Richard III was the last "English" ruler of England (I'm not entirely convinced about this claim given 1) the Plantagenets were a branch of the House of Anjou and 2) such distinctions belong to a era before the modern nation state emerged).

Mintball wrote:

The English didn't need to big up St George's Day as a way of affirming cultural identity: our place in the world had, in effect, done that for us.

I think it's the relative size of England in terms of territory, population and economic strength that is the underlying issue, England's population is several times larger than the rest of the British Isles (ROI included) put together. In the face of that it was more important to the rest to not be absorbed into an overarching English identity than it was for England itself to maintain an English identity. Having said that I do think some of the modern national identity politics of the island of Great Britain have more than a whiff of Victorian romanticism about them, as do modern "Celtic" identity contructs throughout the whole of the British Isles.

Mintball wrote:

But that's gone. Even politicians remain wedded to an insane idea of our being players at a global top table, as though it's vital to the country as a whole.

The UK is still a Great Power by any reasonable standard, it may have ceased to be a superpower a long time ago, and our influence is long waning, but we remain a stable, liberal democratic state, with significant political, social and economic influence. Some of the countries that are catchig or overtaking us in absolute economic size remain politically and economically unstable or at very least imature.

Re: The big immigration row : Thu Feb 27, 2014 11:28 am  

Kelvin's Ferret wrote:

There is a very solid argument that the British Empire was effectively the English Empire, and that it began to develop from the Age of Discovery, in England's case with John Cabot…

A Venetian – which adds to your point.

In similar vein, Henry VIII had to bring in French expertise on cannon production to give us the weaponary that would build the Navy.

Kelvin's Ferret wrote:

… The interesting point is that this expansion began under the Tudors, a Welsh dynasty that ruled England, followed by a Scottish dynasty, the Stuarts, followed by a series of German and Dutch houses that we have retained right up to this day (albeit now as ceremonial figureheads rather than absolute rulers). Leading to the claim that Richard III was the last "English" ruler of England (I'm not entirely convinced about this claim given 1) the Plantagenets were a branch of the House of Anjou and 2) such distinctions belong to a era before the modern nation state emerged).

All correct – and yes, it is all interesting, not least perhaps, in terms of how few people either realise or acknowledge such things.

Kelvin's Ferret wrote:

I think it's the relative size of England in terms of territory, population and economic strength that is the underlying issue, England's population is several times larger than the rest of the British Isles (ROI included) put together. In the face of that it was more important to the rest to not be absorbed into an overarching English identity than it was for England itself to maintain an English identity. Having said that I do think some of the modern national identity politics of the island of Great Britain have more than a whiff of Victorian romanticism about them, as do modern "Celtic" identity contructs throughout the whole of the British Isles.

I’d agree with all that. I’d add that the issue of size and population is also one that, I think, influences feelings about immigration/migration.

We are incredibly densely populated.

The UK is 256 people per square km.

England, though, is 419 people per square km. In a list of countries and dependencies in Europe, that only has Monaco, Gibraltar, Vatican City, Malta, Guernsey, Jersey and San Marino ahead of it.

Germany is 233, Italy 192 and France 111, Spain 88. Sweden is just 20.

Looked at another way: the UK as a whole is 243,610 square km, with a population of 62,262,000. Germany is 357,021 and 81,799,600.

Add to that that very little of our land is communal land – so that foraging or hunting, for instance, are next to nigh impossible for the bulk of the people – and you get a sense of a very crowded island.

Kelvin's Ferret wrote:

The UK is still a Great Power by any reasonable standard, it may have ceased to be a superpower a long time ago, and our influence is long waning, but we remain a stable, liberal democratic state, with significant political, social and economic influence. Some of the countries that are catchig or overtaking us in absolute economic size remain politically and economically unstable or at very least imature.

Fair points all: I don’t think we’re actually disagreeing. Perhaps I could have been clearer: I think we make the mistake of still trying to play the superpower role – most often and most obviously in terms of our relationship with the US and military action.

Re: The big immigration row : Sat Mar 01, 2014 7:21 pm  

It's official - the country is going down the pan as a resukt of immigration. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ng-it.html

It's official - the country is going down the pan as a resukt of immigration. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ng-it.html

Re: The big immigration row : Sun Mar 02, 2014 8:29 am  

Dally wrote: It's official - the country is going down the pan as a resukt of immigration. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ng-it.html Love the comments, read them and understand instantly why The Mail continues to pander to its own very special audience.

Dally wrote: It's official - the country is going down the pan as a resukt of immigration. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ng-it.html Love the comments, read them and understand instantly why The Mail continues to pander to its own very special audience.

Re: The big immigration row : Mon Mar 03, 2014 3:49 pm  

JerryChicken wrote:

Love the comments, read them and understand instantly why The Mail continues to pander to its own very special audience.

Only tried to use one once in China. The results even made me laugh. Thankfully my foot went in the hole before I had begun my business.
Frankly the state of the seats on most UK public traps I have used actually makes the idea of a squat toilet appealing.

Re: The big immigration row : Tue Mar 04, 2014 1:41 pm  

Dally wrote: It's official - the country is going down the pan as a resukt of immigration. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ng-it.html "according to reports" "apparently prefer squatting" "are also said to be infuriated" "according to The Sun" "A source told the paper" "Managers apparently installed signs" So no actual facts or evidence, then? Sounds about right.

Dally wrote: It's official - the country is going down the pan as a resukt of immigration. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ng-it.html "according to reports" "apparently prefer squatting" "are also said to be infuriated" "according to The Sun" "A source told the paper" "Managers apparently installed signs" So no actual facts or evidence, then? Sounds about right.

Re: The big immigration row : Wed Mar 05, 2014 7:42 am  

JerryChicken wrote:

The "non-skilled" argument is misleading and is often confused with "poor grasp of the English language", they can't speak very good English so they must be thick.

I've written before about this but I'll give you two examples of my own experiences when working within two different client businesses...

1. Was in an agency when two people came to the reception desk, male and female partners, the male explained that they had literally got the bus straight from Hull to the agency to start the job that they had arranged via the phone from their home (I think they came from Poland), the male was offered a job in a factory as a picker, the female could speak very little English and was told she'd be working "in the fields" tomorrow. they both accepted these minimum wage jobs but the male then pointed out to the interviewer that his partner had a degree in engineering and was taking extra tuition to improve her English - a not uncommon experience according to the person in the agency that I was meeting with, she wasn't unskliied or thick, she just didn't have a working grasp of English - YET.

2. The next day I was at the client site where the woman had been offered the job "in the fields" and in the office that I was sat in was a young man in his late twenties speaking on the phone in an Eastern European language and making copious notes. The Lithuanian girl who I was training eventually explained that he was one of their veg prep guys, spent all day long picking out mis-shaped carrots from conveyor belts so that the supermarkets didn't reject them - they'd had an approach from a Russian business who wanted to deal with them and had asked around the workforce for anyone with good Russian skills, he stepped forward, was Polish but spoke excellent Russian as he'd studied it at University, later they found that he also had an engineering degree, he is now on their maintenance crew, he too wasn't thick or unskilled, just placed in a low skilled job by the agency.

A very close and dear friend of mine is Lithuanian. She came to this country 7 years ago with the intention of "working a few months and then going home with some money in my pocket". Her first job was picking strawberries and at the end of her first (72 hour) week, was given £55 for all her efforts. As the strawberry season wound down, she took a job order-picking in a warehouse, followed by any number of other mundane jobs. Somewhere along the way, she discovered an aptitude for writing code, now works for an IT solutions company, where she is considered their Java guru and is close to being awarded a BSc from the OU.

She now has absolutely no intention of returning to "her country" (she never calls it "home"), other than for a short break. From arriving here with no worthwhile qualifications, she is contributing to the economy and society in general but there are many who would have been happy to deny her entry and lose a valuable resource.