Douglas Murray on intolerant politics

Was that the series, The Secret History of our Streets, that did Camberwell and had the well-off ?lawyer reminiscing about living next door to a squat?

I get it kitten. In my children’s state primary they are each the only native British heritage child in their class. The other families are not the mega rich. They are from fairly prosperous mainly middle class families - mainly living in flats as is the norm round here. All have at least one non British parent. French, Russian, American, Scandi, Central American, Nigerian. To be honest we do have our own supportive community based around the school - and it did really come together recently when a parent at the school became dangerously ill. But it’s true that it’s not old London. It’s not the London I grew up in. My children are unusual in having grandparents and cousins on the doorstep. Most of their friends have grandparents on another continent.

I've never had banker type money and never will, but I'd hate that too, and that's a big part of what I mean. Areas that had a distinct feel to them changing into a big bland mass of gentrification. London isn't the only city that's happening to by any means, any city where housing costs have gone through the roof will see at least some degree of it, but it's going to bother you more the more emotional attachment you have to a particular place.

Even some people who are rich hate the idea.

Some years ago there was a documentary which focused on changes in particular areas over time. One of them was Notting Hill - there was a wealthy banker on there who was lamenting how it changed. He hated the fact that all his neighbours were now people like him - lots of money to buy in the area. He felt a real loss at the increasing gentrification of the area.

Which, again, some git will no doubt try to interpret as "you're saying it's not white enough any more" while those of us saying it laugh bitterly because in many ways we mean kind of the opposite, though it's more complicated than that in that a big chunk of the white working class is being pushed out too.

Exactly.

It made me roll my eyes too, Autumn, fwiw. In terms of why I'm not sure if going back to London would be bittersweet for me it's that most of the people I know who were either born and raised there or who've lived there for a long time say that it's changed and they see people being driven ever further out because of the cost of housing, so someone who once lived in Zone 1 or 2 was gradually pushed out to Zone 4 or 5, and the people who used to live in Zone 4 or 5 have ended up being pushed out of the city altogether. Councils saying they have no place to put people seeking council housing and offering to relocate them to somewhere that from their point of view is the arse end of nowhere not because they're being snobby but because they don't know anyone there and moving would mean being separated from what we've been told in this thread not to call kith and kin. I don't know what else to call it, but people generally aren't happy about being forced to move away from it by housing costs, and doing so can make things a lot harder for people/families that were struggling already. Not that living in a city like London isn't always expensive, but there's a sense that doing so has gone from being hard to impossible for a lot of people and that as a result the overall picture of who lives in London has changed in ways that make it not feel like home any more. Which, again, some git will no doubt try to interpret as "you're saying it's not white enough any more" while those of us saying it laugh bitterly because in many ways we mean kind of the opposite, though it's more complicated than that in that a big chunk of the white working class is being pushed out too. I guess you could sum it up as, do you want to live in Monaco? Playground for the rich and all that. Even some people who are rich hate the idea.

Sorry for epic posts...

I want to pick up on the bits on "scroungers" and tax avoidance on the previous page, because I think the two are linked.

I went to a fascinating talk a few years ago which explained the maths of the situation. Any attempt to impose a yes-no cut off on what is a continuous measure (e.g. below this income threshold you're eligible for in-work benefits, above it, you're not) is open to gaming. I.e. situations where someone can manipulate the rules to their benefit.

This, to my mind, explains both "scrounging" and "tax avoidance" (the legal but taking the piss situations - in contrast to the illegal "benefit fraud" and "tax evasion" cases). In both situations the issue for policy makers is how to stop up the loop holes without screwing over the people who need help.

How do you set up a tax system flexible enough that the small business person doesn't go under first time they encounter a cash flow crisis and tax bill at the same time, without producing a set of rules which enable big multinationals to take the piss? (Not tax law, but related - e.g. Pret a Manger not labelling allergens correctly because they've realised that the loophole intended to exempt small sandwich shops can be used by them too if they do a minor amount of prep in store rather than in the factory). Likewise, how do you set up a benefits system which genuinely helps everyone it needs to without creating the odd "family X with 10 children getting the local council to knock 2 houses into one for them and claiming X thousand quid a month in benefits"?

The short and simple answer is: it can't be done. The best policy makers can do is block up the more egregious loopholes while listening to the issues of people who are being genuinely disadvantaged. Which is where politics comes in - because I think which side gets listened to - those (often quite reasonably) saying "block the loopholes - these piss takers are not what we have benefits/exemptions to tax law for", or those saying "you have to tolerate a certain number of loopholes because the monetary losses to the system are relatively small, and those losses damage society less than seeing single mothers or people with disabilities who can only work a certain number of hours reduced to poverty/ seeing small businesses go under because you wanted to tackle Amazon's tax avoidance and didn't think the consequences through well enough."

I'm imagining that when you say 'necessary' you are suggesting that which is 'real/actual' - and when you say' contingent' you are suggesting that which is 'imagined/idealised? The reality of a place, versus its place in the imagination?

I think it's the other way round, Just. The "necessary" city is the bits without which a given city would lose its identity as "that particular city" rather than "any old city - perhaps the generic city of the Lego Movie". So Tower Bridge, Houses of Parliament, etc, for London. Whereas the "contingent" city (in a sense the real gritty bit which those who live there couldn't live without - the sewage system, the retail distribution system, the housing, etc) could take any form (there's other ways of organising all of them) and the iconic bits of the city would still be there. But the people who live there need some form of contingent city - they couldn't live without sewage disposal and food shops and housing. They could however live without Tower Bridge.

(I think this may be where the terminology of "necessary and contingent" may be confusing, because to most people the "necessary" bits are the bits without which their daily life couldn't go on, and as an ex-philosopher I'm not sure it's the best use of the terms. Maybe "essential" and "arbitrary" might be better.)

In my experience (what I've witnessed) people who ask where are you from...no where are you really from... Are usually the same skin colour as the people they're asking. I'm thinking of my two closest friends, one is black her parents Nigerian, and the other is Asian and her parents are from India. When out with both of them, it was always men (never saw a woman ask), of the same skin colour as them, who'd press them on where they are "really" from. (London was never accepted as an answer). Maybe because the area we are from is quite a mixed area racially, maybe in a high/predominantly white area it would be different

Definitely! There is often a high degree of wilful segregation in areas of great ethnic and cultural diversity. Once transplanted into a foreign host culture there seems to be a desire to hold onto and define, very strongly, one's native culture. 'Identity' mostly depends, very much, on difference and on separation.

Food For Thought Has multiculturalism resulted in even greater differentiation and more rigid classification, rather than a breaking down of differentiation.

It's not just multiculturalism, though, is it? If we look at trans ideology what we are now seeing is an ever greater set of classifications and 'available' identities: non-binary; gender-queer; two-spirit; pansexual and so on.......The ultimate pick & mix of post modern consumerism.

It probably shouldn’t, though; intellectually, it’s pretty simple and straightforward, and explains a lot about how people think about and talk about large cities

If i understand your premise correctly, then i would suggest it is not just about how people think of large cities, but about any community or place. For example, the urge to return to one's childhood home or childhood family holiday location stems from a holistic vision that encapsulates all of one's essential hopes and/or feelings - but often when you get there the 'glamour' fades pretty quickly.

*It probably shouldn’t, though; intellectually, it’s pretty simple and straightforward, and explains a lot about how people think about and talk about large cities8

Perhaps you should lay out what you mean when you say 'necessary' and 'contingent'...then we could all engage and discuss whilst being on the same page.

I'm imagining that when you say 'necessary' you are suggesting that which is 'real/actual' - and when you say' contingent' you are suggesting that which is 'imagined/idealised? The reality of a place, versus its place in the imagination?

I get what you're saying about masculinity, and I've no doubt there's racism involved in the Brexit vote too

I think we need to be very careful throwing around terms such as 'racist'. There comes a tendency for any questioning of immigration; or discussion of the cultures of different immigrant or ethnic communities; or those of religious minorities to be, immediately, denounced - in the same way that questioning the trans narrative is automatically deemed transphobic.

There is a need to talk about 'community' and about 'values' and how best to manage a multicultural society. Unless there is a concept of shared value and a common culture which all citizens mediate - then social cohesion will inevitably break down. It's all well & good seeing immigration and multiculturalism through the metropolitan lens of ethnic delicatessens and bakeries and arts events......without ever stopping to consider how we manage cultural clashes and divisions.

JohnR “ It probably shouldn’t, though; intellectually, it’s pretty simple and straightforward, and explains a lot about how people think about and talk about large cities.”

My New Year’s resolution is to stop thinking I’m too thick to understand these things. So, okay, if that’s what you think, great.

Dagenham is Essex. bangs gavel

And it's pretty maddening when you see it in front of you, when someone is doing very well by being dishonest, even just a little dishonest, while you are struggling. Values like independence and hard work really require a lot of community support in order to flourish

Absolutely! And this sort of scenario often has a tendency to turn people towards the right, in terms of law & order and so on...... ideas about self reliance and personal responsibility come into play when you are doing all of the 'right things' and you see others around you completely taking the piss.

I presume none of this supposed to apply to lifelong Londoners.

Of course it applies to lifelong Londoners; someone who grew up in Dagenham will have a different idea of what is necessary and contingent than someone who grew up in Hampstead. But there are perspectives which are pretty much unique to lifelong Londoners; few people are fond of Dagenham other than people who actually grew up in Dagenham...

Though, if you will forgive my honesty, it’s exactly that sort of explanation that makes a lot of us say “WTF”.

It probably shouldn’t, though; intellectually, it’s pretty simple and straightforward, and explains a lot about how people think about and talk about large cities.

Verily1 “ Before that I’d naively assumed that one set of migrants would be supportive of another but now I realise assuming that is probably unconscious racism in itself.”

Yes. I realise it’s commonplace and I’m not having a go, but I also really hate this “generation” immigrant thing. Probably another thing to blame on academics.

Something that surprised me at the time but doesn’t now was when I was canvassing in a recent election was when a 2nd/3rd generation voter of Pakistani origin said he was voting Tory because he didn’t want Eastern European migrants coming in.

Before that I’d naively assumed that one set of migrants would be supportive of another but now I realise assuming that is probably unconscious racism in itself.

Binterested “ Isn’t it marvellous that now every shop in this town is Estonian (I think it was Estonian) and how lovely for the local people to have the chance to learn Estonian. I thought then, is anyone actually listening to local people?”

That would give me the rage too.

JohnR

“ One’s perceptions of London are heavily influenced by a personal notion of what London actually is as a place. This one may take a little explaining...”

I presume none of this supposed to apply to lifelong Londoners.

Though, if you will forgive my honesty, it’s exactly that sort of explanation that makes a lot of us say “WTF”. I can’t know what Prodigal meant though.

I didn’t know that begging is banned in some parts of the ME Bovary. Demonstrates a tiny part of the problems with multiculturalism that we are not allowed to talk about. Roma people end up here as do Arab people. Their two different lifestyles end up being hosted by Britain and come together on my high street with horrible consequences. But we haven’t put any of our own norms in place to manage the negatives. We just watch it and say nothing in case anybody thinks we are not multicultural.

This is where I started to fall out of love with the BBC. They ran a piece on immigration in Lincolnshire - a place with low paid work and few opportunities. The tone was just so Panglossian. Isn’t it marvellous that now every shop in this town is Estonian (I think it was Estonian) and how lovely for the local people to have the chance to learn Estonian. I thought then, is anyone actually listening to local people?

The thing is, it’s fine for people like me with my lovely Romanian nanny and my workforce of highly educated immigrants and all the terribly marvellous restaurants in my area - my children are more likely to eat Lebanese (we have scores of Lebanese restaurants) than fish and chips (there isn’t one nearby). I’ve also lived abroad, speak another language fairly fluently, all that. But there are negatives and we have to be able to acknowledge those as well as the upsides.

I get what you're saying about masculinity, and I've no doubt there's racism involved in the Brexit vote too, although there are masses of other reasons why Labour have lost their appeal. I don't think working class people are necessarily harder on benefit scroungers (don't like that word but can't think of a better way to put it right now) they're perhaps just more aware of them. I've known families of petty criminals in my neighborhood who caused nothing but trouble wherever they moved to who lived off benefits, of course it will lead to resentment living among people who trash the neighborhood and cause problems for everyone else while being paid by the state, via your own hard earned wages that you're struggling to live on. I do believe people who are clearly taking advantage like that should be made to work for their benefits. In other ways benefits aren't fair to those who do have at least one worker in the household. I remember when I claimed for a while and lived with my boyfriend who worked part-time (he was a student), and only got JSA because I'd earned enough in the previous year. It was nowhere near enough to live on, wouldn't even cover bills and rent, plus we didn't share our money anyway, so I just had to live off my overdraft. I remember YTS schemes where people I knew from school worked full-time in low skilled jobs for two years earning £40 a week (a pittance then as now), only to be told there was no job for them as a cashier in Farm Foods afterall at the end of it so they then had to sign on, the next batch of 18 year olds brought in and paid a pittance in their place. At the other extreme there was the New Deal for musicians. I'm torn in some ways because I believe in supporting the arts, but it was a massive waste of money, the job market simply isn't there. All part of Blair's Cool Britannia 🤢