The Sheffield-based social scientist and demography expert Danny Dorling has done some great work debunking the “Britain is full” myth. One stunning statistic he points out is that there are well over 100 million bedrooms in the country — easily enough to accomodate every single one of us. The problem, as ever, is distribution.

Completely true John, I’ve seen this argument trotted out time and time again. I’ve even blogged on it here with reference to the mystical 70 million population figure.

Did you know that if Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland all reached England’s population density (without England’s increasing) we could hold a population of 96,605,572?

As society has not fallen apart in England with our circa 1020 head per km2 popualtion density, this is the upper limit for which it is safe to reach and so around 95 million is the safe upper limit we can work with. But you won’t hear UKIP say that. (These last two paragraphs are me being fasceitious (sp?) by the way, but I think they raise an important point)

The other problem is that they’ve been peddling the ‘England as Nightclub’ argument* for nearly 40 years, as if governments don’t/can’t plan for expanding populations/birth rates.

*I phrase it this way because it’s linked to the obsession with a formal ‘cap’ on total numbers (see current Tory policy), where the suggested number always trends towards ‘zero’.

Since you’re a retired colonel living in Tunbridge Wells, this has bugger all effect on you”.

How did you know?

I think it’s worth mentioning that (as bat020 alludes to) dividing population by whatever, square miles, acres, in this country is a bit iffy as some people live on estates that span thousands of acres.

Is the “No more – we’re full” argument really focused on the amount of space we take up? It’s always sounded to me like it’s not so much the space but demand for services and the pressure on infrastructure which apparently results from increased population.

“I left the UK because it was cold and I was bored there, not because it was full”

“We left London to escape the frantic lifestyle“

@ 3 “The other problem is that they’ve been peddling the ‘England as Nightclub’ argument* for nearly 40 years, as if governments don’t/can’t plan for expanding populations/birth rates”.

But they patently dont plan – otherwise why do we have portacabins in school playgrounds, why is our transport infrastructure crumbling and why are we being nagged into not using the NHS ? Or are these all things that people (including the labour councils asking for more government funding) are imagining/using as a cover for racism ?

@2 – But why do we have to try and win top prize for population density ? As any sociologist will tell you polulation density correlates positively with crime, poor health and poverty

Specious bollocks.

I don’t care if I’ve got a whole square kilometre to wander about in, or just a couple of square metres.

I do care if I can’t get on a train, if my kids are in classes of 45, if I can’t get to see a dentist, if I can’t get round the M25 in less than 3 hours, or I can’t find a policeman when I need one.

While we might have the physical space to go to 93 million popluation, or whatever, we certainly don’t have enough of virtually every-fucking-thing else, do we?

I do care if I can’t get on a train, if my kids are in classes of 45, if I can’t get to see a dentist, if I can’t get round the M25 in less than 3 hours, or I can’t find a policeman when I need one.

So in other words you want more investment in public services to increase the number of teachers, trains and dentists right?

Or are they meant to be static numbers?

‘But they patently dont plan – otherwise why do we have portacabins in school playgrounds, why is our transport infrastructure crumbling and why are we being nagged into not using the NHS ? Or are these all things that people (including the labour councils asking for more government funding) are imagining/using as a cover for racism ?’

Only because those services aren’t sufficiently marketised. Tesco is never lacking in kosher food (in areas where its appropriate) and Polish favourites.

In terms of economics, there are few problems with immigration. The problem is culture. The one thing that is absolutely correlated with things like happiness and social cohesion is homogeneity. Heterogeneity reduces norms of trust and reciprocality. Not just between communities either, but within them. That is mainstream, even Robert Putnam will acknowledge that.

I am not sure these reasons are good enough to restrict immigration. Diversity within communities also allows people to have more lifestyle choices (it is easy to be anything from gay, Muslim, Christian evangelist or a raver in London). But then, I am an individualist, and I think it is up to people to create their own communities, not for states to offer traditonal communities protection. But there is a definite trade-off there. And it is not racist to talk about.

Constantly Furious I have hit upon a solution – if we employ some of those immigrants as teachers, dentists, policemen and transport infrastructure design-and-builders, your desires will be fulfilled. Hey, maybe we already do that!

N.B. as a rational individual concerned about overcrowding, you must be very relieved now the fertility rate has sunk below replacement rate, because let me tell you nothing causes overcrowding like popping out babies. You would have been going off your nut had you been around a century ago. And don’t get me started on internal migration from rural areas to cities, Christ what a bunch a bastards. Once minute London’s the size of Circencester, the next minute, blammo! it takes me 45 minutes to get from Tottenham Court road to Hyde Park Corner. Thank God that’s over. Now if only we can stem the tide of immigration, our overcrowding worries will be over!

Could I suggest a more coherent argument in that the UK is not engineered to accommodate immigration, despite the fact that immigration is an economic dependency? None of our services are designed about demand change; the number of school children in your town was government defined, and places have been allocated according to pupil numbers using state or private education; if a local firm expands and employs immigrants, the number of school children will increase.

In such circumstances, central planning will fail. But these are not extraordinary circumstances, they are the norm. All systems are broken.

Never mind England being full – hasn’t the entire planet moved to an unprecedented, and dangerously high level of population?

It took from the beginning of time to put the first 2 billion humans on the planet (anatomically modern humans first appear in the fossil record in Africa 195,000 years ago).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human

The world population actually TRIPLED in less than 100 years (to 6.5 billion souls).

I have no idea if is England is full – anyway, how are we suppose to know?
Is this is a judgement we make today, or do we consider possible consequences in the short to medium term as well?

For example, let’s just imagine our economy collapses and the situation is exacerbated by global resource shortages (food/fuel, etc).
Will 70 million or so Brits (forecast in 20 years time) seem like too many people?

Obvious question – what formula, or objective measurement is being proposed to quantify the effects of rapid inceases in the UK’s population?

[13] Oops – should say first 2 billion by 1920 (more than tripling between 1920 and 2010)

The bones of this post appear to be

1) There is no pressure on public services, trains are never full, schools are not struggling to meet demand, nor are hosiptals or prisons. And if they are, we should just raise taxes, sorry invest more in public services.

2) There is unlimited habitable space in this, one of the most fertile countries in the world, to build an infinite number of houses. Alternatively, we should all donate a spare bedroom to a migrant

3) An english parliament is “pointless” but a welsh or scottosh one is not

4) England does not exist as a political entity but, of course, Scotland, Wales pretty much every much other country in the world, and of course the EU, does

5) Despite the fact that almost a quarter of the working age population exists wholly or partly on benefits, there are an unlimited number of job vacancies which migrants are queuing up to fill

5) Anyone who questions the above orthodoxy is a knuckle dragging, white skinhead who has Nick Griffin posters all over his wall

Why does everyone think that “its a social construct” is an argument for ignoring a concept. GDP is a social construct, but if a nation lacks GDP, people are still gonna die as a consequence.

Because a social construct translates to many people as “meaning whatever you want it mean” and GDP is objectively measurable, at least theortically, so it doesn’t qualify.

I have no opinion on what Britain’s optimum population should be, but I like it that there are places with lower population densities. Like Ireland where I am now, where as soon as you get out of towns the traffic density is suddenly so much less than it is in south east England, and you feel that you are out in the country more and it’s more peaceful.

It’s no fun being having to deal with the M25 on a daily basis. And in the summer when the Lake District and the Yorkshire Moors become strangled with cars, and families just looking for a bit of space and a day out. And you find that the motorway service stations on the M6 are full to bursting.

I bet there are plenty of people in New Zealand’s South Island who just love the wide open spaces and lack of population density, and would hate to have those Barratt Home estates that you see from motorways sprouting up all over the place.

More people means more roads and railway lines. And housing estates and everything.
Will those who are happy about 70 million support new railway lines like this?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/aug/06/london-birmingham-chilterns-rail-link

As I say, I’m really that fussed one way or the other. Maybe I’ll just stay here.

Why stop at 95 million?

I mean Singapore’s not a bad place, and its population density is over 25 times that of the UK, let alone England. That means we can accommodate another 1.6 billion on top of the artificial 95 million ‘upper limit’ already proposed.

What on earth could be objectionable about that? There’d be no agriculture, little if any open space, and you’d need to get a Certificate of Entitlement from the government to buy one of the few thousand cars imported each year, but hey! It works for the Singaporeans, why not for us?

Please, for the love of god, read the Oldham Review.

*Please, for the love of god, read the Oldham Review.*

What all 100-odd pages? Can’t you just give us the money-quote or at least point out the good bits.

Of course, arguing for the continued growth of our population assumes sustainable food production and energy provision over the next two or three decades. We all know there will be no problems as the free market will provide and the climate sceptics have won the day.

The population issue needs to be separated from the race issue that has prevented an informed debate.

I believe UKIP ran a Party Election Broadcast where that very ‘England/Britain is full’ argument is made (by a black woman, as further proof of how not racist they are).

Heterogeneity reduces norms of trust and reciprocality. Not just between communities either, but within them. That is mainstream, even Robert Putnam will acknowledge that.

Putnam goes on to say that diversity is still a good thing and that eventually trust and reciprocity is established. The US has had generations of immigration. Many of sons/daughters of immigrants are now married to each other and pledge their allegiance to the American flag.

Can I ask all of you what density of cultivatable land would support our population?

It seems to me that being able to support our intellectaual and other resources on what we can do, is a measure of our independence.

That seems to me a better criteria than those of you that are exploitative of others for resources?

This is from upthread, but basically is the point:

I do care if I can’t get on a train, if my kids are in classes of 45, if I can’t get to see a dentist, if I can’t get round the M25 in less than 3 hours, or I can’t find a policeman when I need one.

You can, they aren’t, you can, you can, you can.

This is another thing which pisses me off about the UK – people randomly and pointlessly lying that things are much worse than they are. In truth, the government has invested large sums to measurable effect in rail capacity, education numbers, road infrastructure, and policing…

douglas clark @25 – Can I ask all of you what density of cultivatable land would support our population?

According to Defra, Britain is 60% self-sufficient in food production (this varies from around 10% for fruit to 100% for cereals). Given that Defra also indicates that 73% of the UK’s land area is given over to agriculture (and a further 12% to woodland), it is reasonable to conclude that an additional area equivalent to around half the size of the UK would be necessary for agricultural self-sufficiency (assuming present population level, calorie intake, etc).

The corollary is that a self-sufficient UK could support a population of around 35 million (again, all other things remaining equal).

http://www.defra.gov.uk/sustainable/government/progress/national/24.htm

“The corollary is that a self-sufficient UK could support a population of around 35 million (again, all other things remaining equal).”

Who cares if we are self sufficient in food?

Surelt the point about immigration is not the facts and stats about population size and growth but the misinformation about immigration that leads people to vote for the BNP citing immigration as the issue.

In the run up to the election we have to put ourselves in the position of the people in Barking who are about to be doorstep shmoozed in a BIG way by a bunch of right wing fools, who will use the issue of immigration to persuade people in a deprived area that has seen a rapid increase in cultural diversity at a rate that make it hard for people to adjust, that the increase of brown faces they see are part of the reason why they are deprived.

There are people that have been forgotten by politics and the system that are in danger of being seduced by the BNP and we have to find a lay language to PROOVE to them that, no, immigrants arent taking their jobs, women, yada yada….

Good point. We could become like Singapore and import everything. Even the fresh milk is flown in daily from Australia.

Might not be a winning strategy though if global food supplies don’t keep up with the projected rise in population and the associated increase in demand, as Defra amongst others (like the FAO) fears they won’t.

The reality is that increasing the population and the measures necessary to enhance food security are pulling in opposite directions, a concept that cornucopians have difficulty in grasping.

‘Putnam goes on to say that diversity is still a good thing and that eventually trust and reciprocity is established. The US has had generations of immigration. Many of sons/daughters of immigrants are now married to each other and pledge their allegiance to the American flag.’

True and it shows that the solution is to have, on some level, a shared identity for people to buy into (the US certainly has one). But there is still a trade-off, a cost as well as time and effort to regenerate. A basic level of trust and reciprocity is required to do even fairly fundamental things like maintain order and the rule of law. If they break down, due to immigration going into overdrive, for example, then you might get stuck in an equilibrium where it is impossible, or incredibly difficult, to return to a previously well ordered state. Think of Lebanon, or the Balkans. Or to a lesser extent, Northern Ireland.

I am not suggesting our current levels of immigration are that sort of a threat, nor would even free immigration necessarily get us to that stage (usually it is colonialism and forced settlement which do the real damage). But I can see why people would prefer to live in a more homogenous community. Sure, in the long run, we might be able to live wonderfully diverse lives side by side with people from all over the world. But that does not do all that much for people in the here and now, who see their communities diminishing in front of them, and unlikely to recover in their lifetimes.

The reality is that increasing the population and the measures necessary to enhance food security are pulling in opposite directions, a concept that cornucopians have difficulty in grasping.

Errr, no. That’s called globalisation. You could live in a population of 50mil in the UK and still import foodstuffs. Or you could be like the French and pretend that you can make that stuff cheaper than Africans, South Americans or Asians. Which clearly isn’t the case.

Nick: But there is still a trade-off, a cost as well as time and effort to regenerate.

Let me put it in language you’d understand better – think of it as creative destruction. The idea that communities across the world can’t travel when travel and trade is so common, is rather naive. Firms also die, people lose jobs and they have to retrain. That causes temporary pain too – would you stop that?

But that does not do all that much for people in the here and now, who see their communities diminishing in front of them, and unlikely to recover in their lifetimes.

You need to lay out the subtext here. If you’re talking about people missing other white people – well then I can’t help you with that and to be honest I don’t have sympathy for it.

If you’re talking about a loss of community, then I understand, but that was inevitable through increased mobility and atomisation even if we didn’t have immigration.

If you’re talking about cultural difference – I see what the problem could be, and I suggest there are ways of overcoming it. Also one of the reasons I’m a big believer in ‘Britishness’ and a sense of nationalism.

I think it is culture here. I can’t imagine how skin pigmentation could have an effect on the homogeneity of communities, anymore than hair colour could. It is people wearing different things, having different habits, eating different food, using different family structures.

And you are right, it is very similar to the creative destruction of a free market and has to be put up with. But then the question is, to what extent is the form of globalisation we are having right now, of which immigration is a part, actually a product of freedom rather than one that is enforced and distorted through government institutions. Perhaps if we (as in the West) lowered our tariff barriers, there would be less demand for economic migration, for example.

But I agree with your solution. An inclusive form of ‘Britishness’, which I think to some extent is emerging spontaneously already.

Hi,

Although I consider myself to be pro-immigration, and find myself in political opposition to parties such as UKIP, I still find this article ridiculous. Why? Because it is predicated on nothing but prejudice? Your blog claims that its ‘aim is to re-vitalise the liberal-left through discussion and action” yet there is no discussion here, for instead of rational debate based upon a-posteriori information (for example you reduce the loaded term “full” to a merely geographic concept, yet it also could apply to the availability of resources, as some have pointed out above, and so forth). I myself do not consider Britain to be “full”, although how I would know I can’t tell you.

What I do know however is that by implicating that all people who may disagree with you are racist then you are invalidating your own point; you are utilising the fear of the other, the “bogeyman” as it were, to incite a reaction- exactly the same approach that extremist parties utilise to reduce complex ideas into perfectly bite-sized chunks of bigotry. By using the same methodology you reduce yourself to the same mode of thought, and this way prejudice lies. Just because some people worry about welfare provision does not make them a racist. So don’t say it does. It invalidates an argument that could be far better made, indeed NEEDS to be made in a time when genuine racists such as Nick Griffin start to get a whiff of power. The problem is that most people that claim to be Liberals are not liberal at all- they just look for a different bogeyman than those on the ‘right’.

Argue it properly next time, it isn’t a difficult argue to win on its own terms.

God, how patronising do I sound! :p

*Errr, no. That’s called globalisation. You could live in a population of 50mil in the UK and still import foodstuffs. Or you could be like the French and pretend that you can make that stuff cheaper than Africans, South Americans or Asians. Which clearly isn’t the case.*

Producing cheaply isn’t necessarily the principal criterion, as the Japanese demonstrate with their approach to domestic rice production. Rice in Japan goes for several times the current world price but the Japanese collectively feel that it is a price worth paying to preserve their domestic production capability rather than having to rely on imports that might be cut off at any time should shortages ensue in supplier countries.

In the coming Age of Shortages there are likely to be many and protracted perturbations in international food markets (similar to those to 2007-8) so it might not be a sound strategy to expect that the magic of ‘globalisation’ will continue to produce rabbits out of the hat consistently over the long term.

Better safe than sorry, eh?

What fascinates me is the implausibility of the Righteous Left’s recent enthusiasm for indefinite population growth in the UK. If the demand for immigration into the UK came almost exclusively from White people, I wonder if you’d still be taking this stance. Somehow I suspect that concerns about the environmental impact would come to the fore.

Well done PaddyOD. This article is preposterous. Does the author really think humans, himself included, are so rational?

Our brains are evolutionarily stone age kit. Those weak attempts to trade stats will give the choir a warm feeling of satisfaction and merely confirm the views of the people you are trying to persuade.

As someone who has spoken to hundreds of people on Peckham, many of whom are uncomfortable with the changes to the town in the past decade – which are closely related to international migration – I’m acutely aware of the need to discuss the issues you raise, but sadly you offer absolutely no new evidence or insight.

Re: 37

Demand for immigration = population growth? Don’t be thick, they’re completely unrelated. Our population growth is predominantly white british.

@36 Dan Dare

I agree. In fact our crop yields are largely dependant on oil. The crop husbandry following WW2 and the green revolution used oil-derived fertilizers and oil-powered machinery to replace soil fertility and the traditional workforce. There has been a loss of skills necessary for sustainable food production in the rural population and a loss of fertility due to soil erosion.

As oil becomes more expensive food prices will inevitably follow. This will be a global phenomenon. Add to this the unknown but possibly serious effects of climate change and human demographics and it looks like we’re facing difficult times. Glibly citing globalisation as the solution is foolish.

“excuse to pretend England exists as a political entity”

Well it doesn’t at the moment because it doesn’t have its own Parliament! Do you deny the existence of an English nation?

Personally I’ve never been keen on the English Parliament idea but I don’t deny that England exists.

@35 “By implicating that all people who may disagree with you are racist then you are invalidating your own point”

@37 “If the demand for immigration into the UK came almost exclusively from White people, I wonder if you’d still be taking this stance.”

I think I may have just won. (also @37, for Extra Bonus Idiot Points, what colour do you think Poles are…?)

@38 I’m good at using words to explain data to intelligent people who don’t understand the stats. I’m not good at using half-truths to persuade ill-educated people to believe things. So I’m probably not the person who should’ve written the piece that you wish I’d written. Perhaps you could have a go?

Look, it’s clearly true that the liberal-left needs to get better at persuading ill-educated people that the things we know to be true are indeed true. If I were the head strategist of a liberal-left political party, I’d poach whoever runs Iceland’s or WKD’s marketing to work for me, as a starting point towards getting that one sorted…

I think it is culture here. I can’t imagine how skin pigmentation could have an effect on the homogeneity of communities, anymore than hair colour could. It is people wearing different things, having different habits, eating different food, using different family structures.

Except that, in many ways, Britain is probably more culturally homogeneous now that it ever was in the past. You don’t have to go very far back to find a situation where people in the south east spoke such a different dialect from those in, say, the north west, as to require interpreters. Heck, I’m Scottish and I frequently have trouble conversing with people from Aberdeen…

And if anyone wants to argue that the white underclass living on the sink estates share more of a common culture (in terms of language, food, and family arrangements) with the equally-pasty remnants of the aristocracy than with their melanin-enhanced neighbours, I’ve got a really nice bridge for sale.

It is not just Troy cuts it is M&S cuts in your public services.

@41 Richard

I’m sure most people beleive England exists, but it’s status as a “political entity” is problematic. The English tend to define themselves as British first, and English second. The Scots and Welsh have a rather different view!

There has to be a doubt that the UK as a contruct could survive the constitutional strains of an English parliament, as sooner or later you’d end up with a Tory majority government at Westimster legislating for England, but a Labour majority or coalition trying to legislate for the UK as a whole. Such cohabitation might work elsewhere with a federal system, but I doubt it would work in a state as centralised as the UK.

“English” nationalism has a fairly loaded history, having frequently been hijacked in the past by the likes of the National Front, BNP, UKIP as a cover for some pretty unsavoury beliefs. This doesn’t make it any easier to define “Englishness”, without trite references to warm beer, cricket on the village green, Morris Men… or binge drinking pub crawls, football on Sky Plus and Chicken Tikka, or nebulous references to a sense of fair play, stiff upper lips and an obsession with the class system.

We’re all immigrants.. it just depends how far back you look. Nobody is trying to say there aren’t problems associated with immigration, or that it couldn’t be handled better, but it behoves those of us on the left to be very careful about being drawn into the debate on the terms of the “non-racist” types identified above, particulalry in an effort to blind side UKIP or (worse yet) the BNP in pursuit of votes from Essex Mondeo Man and his ilk who aren’t too happy about Johnny Foreigner.

IMO race and stirring up regional chauvinism for those of conservative inclinations have come to fulfil a similar political function to that of banning fox hunting for New Labour and its supporters.

Whenever enthusiasm for the New Labour project lagged or its supporters grew fractious, the government would wheel out a bill to ban fox hunting once more and the House of Lords would get pilloried. In all, more than 700 hours of Parliamentary time was spent debating fox hunting. One result is that we failed to notice the makings of the financial crisis. Another is that we failed to take account of this:

“Last year [2004], a report from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) revealed that Britain came seventh from bottom in a league table of staying-on rates for 19 countries. Only Mexico and Turkey had significantly lower rates of participation for this age group. Italy, New Zealand, Portugal and Slovakia have marginally lower rates.”
http://education.guardian.co.uk/gcses/story/0,16086,1555547,00.html

“According to the latest available figures, Britain was ranked 14th in a global skills league table.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/4372738/Almost-24-million-adults-with-poor-numeracy-skills-say-MPs.html

I think I may have just won. (also @37, for Extra Bonus Idiot Points, what colour do you think Poles are…?)

I didn’t think you’d get the point, John. Tell me, if large-scale immigration into the UK were overwhelmingly from Poland, would you still be arguing that there’s plenty of room for all comers, or would you be simply uninterested in the issue, or would you indeed be arguing that country is already overpopulated and further immigration should be discouraged?

Oh I see the point implicit in your OP, that the “England is full” argument is used, by some at least, as a respectable proxy for “No more Darkies”. But I’d say the anti-immigrationists have won, rather than you. They’ve driven you into defending the ridiculous argument that the country has an indefinite capacity to absorb more population. You remind me of those climate change sceptics who post photographs of the recent brief cold snap and say triumphantly, “See. It’s getting colder, not warmer.”

(Gwyn #39) Demand for immigration = population growth? Don’t be thick, they’re completely unrelated. Our population growth is predominantly white british.

Is it really? Aren’t we always being told that the White British are failing to reproduce at replacement rate and that we need to import all these immigrants to wipe our white arses when we get old? You can’t have it both ways.

So in other words you want more investment in public services to increase the number of teachers, trains and dentists right?

Not me.

I want more investment in public services to increase the number of bureaucrats, snoopers, CCTV installation specialists, diversity coordinators, hedge height czars, DNA collection superintendents, wheely bin inspectors and non-job supervisors.

It’s Labour all way this end!

Tell me, if large-scale immigration into the UK were overwhelmingly from Poland, would you still be arguing that there’s plenty of room for all comers, or would you be simply uninterested in the issue, or would you indeed be arguing that country is already overpopulated and further immigration should be discouraged?

“there’s plenty of room for all comers”. Indeed, I think Poles are ideally culturally suited to living in the UK – they’re used to places that are cold and not very good, and enjoy beer and sarcasm…

@47 Edwin Greenwood

There is still plenty of room, but I doubt many people think “”the country has an indefinite capacity to absorb more population”, or advocate an open door. I don’t accep that the anti-immigrationists HAVE won. If they have had an impact it is, as others have mentioned, because some people have uncritically accepted the BNP / UKIP / Daily Mail led agenda that the sky is falling down, and we’re going to be swamped / have Sharia law imposed, or whatever the latest hobby horse is.

I don’t care where immigrants are from, but I can see that it’s not a great idea to have a situation where certain parts of the country bear a disproprtionate burden, which then leads to problems with housing, education and health services. The answer is for government to provide financial help to areas affected, and to try and ensure immigrants don’t all end up in the same place; not always easy, but hardly outwith the ken of man!

Yes, within the contraints of the law the UK should be open to all comers, irrepective of race or religion. As long as prospective immigrant have skills we need, are prepared to learn the language, integrate and become British citizens, or are fleeing persecution and allowed to stay for humanitarian reasons. We’ve all benefitted from past immigration, and will do so from present and future immigration. Most of the supposed problems are of our own making, but they don’t mean we should halt or curtail immigration, or swallow the atavistic fantasy that the UK should return to the good old days, or that it is in danger of being swamped.

So, John B, you’re lecturing us all about immigration in the UK.

Yet you live in Australia?

Here’s a thought: let those living in the country you’re spouting your worthless opinions on to make their own mind up.

It’s like the lefties living in expensive, white, middle, class suburbs lecturing us on how much immigration adds to the country, while they keep a safe distance.

Remember: a socialist is just a conservative that hasn’t been mugged yet.

Re: 48

That’s not a problem, though. If we’ll need to bring in immigrants because unskilled british citizens are at 100% employment, that will be a fucking great result for any government, worthy of high praise. In that sort of situation I couldn’t care less about people whining about their ‘communities’ changing, those people would be ignorant, privileged, xenophobic bigots.

I’m not sure who the ‘Righteous Left’ are (I don’t deal in thoughtless pejoratives, but I guess it’s those who think racism’s some sort of big deal) but most Keynsians’ mouths would water at the above scenario.

@john b. “Look, it’s clearly true that the liberal-left needs to get better at persuading ill-educated people that the things we know to be true are indeed true.”

Yes, this is exactly right. I used to be one of “you”, and now I’m one of “them”. One of the reasons I switched sides is because I found that left-liberals are generally very bad at explaining why they believe the things they do. There seems to be a kind of “bunker mentality”: if you do not already agree with “us” about a left-liberal article of faith, then you are suffering from some sort of mental illness, and we have nothing to say to you but “Racist! Denialist! Troll! Idiot! Dolt!” This gives the impression that the beliefs are not backed by a rational thought process, but rather by a sort of fundamentalist political religion that denies all possibility of an alternative explanation for anything.

John B is that rarity on LC, a patronising middle class prat who thinks anyone who disagrees with him is “uneducated” (As through a third in er social sciences from the university of formerpoly counts as an education anyway). Be gratefull he’s in Australia, hopefully he’ll stay there.

YAY!

Another blog post about immigration that will attract the same anonymous and not so anonymous racists and bigots to trot out their myths and shout a lot on the Internets, which will no doubt do their self-esteem wonders as the comment count on this post waddles into the 100s as tit-for-tat bigotry get’s chucked about willy-nilly, until one of the racists has the last word or the thread is closed to further comments.

*sigh*

I will say John you missed one of the classic comebacks to the “UK is 51st on the list of population density” and I should know because when debating one of the aforementioned bigots that frequent here who was vomiting the fact that Britain is full, I used the 51st fact and they came back with:

“Yeah but over half of the 51 are tiny nations where high population density is a by product of the size of the country.”

You see, you hit the nail on the head when you said…

This is unlikely to convince most not-racist types.

And there lays the rub, arguing with these people is fucking pointless because they are not basing their opinions on fact, or evidence, or objective assessments of the immigration situation but prejudice and selective reading of data and subjective assessments of what think is going on.

So all posts like this do is open up a whole can of worms and give a place for the racists to vent their spleens and leave a permanent, ugly and shitty mark on the Internets.

55
So you know john B from uni then?

Food for thought aimed at promoters of the multiculture project -

Many other advanced democracies have rejected this extreme vision. I would like to see a similar policy adopted in the UK as adopted by the Japanese and the S Koreans and most other nations outside the liberal west. They have a policy of maintaining monoculturalism since they value – 1.their own culture 2. the best interests of their citizens 2. social cohesion.

This is a perfectly valid position to take – or are the Japanese vile racists? Perhaps the UAF or other similar lunatic groups should attack the Japanese embassy since their policies are similar or more ‘extreme’ than the BNP.

The liberal elite have promoted a myth that multuralism is inevitable in modern society – it is not. It is a delibrate and extreme policy when seen in an international context.

The Japanese model does have problems ie population decline etc but they fade to nothing in comparison to the problems faced by multicultural western europe.

When you go to Tokyo you expect to find and do find a Japanese city – can you imagine the disappointment of Japanese tourists arriving in London to find that the Londoners have in large part fled and only a shell remains of its English heritage and culture.

@58

I would like to see a similar policy adopted in the UK as adopted by the Japanese…

and

The liberal elite have promoted a myth that multuralism is inevitable in modern society – it is not. It is a delibrate and extreme policy when seen in an international context.

Isn’t promotion of “monoculturism” similarly (by your crazed logic) “deliberate and extreme”?

Back in ye olde dayes you’d've been a “what did the Romans ever do for us?” type wouldn’t you.

Britain has never been monocultural. To try and make it so would actually involve a fairly dramatic change to the culture(s) of these islands. We have at least 4 different languages, for pity’s sake!

Japan has also never really been monocultural, but the (“immigrant”) Yayoi have done a very good job of repressing the culture of the (“indigenous”) Ainu – so perhaps not the best example to choose…

Phil
Are the Japanese crazed?
I was hoping for more thoughtful attacks…

It’s like the lefties living in expensive, white, middle, class suburbs lecturing us on how much immigration adds to the country, while they keep a safe distance.

Really? It’s more like Tories who come from almost all-white areas who complain about immigration, while its lefties who live (mostly in London) who appreciate its benefits.#

Remember: a socialist is just a conservative that hasn’t been mugged yet.

A conservative is simply someone who has never been poor. Or someone who hasn’t been arrested yet.

Comment 61 is a perfect example of what I mean in 56.

The not-racist picks up on only one element of a comment that he can attack while ducking all the other points made in 59 and 60 and elsewhere in this thread.

Selective, myopic and pointless.

@ 63
I am not particularly politically active but i do from time to time like to read this website but what strikes me more than anything is just how self righteous the ‘liberal’ posters are. You evidently think you have a monopoly on what is good and right? It is laughable.

If i had time I would pick up on other points made in the article and thread – give me a chance!! I don’t think your claim that I was being selective and myopic is really justified at all.

@60
You are right of course. Britain never has been purely monoculturally but we can talk in terms of ‘predominately’ monocultural. I do not understand the argument that because Britain has never been purely monocultural in the past and has always accepted migrants that it follows that Britain should now as a matter of course encourage a policy of culture change.

Wayward:

Self righteous? That’s your call, your opinion, fine but don’t confuse it with fact. Also, my opinion of those that come to a place they consistently disagree with, to only post contrary comments is pretty low. And while we’re at it, I also can;t stand folks that make shit up about what others have said…oh, that includes you with your classic lie: “You evidently think you have a monopoly on what is good and right? It is laughable.”

Show me where I said that? Or retract it. Simple.

As for the feeble excuse of giving you time, you had enough time to take a cheap shot that ducked the point, a point in 59 BTW you’ve still not dealt with.

As for you efforts to comeback at 60, at least you concede some ground before retreating to ‘predominately’, which again is your opinion but not the opinion of many others. Also by ceding that the UK has never been monocultural, the lynchpin of your argument in 58, which let us not forget, was built on the myth of the Uk as monocultural, falls apart.

Then your closing sentence makes no bloody sense, you make reference to the past as the UK not being monocultural and a place that has received immigrants, to then take that point and make something up about a policy of culture change.

@62
I must assume you really believe what you post and you are not just winding us up? Some thinker described hell as the denial of reason – this is what i read throughout the leftist posts here.

“leftists living in London enjoy benefits (of multiculturalism)..” How many indigenous people leave London and the UK every year?? Have you ever been to the asian ghettos of Bradford and other northern towns? First nationers are flooding out.

Attitudes to race and associated behavioural propensities come from experience. Look at the countries most racked by racial and communal violence – do you think the Indian Hindu does not know his Muslim neighbour only too well enough. They have lived side by side for circa 500 years but still violence and fracture dominate relations.

@64: Well, one could argue about the degree to which Britain has been “predominately” monocultural, and the reasons for it (as a Scot, I probably have a rather different view on such matters than you)… However, the simple fact is that cultural change is both (a) inevitable and (b) frequently (although not always) beneficial – cultures that don’t change, die. I’m far too fond of my culture to want to see it (further) impoverished through being overly insular and backward-looking – which are both faults we Scots have possessed in spades in the past (and unfortunately continue to posses in no small measure).

However, I do have to wonder exactly what it is you mean when you refer to “culture change” – is it really just about change to “culture” (in the widest sense), or is it code for something else? After all, very few people seem to be currently complaining about the many cultural changes heralded by the growth of the internet, or the collapse of heavy industry… Can you be a little more specific about exactly which cultural changes you’re unhappy about? Is it perhaps the relentless spread of Americanised English, driven by the importation of American film, television, and music? Is it the loss of native English traditions of song, storytelling and dance, in the face of the growth of more commercial entertainments? The decline of our traditional cuisine of boiled beef and cabbage in favour of more spicy and exotic fare? The loss of our orchards, our traditional crafts, and the village green? Hmmmm?

Attitudes to race and associated behavioural propensities come from experience.

Hilarious. Please consider this classic illustration of out-group bias.

A conservative is simply someone who has never been poor. Or someone who hasn’t been arrested yet.

Wow.

Dan Dare,

*Please, for the love of god, read the Oldham Review.*

What all 100-odd pages? Can’t you just give us the money-quote or at least point out the good bits.

Fair enough; pages 8-15, ‘summary analysis and key recommendations’, should be sufficient to show that immigration resentment isn’t just about numbers and telling people to get over it, or that they are idiots, racists or liars.

@65

I thought this was a debating website and provided it remains civil I would have thought contrary views would be welcome? Surprised you think my conduct is “pretty low”?? Your usual debates must be dull if you all agree?

However I do expect my points to be buried in bile and rudeness and incoherent responses since this is what I experienced every time I post on this website.

My principal point stands – many other advanced democracies have rejected the multiculture experiment – eg Japan and South Korea and others. This position is perfectly valid and the British people should not allow themselves to be brainwashed into thinking that this position is a vile and racist position as the liberal elite would have you believe.

I accept that supporters of this website won’t like it but the fact is that the multiculture experience in w europe is the extreme policy – a policy the Japanese have quite sensibly rejected.

No doubt diversionary responses will follow…..

@61 wayward

I’ll assume that was aimed at myself, although you got my name wrong… and you appear to be willfully misconstruing what I said. Tis you who are crazed, I’m afraid. All this talk of “first-nationers” (who are they? You never said) and a “policy of multiculturalism” (never seen any policy relating to that, maybe you could enlighten us less worldly types?) makes you sound very silly indeed.

The classic cry of the racist is that “We were never asked!!!1″ : we are asked at every election. There are parties who wish to end multiculturalism, why not vote for them? I recommend the BNP, or UKIP if radical fascism isn’t your thing and you like your racism to be a bit more aristocratic. Luckily for me (and every other person with a brain) the Great British public [who - shock, horror - include Asians, blacks, Chinese, Jews, etc etc etc] have rejected the politics of hate time and time again.

Oh and I’d love to know how wayward intends to end the “policy of multiculturalism”. Compulsary repatriation? Special holding camps for those who are “different”? A census carried out specifing exactly what percentage of your DNA is “British”?

Sounds delightful.

intends to end the “policy of multiculturalism”.

Not even sure what the policy, or the official definition, actually is. It doesn’t exist except in the minds of idiots.

Attitudes to race and associated behavioural propensities come from experience.

This isn’t backed up by evidence at all. In that case London would be a racial hell-hole on fire. Except I see loads of people on the streets every day in mixed couples or mixing with different races all the time.

Most of the anti-immigration rhetoric and paranoia comes from places and people who have very little exposure to ppl of other races/cultures.

Oh and I’d love to know how wayward intends to end the “policy of multiculturalism”.

Indeed.

Compulsary repatriation? Special holding camps for those who are “different”? A census carried out specifing exactly what percentage of your DNA is “British”?

Didn’t you get the memo? It’s not about race (that would be not-not-racist), it’s about culture. Presumably we will need to have some sort of government body decided on what the essential components of “British culture” are, what political / social ideas are unacceptable (aka “politically incorrect”), and some sort of enforcement mechanism to ensure that these adjudications are adhered to. I believe the usual term for the people employed in such enterprises is “commissar”, but I’m sure we can come up with a suitably English alternative… Exactly what will happen to those indigenous English folk who have unfortunately been seduced to convert to non-approved, non-indigenous philosophies or belief systems (Islam, socialism, etc) can be worked out later…

Could someone fix my blockquote ballsup, please? Ta.

@Mr S Pill 73

We could consider encouraging people to integrate, through education, language training, history lessons (Ooh! Get out the garlic and the crucifix!) rather than deliberately imposing apartheid policies that ghettoise them and, yes, prevent the social cohesion that the left claims to promote.

Or would that be racist?

I don’t know what ‘predominately monocultural’ means, but it’s pretty obvious that the UK didn’t have a monoculture prior to the advent of television and national newspapers, beyond an expectation of loyalty to the King.

Unless by culture, wayward in fact means race. Which he probably does. Because he’s a hopeless, one-dimensional bigot.

@77 He’s Spartacus

deliberately imposing apartheid policies that ghettoise them

Oh pretty please with bells on, tell us all what these “apartheid policies” are that have apparently been “imposed”.

What a load of tripe. I couldn’t get an NHS dentist for ten years, and that was BEFORE you idiots let in three million immigrants.

Quite right OP!

Social groups D & E should buck up and compete for evermore casual McJobs with the rest of the globes dispossessed. Silly red-tops, responding to outrage at undercutting, economic displacement, lack of investment in training, infrastructure & housing, and all the rest of the concocted lies, shame on them!

The OP is correct however to argue for a renewed propaganda effort on behalf of the political establishment. Its not enough to just have mass immigration policies enacted in the Government but advocacy for this policy needs to be more aggressive pursued in the Guardian, NewStatesman, LabourList, NextLeft, and on the BBC. Nail some sense into em I say, after all D, E, and C2 have nowhere else to go!!

@75 Dunc and @78 Gwyn

Spot on, wayward and his not-racist chums are guilty of newspeak. I don’t know what’s worse, outright racist lying bullshit from the BNP or semantic pseudohistoric nonsense from not-racists like wayward.

We could consider encouraging people to integrate, through education, language training, history lessons

So what you’re saying is that we should employ more community outreach workers and offer more support to immigrants? I’m good with that, but it’s not going to come free.

Have a read here, Pill, and then tell me that the ideas and policies discussed in the piece are (a) not imposed and (b) counter-productive as tools for social cohesion, as they merely replace one inequality with another.

@ 67 Dunc
your point here is valid. I would answer by suggesting you ask the Japanese authorities why they decided soon after WW2 to implement a strict policy on citizenship to maintain a predominately Japanese culture whilst at the same time allowing this Japanese culture to change beyond all recognition through technological development etc.

@ 68
Not sure what you think is hilarious? Communal violence? Are you saying that the India hindu does not know his muslim neighbour? Or the israel jew does not know the arab?

@ 72
Sorry I got your name wrong. I don’t think I am crazed at all. I repeat – I advocate the policies of the Japanese and s Korean authorities. I think most people would accept that this is hardly crazed.
First nationers are (and I think you know this perfectly well) indigenous peoples – or are you one of these leftists that maintain Britain is the only country in the world with no indigenous people?
Your 2nd para is hardly worthy of response. Who said anything about hate?

@73
The “delightful” policy is simply the policy of most other nations outside of the liberal west – eg Japan. Last time I was in east asia I was not aware they had ‘holding camps’. Seems you have a fevered imagination and should take a cold shower.

@74
I have a Japanese wife and I have lived in east asia most of my adult life.

@75
This is interesting – so my support of the Japanese approach has led now to fevered fears of …
“we will need to have some sort of government body decided on what the essential components of “British culture” are”.
Someone else in need of a cold shower. Next you will be suggesting we will be eating babies.

This is hysterical. I expect lunatic responses and get them everytime !!

So what you’re saying is that we should employ more community outreach workers and offer more support to immigrants? I’m good with that, but it’s not going to come free.

Do you think there may be some publicly funded “diversity” projects from which resources could be diverted?

@58 wayward

The vision of a multi-cultural society isn’t extreme. I’m not at all sure I’d want to be too close to the Japanese of S Korean model. As Dunc said @60, the UK has NEVER been monocultural – to hold otherwise is simply to exhibit an ahistorical and culturally ignorant view.

The liberal elite you complain of (which would presumably have to include the Tories who encouraged the Windrush and New Commonwealth immigration?) is always the whipping boy for the little Englanders who feel threatened by change. Once upon a time it would have been Irish Catholics, French Hugenots, Russian and E. European Jews.

Your characterisation of multi-culural London being such a disappointment sounds like a BNP election poster, and isn’t one any reasonable person would recognise. Spare us your bigotry, however cleverly wrapped up in a sugar coating of hard done by, white middle England outrage.

Japan has plenty of problems of it’s own, and given it’s treatment of the Ainu, lower caste Japanese, Koreans is hardly a model to aspire to.

My wife is Brazilian and describes herself as mulata, wayward.

She endures countless sleepless nights worrying about whether or not she’s a racist.

I have a Japanese wife and I have lived in east asia most of my adult life.

Surely, under your own policy of maintaining racial segregation – you shouldn’t have married her? They’d have never let you into Japan to marry her right? That’s what you’re advocating for now aren’t you?

And you are of course aware of the commonly express Japanese xenophobic attitude towards other ethnicities? Even that of other oriental ethnicities right? Hence their unwillingess to allow any migration at all.

I prefer the American model thanks. It’s more successful and less xenophobic.

some publicly funded “diversity” projects

You have no idea about public funding do you?

@80 Rupert Travis

You couldn’t get an NHS dentist because the government allowed them all to go private rather than invest in the service: hard to see how the immigration policy affected that.

@85

I was being disingenuous @73. Mostly. So “first-nationers” are “indigenous” people eh. Who are they, exactly? After all, indigenous means “native” or (literally from the latin) “in-born person”.

You seem to have difficulty answering questions wayward, so I’ll make it simple:

1) What is the “policy of multiculturalism”?
2) How would you end it?
3) How far back does one have to trace their family tree to be “indigenous”?
4) Do you think that Japan and Britain have identicle histories, seeing as you keep saying Japan has it spot on with rejecting other cultures?

@85:

Not sure what you think is hilarious?

OK, let me rephrase it for the simple-minded: The idea that people objectively assess the characteristics of those they deem to be members of “out groups” is hilarious, in that it’s simple-minded and empirically-disproven nonsense. Also hilarious is your assertion that the current Hindu-Muslim tensions are an inherent and unavoidable consequence of two cultures living close together, rather than a tragic and easily-foreseeable consequence of Britain’s policy of partition when we finally deigned to give them their country back (this also applies to the Israel-Palestine issue). It seems that your grasp of history is every bit is good as your grasp of the English language.

As for your comments on #75, if you want to enforce cultural homogeneity where it does not (and never did) exist, you will need some sort of mechanism to do so. Perhaps you’d like to explain to us what you have in mind?

@84 He’s Spartacus

I was expecting at least a vaguely official policy document… not a hugely Dave Spart-esque article from a tiny Trot/Leninist group. I hardly think anything there backs up your claim that “apartheid” has been “imposed”.

@Mr S. Pill

If you believe that kind of thinking ever went away in the Labour Party, or that it isn’t enjoying a resurgence now that the faux Prague Spring of Blairism has been consigned to the history books, or that it isn’t contained in much of Labour’s social policy from the last 13 years, you have my deep and abiding sympathy.

@94

I just choked on my tea laughing – Workers Lib are running the country! I’ve heard a lot of conspiracy theories but that one is a classic, cheers.

You’re very welcome.

@87
of course you are right and I am wrong…your sharp arguments have me totally persuaded that it is a superb idea to replace indigenous european culture with asian/african culture.

@89
I didn’t say anything about racial segration – you did presumably in an effort to make my position appear more extreme. I think you know it is MASS immigration I am questioning. I am perfectly comfortable with the Japanese authorities and peoples view that I will always be an outsider. I could live in Japan with my Japanese wife (no children as yet) for decades but it is absurd to suggest that I will ever be Japanese.
As for the American model..not sure what the American first nationers think of that model? The American authorities (like the Australians) can hardly complain about immigration when they are all recent migrants themselves – this does not apply to w europe or e asia.

@91
Answers
1.permitted mass immigration from the third world which now given current trends will inevitably result in indigenous culture becoming a minority culture well within this century.
2.controls on both immigration and citizenship similar to Japanese model or other systems throughout the world outside liberal west eg UAE etc.
3.why would this be necessary? No such tests are used in Japan.
4.Of course Japan and UK don’t have identical histories but similarities do exist – island nations, long history of invention, generally mild mannered and polite peoples.

I assume these questions are traps and I look forward to the silly – ah ah – you are a vile racist because you said….

@ 92
The readers (if any) will decide for themselves whether I am simple minded. I think in the light of the evidence many will recognise that you have missed my point entirely and your position is a cliche.
Your claim that the communal violence in India is a direct result of British imperial policy is nausiating and proof certain that that you have been brainwashed into a leftist anglophobe position. Go to Gujarat and be a free thinker.

@85 wayward

Your response to Dunc @67 makes no sense. It’s doubtful many people would have wanted to go to Japan for a while after WW2 tever the governments immigration policy! The kind of strict policy you refer to, and advocate for us, has it’s roots in Japanese history and culture vastly different from our own. Aspects of their society obviously did change hugely in the post war period, but there is significant continuity, including a pretty lamentable record on the treatment of minorities.

Your view obviously is that the Japanese model is suprior to ours, tho I’m not sure many Brits would want to swap, and I’m sure there are many Japanese people who feel their model is much more flawed than the multi-cultural society you seem deplore so much.

I think in the light of the evidence many will recognise that you have missed my point entirely

Then do feel free to elucidate further, perhaps by answering my question as to what specific policies you advocate to enforce the monoculture you seem to favour.

Addendum to #99 (which is in reply to wayward @97): Please also clarify how you intend to define your desired monoculture.

As always this goes the way of every immigration thread. Well done John, it’s always worth repeating that the “we’re full” argument is bollocks. Equally, after these comments I hope that can be expanded to the argument that “we can’t cater for them all” will also be seen, functionally, as bollocks.

Remember folks, it’s not the immigrants fault that they come here after having pretty much not having used any of our NHS when they normally would have in child hood, and provide in to our tax system, yet services are still strained….that problem falls solely at the hands of governments nationally and locally that happily take all of our taxes, immigrant or otherwise, and still fail to use it effectively.

@ wayward 97

“of course you are right and I am wrong…your sharp arguments have me totally persuaded that it is a superb idea to replace indigenous european culture with asian/african culture.”

Whoever said anything about replacing “indigenous” European cuture with african/asian culture?! It’s the same old Powellite “rivers of blood” nonsense: it wasn’t true then, it isn’t true now, and it isn’t going to happen in the future.

What possible evidence can you come up with that “permitted mass immigration from the third world which now given current trends will inevitably result in indigenous culture becoming a minority culture well within this century.” (your post @ 97)? It’s a total fantasy. Of course it ought to have been obvious that you would be chiefly worried about non-caucasian immigration… go figure!

Also, I wish I could remember which thread had all of the rubbish Japanese analogy discussion in before. It was a silly argument then and it’s a silly argument now.

Whoever said anything about replacing “indigenous” European cuture with african/asian culture?!

Also, it’s worth noting that there is no such thing as “European culture”, much less “asian/african culture”. Europe, Asia, and Africa each encompass many diverse cultures. Once again, we see the not-racist mysteriously defining culture on the axes of the long-since discredited racial notions of the 19th century phrenologist.

Someone tag me, I’m leaving work now and there’s no fucking way I’m dealing with this bollocks on my own time…

@97

@91
Answers
1.permitted mass immigration from the third world which now given current trends will inevitably result in indigenous culture becoming a minority culture well within this century.
2.controls on both immigration and citizenship similar to Japanese model or other systems throughout the world outside liberal west eg UAE etc.
3.why would this be necessary? No such tests are used in Japan.
4.Of course Japan and UK don’t have identical histories but similarities do exist – island nations, long history of invention, generally mild mannered and polite peoples

1. “mass immigration from the third world” – so it’d be ok if they didn’t have brown faces, right? “a minority culture well within this century.” Proof? Definition of “culture”? Or “indigenous” for that matter…
2. And what, pray tell, would you do about the multicultural society we currently live in? We are not starting from the same point as 1945 Japan (nor would we want to). And what of the immigrants who currently live here?
3. Because you haven’t defined “indigenous”. At all. In any sense. Do you mean people who are born here? Because that would include plenty of Asian and African heritage people y’know. For some reason I don’t think you’re comfortable with that.
4. Yes there are similarities. But there are HUGE differences. Blighty has ALWAYS been an island of immigrants, emigrants, different cultures – and taking the best bits of those cultures – personally I think it’s one of the things that makes this place half-decent, that we can accept other people with their differences an’ all. That’s what British culture is, a bit of everything. Not a monoculture. Not just tea and boiled cabbage and Morris dancing (there’s a theory that Morris dancing is of Muslim origin anyway).

We’ve addressed all his arguments and he’s just repeating them now. We can leave it, I think.

@ Gwyn 106

I think “arguments” is giving his posts a little too much credit.. but you are probably right.

Lee Griffen@103:

Indeed, this is a familiar riff and I believe wayward posted under another name as I recall someone with an Asian wife coming here before with this same old spew.

“A conservative is simply someone who has never been poor. Or someone who hasn’t been arrested yet.”

I’ve been poor and arrested – but not both at the same time – does that count ?

@109

I’ve been poor, arrested, and mugged [again, not at the same time] – do I win?

@110

We’ve all had 13 years of New Labour..so we know the feeling.

I would like to point out that until 1905 Britain had absolutely no border controls. Up until 1914 it had virtually no border controls.

Britain is the only developed nation to have practised what it preached, free movement of good, of people and of money. I’m proud of that.

In fact, it almost seems as though immigration, openness and tolerance and things which are… I think you can all see where I’m going here… part of Britain’s culture.

There is also the fact that because of Britain’s location, history, the popularity of English language, the cheapening of global travel, the vastness of our borders, the massive inequality of the world, the popularity of England as a place to seek work and self improvement (inhale), closing the borders is never going to work without being prohibitively expensive.

You can look at it a little like a balloon. If you press down on legal migration you’re going to get a corresponding (although likely smaller) increase in illegal migration.

So just to reiterate, the most iconic image of British culture, the height of imperial pomp and naval superiority, the bursting forth of the world’s first industrial nation… no border controls. Open borders are British.

[Although I'm not an open borderer, just something close to one.]

@112 Left Outside

A timely reminder… well said.

@ 112 “Britain is the only developed nation to have practised what it preached, free movement of good, of people and of money. I’m proud of that”.

We don’t have free movement of goods – try loading a white van up with cheap european fags and booze to see what I mean

We don’t have free movment of labour – despite the hype it’s still not possible to just turn up in many european countries and get a job

@ 112 “In fact, it almost seems as though immigration, openness and tolerance and things which are… I think you can all see where I’m going here… part of Britain’s culture.”

Indeed – which is why many have a problem with accepting migrants who don’t share that culture

@Matt Munro.

I am well aware that Britain is no longer a free trading, open borders country. But it was in the 19th century, which was the period I referred to. Those restrictions you talk about are unbritish, see my post on this here.

@ 112 “In fact, it almost seems as though immigration, openness and tolerance and things which are… I think you can all see where I’m going here… part of Britain’s culture.”

Indeed – which is why many have a problem with accepting migrants who don’t share that culture

Don’t be a coward. Our culture’s better than theirs, they will want to adopt it. Backwards culture that doesn’t value a woman’s worth or Britains culture of tolerance? No contest.

The trope that Britain has ALWAYS been a land of immigrants is pure tosh, a simple bromide used by recent migrants, their descendants and misguided promoters of ‘open borders’ and mass immigration to bamboozle those punters with no sense of history.

The truth is that for over a thousand years, from the time of the Scandinavian incursions in the 9th century, Britain experienced remarkably little migration – compared to continental Europe – until the great Afro-Asian colonisation of recent times.

‘Immigrationists’ usually invoke the Normans, Flemish weavers, Hugenots, Afro-Caribbean slaves and the late 19C Jewish influx as evidence of earlier waves of migration but the historical fact is that all of these, singly and collectively, pale into complete insignificance in comparison to the demographic tsunami which has engulfed us in the past two generations. What we have experienced in the past fifty years is totally unprecendented, at least since the Neolithic.

So just to reiterate, the most iconic image of British culture, the height of imperial pomp and naval superiority, the bursting forth of the world’s first industrial nation… no border controls. Open borders are British.

You’ll get no argument from me there. I too believe in open borders. Successive waves of immigrants made an incalculable contribution to this country’s former greatness.

The difference between today and the era you describe, however, is that then, immigrants were expected (and expected themselves) to integrate and to cope. Nursemaiding by the state and deliberate social engineering simply creates deeper divisions, a simmering sense of injustice on the one side, and isolation on the other.

The only role for the state in this (if there must be one at all), should be to encourage the conditions for incomers to educate themselves and take personal responsibility for their lives.

wayward: Go to Gujarat and be a free thinker.

I’m not surprised you cite Gujarat. It’s run by a chief minister in favour of ethnic cleansing Muslims out of the state and the country.

I am perfectly comfortable with the Japanese authorities and peoples view that I will always be an outsider.

But why are you in Japan in the first place? They don’t want you, and in fact you agree that they shouldn’t have you in the country. Or in fact do you think that when people like you go abroad its fine but if anyone comes into the UK then it’s a problem?

Unlike you, I’m quite proud of calling myself British and rather want to be seen as a Briton. What do you call yourself then? Outside Japanese? Shame your imagination is so limited.

@ Wayward

Using Japan as a benchmark to argue against immigration is to use the worst example possible. Japan is a ticking demographic time bomb and with their fertility rate the Japanese state is not sustainable. All those world class Japanese manufacturers will be increasingly producing outside Japan in the next few decades because there are not enough indigenous Japanese in the right age group to maintain production in Japan.

Without immigration the population in Japan will decline to 104.9 million by 2050.
So what you might say.
Those aged between 15 to 64 will decline from 87.2 million in 1995 to 57.1 million in 2050.
However, the population aged 65 or older will increase from 18.3 million in 1995 to 33.3 million in 2050. ( 14.6% to 31.8% )
The real time bomb will be through the decline of the ratio of productive workers to the retired. A decline from 4.8 in 1995 to 1.7 in 2050.

http://unpan1.un.org/intradoc/groups/public/documents/APCITY/UNPAN011033.pdf

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7084749.stm

Other forecasts put the ratio of workers to the retired even lower. The UN forecasts that the population aged 80 and above will be 37% higher than the population of children below 14 in 2050.

http://www.japanfocus.org/-Vaclav-Smil/2411

This is national suicide. If one just considers that ageing populations are less creative and innovative with new startup companies declining as the population ages. However, the real problem will be with Japan’s public debt which is the highest in the developed world. Currently it is easily financed at low interest rates through Japan’s high savings. However, household savings decline in an ageing population as savings are consumed in retirement. Japanese household savings have been in decline since the mid 1990s. There will come a tipping point not too far in the future when Japanese savings will no longer be able to finance the government and the interest rates the government pays to issue debt will go through the roof. Even on the present trajectory interest payments will be consuming 100% of Japan’s government tax revenue in the 2030s i.e. unsustainable just like Japan’s demographics.

You could not have picked a worse role model than Japan to argue against immigration. Do not be fooled by the present calm because all the trouble lies ahead in future decades. Guess what the solution is? Import immigrants in the 20-45 age group.

Just down the road, a few hundred metres from where I sit, there’s a bricked up cave which – according to that wonderful source: The London Encyclopaedia – contained evidence of human habitation going back at least to the middle stone age. Several years back, the local library had a presentation about an archeology dig in the neighbourhood to uncover the remaining foundations of a large Roman villa. The names of the locality and the district are both Saxon – as most are around here. About five miles away, seven Saxon kings were crowned before the Norman conquest in 1066 and the local Parish church is part Norman. Who were the immigrants?

Try that satyrical poem of Daniel Defoe: The True-Born Englishman (edition of 1703):
http://www.luminarium.org/editions/trueborn.htm

A true-born Englishman’s a contradiction,
In speech an irony, in fact a fiction . .

Dutch, Walloons, Flemings, Irishmen, and Scots,
Vaudois and Valtelins, and Hugonots,
In good Queen Bess’s charitable reign,
Supplied us with three hundred thousand men.(*)
Religion—God, we thank Thee!—sent them hither,
Priests, Protestants, the Devil and all together:
Of all professions and of every trade,
All that were persecuted or afraid

(*) the population in England and Wales at this time was probably c. 5 million.

In my opinon, which is just one of many, Britain is not “full” by any stretch of the imagination : what it is is not overpopulated, but undersupported by a wholly indequate infrastructure in terms of

- Not enough suitable and / or affordable housing to rent in the social market
- Inadequate transport links both rail and road
- Inadequate health and NHS provision in all terms
- Inadequate education provision at all levels
- A retrogressive timebomb of debt at all levels through obscene house pricing, mortgage slavery, consumer debt, and student debt

A society teetering on the edge of collapse through too little resource provided to public services ; not too much.

20. Richard W
@ 20

*Guess what the solution is? Import immigrants in the 20-45 age group*

Yeah, right. Seems like you’re another immigration enthusiast that hasn’t yet had a dekko at David Colemen’s seminal paper on the myth of ‘Replacement Migration’

“’Replacement Migration’, or why everyone’s going to have to live in Korea. A fable for our times from the United Nations.

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/357/1420/583.short

Please review and report back with a reasoned rebuttal.
Good luck.

@122: ” Not enough suitable and / or affordable housing to rent in the social market”

Quite so:

“American house prices rose 124% between 1997 and 2006, while the Standard & Poor’s 500 index fell by 8%; half of US growth in 2005 was house-related. In the UK, house prices increased by 97% in the same period, while the FTSE 100 fell by 10%.” Source: Robert Skidelsky: Keynes – The Return of the Master (Allen Lane 2009) p.5.

“Houses are less affordable than 50 years ago although the quality of homes has improved, according to the Halifax. The lender, now owned by Lloyds Banking Group, said that over the last five decades UK house prices have risen by 2.7% a year, allowing for inflation.

“This was above the 2% annual increase in real earnings over the same period.
Prices increased the most in the last decade, and separately lenders warned that lending to first-time buyers would be constrained for ‘some time to come’.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8468605.stm

The long-term average ratio in Britain between house prices and earnings is about 3.8. By late 2007, when average house prices started to fall, the ratio had increased to nearly 6.

Yvette Cooper, an economist educated at Oxford, Harvard and the LSE, was the minister responsible for housing 2005-08.

@ badly pseudonymed boy:

So, John B, you’re lecturing us all about immigration in the UK. Yet you live in Australia? Here’s a thought: let those living in the country you’re spouting your worthless opinions on to make their own mind up.

See my second footnote. I’ve every damn right to express my opinions on what happens in the only country that I’m a citizen of and that I have the unconditional permanent right to live in.

It’s like the lefties living in expensive, white, middle, class suburbs lecturing us on how much immigration adds to the country, while they keep a safe distance.

As has been noted, pro-immigration lefties of my acquaintance (including me until I left the UK this January) tend to live in multicultural, inner-city areas; not-racists of my acquaintance tend to live in leafy suburbia.

Remember: a socialist is just a conservative that hasn’t been mugged yet.

…is one of the stupider comments ever. For a start, you mean “liberal” or “leftie” not “socialist” – Stalin was a socialist, but his treatment of petty criminals is something that the far right would endorse and that liberals would disown.

Even then, it’s still bollocks. For example, I have been mugged, I haven’t been arrested, and I’ve never been truly poor (I’ve existed on very low incomes from time to time, but through choice and always with the option to do something else – the chip stains and grease will come out in the bath, etc). My liberalism is based on evidence and rational argument, not on narrow personal experiences.

@ Matt Munro:

(As through a third in er social sciences from the university of formerpoly counts as an education anyway)

2:1, PPE, Oxford. Not to brag, just to point out that making assumptions based solely on your own prejudices can lead you to stupid conclusions. You might also wish to consider this point with reference to your political views…

123. Dan Dare

20. Richard W
@ 20

*Guess what the solution is? Import immigrants in the 20-45 age group*

‘ Yeah, right. Seems like you’re another immigration enthusiast that hasn’t yet had a dekko at David Colemen’s seminal paper on the myth of ‘Replacement Migration’

“’Replacement Migration’, or why everyone’s going to have to live in Korea. A fable for our times from the United Nations.

http://rstb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/357/1420/583.short

Please review and report back with a reasoned rebuttal.
Good luck. ‘

You may not have noticed but my response to Wayward was about Japan. The David Coleman paper primarily addresses the UK and Western Europe. With a fertility rate around 1.3 Japan has gone beyond the point where any meaningful changes could be made by the government to change the age structure of the population pyramid. Changes such as incentives to encourage the birth of more indigenous children. Moreover, raising the retirement age to retain the same workforce would require the retirement age to be 77. Without immigration, Japan is heading for an unprecedented inverted population pyramid.

On the David Coleman paper I don’t see there is anything to rebut. The UK does not have as big a replacement problem as other comparable states. There is scope to raise the retirement age, and this is a fiscally desirable policy on its own as living ages have increased. Incentives can be provided to maintain the age structure of the population at replacement levels.

Personally subject to criminality checks I do not believe there should be any restrictions of immigration to the UK. However, I readily accept mine is a minority view and it is unlikely to gain traction. You may have faith in the all-seeing ability of bureaucrats to decide the correct number. Something along the lines of 10,000 just right but 10,001 is too many. Maybe even zero just right but 1 is too many. A touching if rather naive view on the ability of bureaucrats. Therefore, my view of the correct number is as many as want to come.

The David Coleman paper is premised on

‘… unprecedented…and eventually displace the original population from its majority position.’

being a problem. Since unprecedented and the original population losing its majority position is not a problem to me there is nothing to rebut.

So, John P, am I to understand that your feelings are the universal benchmark when it comes to feelings of crowdedness. If we are in a room with other people in it, such as a party, and I say I feel a little claustrophobic because of the number of people present, yet you feel comfortable, does it therefore follow that my feelings are aberrant, whereas your feelings are the correct ones? Or to put it another way, is it a case of one size fits all: if John P can tolerate X, then everyone can, or must, adopt the same tolerance for X as John P? Or to put it yet another way, there is no such thing as individual variation in tolerance, needs, likes, dislikes or wants, your assessment of what is appropriate is always correct?

And it’s interesting that nobody at all has mentioned the inexorable diminution of the biodiversity in the UK, secondary to the activities of humans, and their numbers. I’ve been watching since the fifties, with increasing concern, no, horror at how common animals, birds, insects and plants have become rarities. And nobody seems to have noticed that an increased population means increased imports, not only of food, but most of everything else we use. Wood, for instance, into the UK,a country which, bar Ireland is the most deforested in Europe:

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/website/foreststats.nsf/byunique/imports.html

And as increased population means increased imports, so it entails the increased usage of fossil fuels, which raises our carbon footprint. Now I happen to know that some of the posters on LC, and other leftish sites, believe that we should be reducing our carbon footprint, unfashionable though that idea may be. So, do we reduce our carbon footprint, avoid importing more examplars of the UK’s most environmentally destructive mammal, or do we say “Bugger the environment”?

127 128
Full marks for making the most creative association between two events that I have ever heard.
Unfortunately, those environmentally destructive mammals will still exist on planet earth, even if they don’t exist here, the sum of destruction, is therefore, unchanged.

@ 103
Lee – yes I confess I am one and same vile expat that posted comments on the international context last year some time by making the comparison to E Asia and Japan etc.
I remember it causing some head scratching amongst leftist promoters of mass immigration back then also. In fact my civil posts were described as dangerous on Hadley Road website and then deleted – hilarious.

Some of you have raised valid points about population decline but other than that-

My principal point stands – many other advanced democracies have rejected the multiculture experiment – eg Japan and South Korea and others. This position is perfectly valid and the British people should not allow themselves to be brainwashed into thinking that this position is a vile and racist position as the liberal elite would have you believe.

Describing the point as “rubbish” doesn’t really make it go away. You can do better than that Lee.

@129
presumably immigrants into the UK aspire to the typical western world standard of living – ie consumption of resources at an enormously higher rate per person than that typically seen in say Pakistan. Therefore your argument is flawed.

No. If a human being lives near to the source of their food source, it doesn’t have to be transported as far, if at all, and as it is, there is no way we can feed more without increasing food imports, being as we are already obliged to import 40% of our food, thanks to fossil fuels. And bearing in mind the projected rise to 70 million, that means that the existing land available for food has to be yet further reduced in order to provide space to build another 9 Birminghams. Oh, and we need to import many of the building materials in order to build those houses. In any case, there is no guarantee that by then we will have sufficient bees, or other insects to do the essential job of pollinating, given the inexorable decline in their numbers due to loss of habitat and intensive farming practices necessary to feed as much of our population as we can.
And besides, 129 and 130, third world people are environmentally good, given that they consume less and contribute less to global warming, but as a rule, when they arrive here, then they begin to emit global warming gases at the same level as us. I suppose we could tell them to carry on being poor when they get here.
And in any case, Britain is not the only country to be using the “country is full” meme – the Bangladeshis are at it too. They are not only full, but wanting to transfer some of their population to other countries. Guess which ones – no, not Siberia.

I meant to include a link:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/04/bangladesh-climate-refugees

130
Surprisingly, fossil fuel, as total energy consumed is- Europe 80% and Asia 78%,
India is nearly totally dependent on fossil fuel. But as Europe is making a concerted effort to reduce carbon footprint and much of Asia’s economy/resources will remain relient on fossil fuel for the forseeable future, surely more people consuming environmentally friendly products, the better. Therefore, using an environmental argument, it would make sense to remove consumers from Asia and place them into Europe where they can access
such products.

@126 Richard W

*You may not have noticed but my response to Wayward was about Japan.*

I had noticed, and offered the Coleman paper since the same ‘solution’ you are offering forJapan is usually proposed by immigration enthusiasts for western Europe. Japan is an extreme case admittedly, but the solution that you favour ultimately means that the same absurdity awaits there as Coleman describes for Korea. There are simply not enough people on the planet to maintain the support ratio perpetually for any large country with a below-replacement fertility level.

The sensible solution, even for Japan, and certainly for western Europe is for goverments to take a responsible line and implement an integrated package of policies that are sustainable in the long-term and socially responsible in the sense that they operate in the best interests of the indigenous population. Such a policy package would not include the option to import hordes of fecund third-worlders who will of course grow old themselves in time, and will need replacing in ever-increasing numbers, simply to maintain the economic irrelevancy called the ‘support ratio’.

*The UK does not have as big a replacement problem as other comparable states.*

One reason for that is of course that the replacement migration myth has taken further hold here than it has in other European countries. Live births to Afro-Asians in England and Wales already account for over 20% of the total; and BME children account for 23% of enrolment in primary schools (the latter figure presumably includes those not born here).

*Therefore, my view of the correct number is as many as want to come.*

Given the number of economic and environmental refugees likely to want to avail themselves of such generosity it hard to imagine anything more socially irresponsible than this.

*The David Coleman paper is premised on
‘… unprecedented…and eventually displace the original population from its majority position.’
being a problem. Since unprecedented and the original population losing its majority position is not a problem to me there is nothing to rebut.*

Refreshingly honest but barking mad. Unless that is, you have some personal axe to grind, as immigration enthusiasts so often do when they are not still spotty student types.

@ Dan Dare

Why is it barking mad to return to open borders? It is after all the default position that existed for the vast majority of human history. The nation-state and closed borders is a fairly recent development in Homo sapiens 200,000 year history. Therefore, my position is not ‘ barking mad ‘. It is you that is arguing for an abnormal imposition.

I believe in free trade, free movement of goods across borders and free movement of capital. It would be irrational of me not to believe in free movement of labour across borders. Migration will occur regardless of border policies. It can either happen legally where people can freely move back and forward or it will occur illegally.

@135

Open borders have not existed for millenia. If you believe they have then how to account for Hadrians Wall, the Roman Limes in southern Germany or the Great Wall of China.

Every human society throughout history has sought to protect its society from unwanted intruders, some succeeded (eg China) some didn’t (eg India).

It is ‘open borders’ that would be the aberration since they run counter to human nature, although that of course something that the political and managerial elites prefer not to take into account when formulating policy.

The innovation in recent times has not been the erection of borders separating socities, but rather the abandonment of selective migration based on ethnicity in favour of what Christian Joppke terms ‘source-country universalism’, the mode currently practiced by all western liberal democracies (but no other nation state, whether democratic or not).

John B “2:1, PPE, Oxford. Not to brag, just to point out that making assumptions based solely on your own prejudices can lead you to stupid conclusions. You might also wish to consider this point with reference to your political views…”

Which, as a product of privelidge, makes your obvious liberal guilt all the more nauseating, and you’re still a patronising, middle class, ex-pat, prat.

137
So what are you MM, a working-class boy made good? I would say highly likely, it’s just a shame that academic success has made you obnoxious and arrogant.
What did you do with your psychology degree, go into advertising or have you set-up shop on your own peddling unregulated, non evidence based therapies to sell to the middle-class worried well, Maybe you sell dodgy psychometric testing to large companies, who ,without you, would never find a suitable employee.

LOL Yes (to working class boy made good)

No (not a psychologist)

140
No (not a psychologist) phew, most people on LC will be relived about that.

It was my first degree, but got disillusioned with it. It’s been taken over by feminists and the anti-science left. Now just a lame branch of sociology.

141
You didn’t really believe it was a science did you? Unfortunately, social psychology does tend to counter the biological determinsm meme.

I have to say that compared to many on LC – John B being a prime example – I’m actually quite low on the obnoxious/arrogant scales. I’ve never called anyone who disagrees with me “uneducated”, and nor do I try and be a self-appointed spokesman for immigrants/gays/BEMs/the poor, despite having never experienced anything but a life of privelidge.
I have no interest in telling people how they should live, how much they need the EU, how high tax big state is good for them, or what “rights” they are alledgedly in need of to acheive self-actualisation/start the revolution. That would have made me a liberal 20 years ago, now it makes me a fascist apparently.

@142 Yep, biological determinism is a pain isn’t it, it’s not as if biology ever actually determined anything is it – I mean, strip away “the biology” and there’s no real difference between humans and rats is there ?

143
I would suggest that you undertake a personality test – you may be surprised at the result, I would suggest you are a neurotic extravert by your posts.
142 ‘Biological determinsm’ determines that we don’t have wings, so we can’t fly,can we?
Humans are flexible and creative, they are not passive recipients of biology but they can be repressed by environmental factors.

Flexibil and creative within limits yes. Not passive recipients of “society” either though are we.

146
I withdraw my first comment on post 145 because after reading it again it was unnecessary and probably obnoxious.
What I find insulting, though, is your reference to the education of thousands of people who may have gone to universities which aren’t part of the Russell group. Many choose to go there because of the high cost of living, student loans etc and their parents live nearby.
And I don’t have any personal axe to grind.

No offence taken – I would probably agree with neurotic, most people are nowadays, it’s the predictable outcome a product of living in a big state country, mass helplesness and an ability to make even basic decsions for yourself. Wouldn’t agree with extrovert. On the Eynseck scale I was right in the middle, close to zero, as in neither extravert nor introvert. I would hazard a guess that most people who visit blogs regulary tend towards introvertion though.

I’ve got no problem with people going to uni (well actually I have, with 50% going, but that’s a whole other thread) what I object to is people saying anyone who isn’t a leftie (not anyone who didn’t get their education at a RG Uni) is uneducated.

@ Matt Munro 148

“what I object to is people saying anyone who isn’t a leftie (not anyone who didn’t get their education at a RG Uni) is uneducated”

..no, no.. that’s not what they’re saying, what they are saying is that anyone who isn’t a leftie has no conscience..