Douglas Murray on intolerant politics

I realise you are not in the UK but are you aware some Commonwelath citizens here on short term work visas got to vote in the referendum while citizens of other EU countries who have been here for decades and UK citizens living in other EU nations for longer than (if I recall rightly) 5 years did not?

Yes, I can certainly see why some found that annoying, but I think in terms of an explanation it's understandable, it's essentially the remnants of a completely different system, with a completely different basis.

I really wonder, I cannot picture the people of France, for example, being particularly thrilled if a bunch of Spanish or English or Italian citizens wanted to vote in a referendum about something particularly dear to the identity or sovereignty of the French people, even if they had been working in France for a long time. I don't know that they'd be particularly apologetic about it either.

I have a lot of doubts about the stability of the EU in its current for, TBH, and I don't really see explicitly making it more like a federal state as going over well with a lot of people across the whole EU.

Was it Liverpool that was selling houses for a pound a few years back to anyone willing to sign up to renovate them and live there for a certain period?

(I may have imagined the price, it might have been more than a quid but was something very token)

We have reasonably good housing for elderly people here with high flats set aside for them with live in wardens. Contrary to popular belief not all high flats are/were drug ridden hellholes, though we used to have a fair few of those around too.

Also social housing units have been flying up since right to buy was ended but these have largely been to replace tracts of substandard housing rather than in addition to existing properties.

To pick up on the housing issue, different areas have very different circumstances, and unfortunately, so much of the debate is set with reference to London and the South East.

Within the parameters of my borough council, we have over 1000 empty social housing homes. Why? Because no one wants to live in them.

And this is the issue with social housing. You have to build it near amenities, near public transport, near transport networks, near shops and leisure facilities; otherwise, it fails. But land near all those features is expensive, and those homes also require land enough for viability (modern units need to be built with drives and car parking), so there's no land savings you can make on individual unit cost.

But even if you do build on such land in many areas of Britain, you essentially start overloading existing infrastructures -- which is the problem we now face in our area.

The answer is, pretty much, new towns. But the cost of establishing a new town is extortionate, and you have to attract employers with deals on tax and investment ... otherwise, there's no jobs. In short, you start talking about seriously big money.

So you might say, well, the solution is to encourage the retired to move out of their homes to smaller units, but that supposes there are viable smaller units for the retired to move to. And this is, again, an issue.

In my area, if you are elderly and infirm, you have three options: you can stay put and buy in care, you can put your name down to rent a low to medium assistance flat but the waiting list is about seven years, or you can try for a care home.

Very few elderly people actually need the kind of 24/7 care of a care home. And it's very expensive, and prone to crisis (all you need is a couple of workers to be sick, and a couple of people to be engaged in an emergency, and all of a sudden, you've gone below ratio if another incident occurs).

So the solution is to build low to medium assistance complexes of apartments with a 24 hour porter and nurse, but trying to get this model accepted is very difficult because it is a fairly new type of concept. The few authorities that have accepted it have no social care crisis I think York is one.

On universities, leaving home to attend university is the norm in England, and I think Wales, but not in Scotland where attending local universities is the norm.

I was the only pupil from my cohort at either my school or the neighbouring catholic one that went away to university and I only did so because there were only two universities in the UK offering my course at the time.

Goosefoot I realise you are not in the UK but are you aware some Commonwelath citizens here on short term work visas got to vote in the referendum while citizens of other EU countries who have been here for decades and UK citizens living in other EU nations for longer than (if I recall rightly) 5 years did not?

Here's an article about it from the time

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-36316467

Voting in the UK is complex and there is often little 'fair' about it.

They might not be able to get the votes to decide to leave the EU at all if they had enough people from other places living there, which seems like a pretty significant impingement on their existence as a nation-state

Well quite. In similar fashion, I think Labour has been said to benefit electorally from high net immigration because of the tendency of immigrants to be more likely to vote Labour. Hence cities currently being islands of red in seas of blue. The irony would be if that self-same high immigration were implicated in them finally losing their Red Wall of working class indigenous voters.

Some of this citizenship business seems to come down to where does the basis for that lie? I live in federal system, so I am a citizen of my nation, and a resident of my province. If I move to a different province I vote for my MP there, I can vote for an MLA (provincial legislature) there, and whatever sort of local government that is relevant. That province takes responsibility for my education, health care, I pay them provincial taxes. I just have to register into their system. I can't of course vote in my old province any more. The principle is total free movement for citizens within the nation.

My understanding has always been that the EU was not meant to set up a sort of federal system where European countries became like provinces, that they were to retain political control over national concerns.

If a lot of people are thinking about it that way, it probably should be expected that others will push back. It's not really the sort of thing that should be changed without being explicitly addressed.

The traditional UK university experience where students leave home to reside at their university acts like a big conveyor belt taking young people

A good point, and unfortunately contributes to their sense that if the university educated crowd vote a certain way it's a more educated way and so it must be the correct way! When in fact they're just in a different social milieu and have different vested interests.

Is it weird? Why is it logical that a British expat in Spain should have a vote, but a Spanish expat in Britain shouldn't? As an unquestionable 'anywhere' that would be my instinctive response.

I was thinking more about the part of the comment that said that had Blair put some restrictions on immigration, as other EU countries have, she wondered if people on the left would have complained that it was racist somehow, given that so many seem to take that attitude to any attempts to control immigration.

But as far as the idea that someone in Spain could vote about Britain leaving the EU. Essentially having joined the EU, that would mean any nation would no longer have the ability for it's citizens to decide what would be best for them as a people. They might not be able to get the votes to decide to leave the EU at all if they had enough people from other places living there, which seems like a pretty significant impingement on their existence as a nation-state.

Shag
The arrangement of local voting sounds perfectly reasonable.

So everyone did, as packer eloquently put it, have "skin in the game"

Absolutely.

Re the voting mentioned above, as a non-Brit but EU citizen (and American, i.e. dual citizenship), I am allowed to vote in local elections in the UK but not at the national level, so no vote allowed in the GE. This makes sense to me—as a resident in England local voting directly affects me but why should I, a foreigner, have a say what happens to Britain as a nation?

Also I do get to vote for President in the US but not at local level. Again, this makes sense. I don’t reside there so local issues don’t affect me, national issues still do (federal tax, for one).

Is it weird? Why is it logical that a British expat in Spain should have a vote, but a Spanish expat in Britain shouldn't?
Because being British is the defining boundary here, the expat might want return to Britain if they wish.
It's the one thing that gives people hope, to return to their community.

Where does this attitude come from? It's common enough but it seems weird on the face of it.

Is it weird? Why is it logical that a British expat in Spain should have a vote, but a Spanish expat in Britain shouldn't?

As an unquestionable 'anywhere' that would be my instinctive response.

I do wonder if the metropolitan elite would have been up in arms if they had put any restrictions in place. We saw during the election campaign the Left saying what a disgraceful country we were for not allowing all residents to vote even if they weren't citizens.

Where does this attitude come from? It's common enough but it seems weird on the face of it.

Universities and the military are interesting because they have always had a certain amount of transience. Academics tend to move around for a few years and often settle away from their hometown, even in a different country. And of course military people move all the time.

But both make a lot of effort to create a strong institutional culture to make up for that. When you move onto a military base there are all kinds of things set up already, schools, clubs, regimental associations, family centres etc, all meant to keep the social life going and to create a sense of belonging. They tend to be similar culturally from place to place and people are expected to be involved, it may even be part of their official job. Universities are similar, people are slotted into groups, there are all kinds of societies, that will carry on even with a change of members.

Basically Brexit and the Tory landslide are Blairs fault. His government stood for the cosmopolitan elite who cared more about getting a cheaper plumber than the effect the open door policy had on the general population."
Agree. Blair could have put controls in place that the other EU countries have done. By not doing so, anyone from the new EU countries who wanted to move could only come here. For 7 years, we were the only place people could go. Successive governments could also have put in place employment restrictions that other countries have done. Instead, they didn't, which meant not only did they not have to bother spending money on further education in vocational skills for British born teenagers but they could blame the EU for the influx of semi skilled labour. I do wonder if the metropolitan elite would have been up in arms if they had put any restrictions in place. We saw during the election campaign the Left saying what a disgraceful country we were for not allowing all residents to vote even if they weren't citizens. Something that no other country allows AFAIK.

The universities play a pivotal role in the anywhere/somewhere division. The traditional UK university experience where students leave home to reside at their university acts like a big conveyor belt taking young people out of their local communities and into a new community of the academically educated, where community identity is rooted in shared abilities and values rather than in shared place.

Just as the traditional boarding school was where young men were grounded in the values and ideals of the ruling class to which they belonged, the universities act to ground young people in the ideals and values of the 'anywhere' class.

The rise of the 'anywheres' as a powerful class within society is therefore closely linked to the shift from an industrial to a knowledge-based economy and the expansion of higher education that has come with it.

(I should add that I am not criticising the universities here, but just pointing out how the particular higher education system adopted in the UK leads to the kind of outcomes we are seeing now.)

ShagMeRiggins, that's interesting because what you're describing is physical transience – the faces change – but within a ready-made, geographically dispersed community, viz the US military.

You were on a base; it's an even more ready-made community than arriving within an informal diaspora, and on top of that, loyalty to comrades is a key value of the military (even though social and career back-stabbing also happens). So everyone did, as packer eloquently put it, have "skin in the game",

Other part of the housing crisis is older people living in massive home and young families living in very small family homes sometimes below the sq footage recommended 100 years ago.

In the past, families would have taken over the family home and parents moved to smaller household and this worked better than the modern version of downsizing because both families were in the same community.

Thus housing stock served the needs of the local population rather than housing being built according to what the out of community developers think they can make the most money from.

IfNot "Basically Brexit and the Tory landslide are Blairs fault. His government stood for the cosmopolitan elite who cared more about getting a cheaper plumber than the effect the open door policy had on the general population."

this! I blame Tony Blair for pretty much everything

First things first—this conversation has been amazing, enlightening, and a source of nourishment for my brain. Thank you to all who have contributed.

Second, what I've been wanting to say about a PP's comment that "lack of community" is caused by immigration, when I feel it's caused by transience of any kind, particularly in-country migration.

I wanted to add that the exception I’ve seen to this is growing up in 70s/80s as an (American) Air Force brat in the US. I don’t know if it’s still this way or if it was due to the time period (Vietnam War) but streets in the base were full of military men with foreign wives they’d met while stationed abroad (my mother being one).

This created instant multiculturalism yet simultaneous integration. The wives hadn’t emigrated with their own families—this is key—and while they were keen to rear their children with knowledge and values (and food and language!) from the wives’ home culture, they were even keener for their children to assimilate and become “proper” Americans.

My mother stopped speaking to me in her native language—in fact, my native language, as I had lived and been schooled in her home country until the age of five while my father was on active duty around the world—because I came home from school one day at around seven years old, after we were permanently residing in the US, and stated I didn’t want to speak it anymore because no one else did.

Back to transient communities, though—there was tremendous community on those bases. Partly due to military life, but also due to the knowledge that the next move was but a moment away so people got stuck in fast and firmly to make the most of the time they had. Being stationed somewhere was the only community opportunity people would have for decades, until retirement when possibly a return to “home” would occur.

When everyone is transient and knows it, these communities form and carry on. The faces change, but the community still exists.

Nrft-only about half way through but lots of good points here.
Absolutely agree with that people have been shouted down by the establishment (gov services, the media) for worrying about immigration and it hasn't helped.
I'm from immigrants (though very assimilated) and I got so sick of seeing on these boards the "immigrants do the jobs that British don't want to do." It's rubbish.
If I'm 23 and willing to go to another country, share a room, and work all hours to send money home that's a completely different prospect than needing to know my shift patterns because of childcare, or needing to pay rent on a house for my family.
Immigration is a good thing, free movement is a good thing, but you can't just open the gates and let a million people in without some repercussions, and it's the working class that lose out.
I'm a traditionalist in lots of ways-left wing, pro union pro social contract pro social mobility, proper jobs, all those things. I wanted to Remain mostly because I think we need to be part of a block and I don't want to be at the mercy of the US and China. However I have long been able to see both sides, as the people who have been shafted by globalisation ( free flowing money and labour) are the people I grew up around.
Basically Brexit and the Tory landslide are Blairs fault. His government stood for the cosmopolitan elite who cared more about getting a cheaper plumber than the effect the open door policy had on the general population.

We do have an ageing population (west coast scotland) but very recently we're seeing a steady increase of incoming people, especially English people. Cheap housing helps, I think.

Interestingly although our population is falling, we live in smaller and smaller households these days so the housing shortage still affects us.

And instead you get the likes of me, moved there (well, somewhere v similar) because property is cheap.

My only conscience-saver here is that my income is from UK national funds (DWP), so I'm importing paid work into the area for cleaner, gardener, taxi-driver, trades, etc. And I don't take up much in the way of locally funded services, so I hope I'm not a net drain. (Plus in my head this is all temporary and one day I'll work again... Well I need a good fairy story to keep me going.)

But yeah, that's really not the sort of employment the area needs. And if Scotland becomes independent, that will be the end of my DWP funding.

Arnold "We need people who have the capacity to set up businesses and provide employment. We need the fit, the able, the entrepreneurial."

So you have high levels of unemployment?

Have you spent any time in outer London lately? I'd say there was a massive boom in people setting up businesses and it's part of what makes it an overcrowded hellhole instead of the quiet little suburb it used to be.