Douglas Murray on intolerant politics

[BovaryX]

There is an interesting article by Douglas Murray in the DM about the authoritarian, identity politics which have alienated Labour voters and triggered a paradigm shift in the political landscape. It covers some of the themes which Lang GC Pencils and others have been discussing in light of election result.

It is a divide between people who have real-world concerns and those focused on niche and barely significant ones...How, you might ask, have we reached such a state? There is a clue in the Labour Party’s dysfunctional reaction to its catastrophic defeat on Thursday

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.)

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."

Sorry for epic posts...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 remember reading about a hipster coffee shop in Deptford in what used to be the jobcenter and just thinking "oh ffs". Which obviously isn't just about the coffee shop, it's what it represents in terms of what's happened to that neighborhood and what it means for the people who lived there before.

Could well have been, hipsterfun. I just remember that he was very well-off but seemed to be struggling with the change. I remember feeling sorry for him - despite his wealth, he seemed to be very unhappy.

People are people and I imagine very few truly enjoy life on the gilded treadmill, helping to fashion a bland, globalised world.

I'm not going to give spoilers but there's a German movie where that topic comes up a bit.

I’m just skimming this now because I’m meant to be doing stuff

But Prodigal yes that’s part of it

I’m zone 5, clinging on after deciding to take a step down work wise.

I know people will accuse you of wanting London to be more white; my views, when I dare express them, are considered baffling because I’m not white.

The globalised world thing is horrendous. I’d be overjoyed with banker type money but I’d use it to move away (though there’s issues with what while mum is alive).

The person who said about London feeling like an airport was spot on. I hate the Monte Carlo aspect as well but ironically London has lost all sense of style. That’s partly the child friendly culture though, which I hate. I sometimes think London is just people eating takeaway and screaming kids. Who are, inexplicably, being dragged around crying at 10pm by adults who are clearly just out and about, not that they’ve been on shifts and just picked up their child.

"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."

This makes perfect sense to me, and seems a natural reaction to the upheaval of leaving the security of one's own culture/nation/language (notwithstanding the issues and problems it might have) and moving to a new, 'alien' culture. It's normal to want to surround oneself with what is familiar and comforting and 'normal'.

However, this does raise issues for the 'host' nation. It will impede 'integration', if what we mean by that term is that the 'new arrivals' adopt the 'native'/local language/practises/diet?/norms of behaviour & dress etc etc, in a reasonable timeframe.

And is such integration even desirable? I want to hold on to the rich variety and true multiculturalism of the world as a whole, but that is likely to be lessened and diluted and made more difficult by immigration, not facilitated. How ironic!

I miss integration so much.

Autumn Rose, I really recommend watch the final episode of Masterchef The Professionals on catch up.

Three extremely talented and determined young people. One the daughter of an upper middle class farmer, another one of 14 (?) children of a single mother from somewhere like the Congo, and the third, the persistent truant son of a binman from Birmingham.

All really inspiring, and no special pleading. The result seemed based on merit.

need I don’t watch cooking shows, no interest whatsoever.

Not the cooking as such, but three very diverse young Britons pursuing their ambitions. getting on with each other, and not expecting special treatment. That's the country I want my children to belong to!

I grew up in Newham, east London. I know in the 70s and early 80s my mum experienced some racism there but I think late 80s onwards it changed and I couldn't have imagined racism would be a thing now because we all seemed to get along just fine. I genuinely thought it would die out. I know people don't like "I don't see colour" and I understand why, but it seemed to me that that's how things were headed at least in my area, and that it was a good thing.

We had an influx of "anywheres" after the Olympics happened and things were rejuvenated and expensive homes were built because of the easy commute to Canary Wharf and central London. That was the biggest and worst change imo because it feels now there's a clear divide whereas before there was integration. The anywheres Vs somewheres makes perfect sense. It's given me a new perspective on things. I've really enjoyed reading this thread.

I know people don't like "I don't see colour" and I understand why, but it seemed to me that that's how things were headed at least in my area, and that it was a good thing.

Only recently have I realised how ‘diverse’ people were when I was growing up. Didn’t notice at the time, it was just normal.

Harriet “I know people don't like "I don't see colour" and I understand why, but it seemed to me that that's how things were headed at least in my area, and that it was a good thing.”

Same here.

I think integration is important.
It used to be accepted that when you move to a new country you try to fit in, adopt the customs to some extent, learn the language, get involved. Many children were given a name from their heritage AND a British name (my parents were) so ethnic traditions were still kept and practised but as far as the wider community people blended more.
Now, in the small towns in the North where I grew up, I feel like there's more division than assimilation, not with people 40+ but their children, the young, seem to be encouraged to separate themselves and cling to an ethnic identity as if it entirely defines them.

I’ve just read Girl Woman Other by Bernardine Evaristo and one of the things that doesn’t quite ring true to me is that the hip, politically engaged daughter of a black lesbian mother doesn’t identify as black or mixed race at university. I thought of course she would. You identify as whatever you can. It’s become a currency. Hence Kate Winslet identifying as working class because as a child her family had a car that kept breaking down and went on holiday to Cornwall not Florida.

IfNot “ Now, in the small towns in the North where I grew up, I feel like there's more division than assimilation, not with people 40+ but their children, the young, seem to be encouraged to separate themselves and cling to an ethnic identity as if it entirely defines them.”

It’s the same in London and it horrifies me. And why would they want to do that?