Excellent post, Pete North. I read the Manifesto Project which aligns perfectly with what I believe. I personally know people of other ethnicities who absolutely fit into the culture of Great Britain. Ethno- nationalism is not the answer to Uk’s troubles. The UK has a great culture which has been hijacked by Marxist ideology.
Great post. I listened to Steve Laws on Andrew Gold and it was a deeply discomforting listen. Laws isn't a particularly engaging or warm speaker and his brand of utopian ethnonationalism is in parts troubling and impossible to achieve.
As you elude to...every party has an immigrant problem in that no party has a coherent, sustainable position on it.
We have to recognise that returning to some racially pure bygone era is not going to happen.
I wonder if we need to have a grand bargain with immigrant communities. We can judge integration on 4 levels
1) economic - do they contribute to society. Do they stand on their own feet?
2) politically - do they join in with general political discourse or do they seek to pursue sectarian interests?
3) Crime - are their crime rates high? Are they overrepresented in organised crime?
4) culturally? Do they like a pie and a pint and fish and chips?
the last one is by far the least important really. I don't care if a jewish family obeys the Sabbath or if a Chinese family only eats stir frys.
But the 1st three are setting tests that useful immigration should be able to pass. Basically an immigrant group shouldn't make the life of the native population worse or harder.
The advantage of my tests is that in every immigrant community some families will pass them, whilst others will fail miserably. Its just that the pass rates will vary significantly by groups.
the state can then design policies to set these tests and deal with the consequences of failure.
«1) economic - do they contribute to society. Do they stand on their own feet? 2) politically - do they join in with general political discourse or do they seek to pursue sectarian interests? 3) Crime - are their crime rates high? Are they overrepresented in organised crime?[ ...]
But the 1st three are setting tests that useful immigration should be able to pass. Basically an immigrant group shouldn't make the life of the native population worse or harder.»
The tests that matter to "Middle England" voters (and of course also to "Upper England" sponsors) are actually:
A) Does immigration increase demand for housing boosting the price and rents of my properties?
B) Does immigration cut my labor costs making deliveries, gardening, cleaning, etc. cheaper?
C) If A is true (ideally B too) can we ensure that immigrants stay in a few places and we rarely see them in our tree-lined suburbs until they are coming to deliver, clean, garden, etc.?
Since at least the Blairwave of 2004 immigrants have given a massive contribution to “make the life of the native population” (where “population” means "Middle England property owners") a lot better by delivering significant labour cost savings and massive increases in property rents and prices.
But only until 2022: until 2021 the Conservatives were either keeping by-election seats or even winning them from New Labour, something quite rate for a incumbent government.
What happened in 2022 and subsequent years is that property prices have been rather flat (despite the Boriswave which has mostly boosted rents) in most of England depriving "Middle England" property owners of a large part of their living standards and they are naturally angry about it. New Labour have not been able to pump up property prices either so "progressive" property owning "Middle England" voters are angry with them too.
So mass immigration is very popular with "Middle England" voters if it comes with big property price increases, but if the big property price increases stop then immigration (or anything else...) becomes unpopular.
Since the huge "property based voting" elephant braying and jumping up and down in the room cannot be mentioned by professional politicians they make-believe that the switch by thatcherite voters from Conservatives and New Labour is not a giant strop by angry property owners but a switch to "civnat" politics.
Restore Britain was never an ethno-nat party (this term is just used as an attempted smear) and it is certainly not a civ-nat party. It is not a case of either/or
Excellent post, Pete North. I read the Manifesto Project which aligns perfectly with what I believe. I personally know people of other ethnicities who absolutely fit into the culture of Great Britain. Ethno- nationalism is not the answer to Uk’s troubles. The UK has a great culture which has been hijacked by Marxist ideology.
So if Restore is CivNat, that means they're all too thick to grasp that "civic" contradicts "nationalist"?
Great post. I listened to Steve Laws on Andrew Gold and it was a deeply discomforting listen. Laws isn't a particularly engaging or warm speaker and his brand of utopian ethnonationalism is in parts troubling and impossible to achieve.
As you elude to...every party has an immigrant problem in that no party has a coherent, sustainable position on it.
We have to recognise that returning to some racially pure bygone era is not going to happen.
I wonder if we need to have a grand bargain with immigrant communities. We can judge integration on 4 levels
1) economic - do they contribute to society. Do they stand on their own feet?
2) politically - do they join in with general political discourse or do they seek to pursue sectarian interests?
3) Crime - are their crime rates high? Are they overrepresented in organised crime?
4) culturally? Do they like a pie and a pint and fish and chips?
the last one is by far the least important really. I don't care if a jewish family obeys the Sabbath or if a Chinese family only eats stir frys.
But the 1st three are setting tests that useful immigration should be able to pass. Basically an immigrant group shouldn't make the life of the native population worse or harder.
The advantage of my tests is that in every immigrant community some families will pass them, whilst others will fail miserably. Its just that the pass rates will vary significantly by groups.
the state can then design policies to set these tests and deal with the consequences of failure.
Lowe is a genuine character unlike the charlatan Farage and still may have three years to get his act together.
But that is a big ask and there are still too many gaps in his stated aim of winning the next election.
He is also determined to expose Farage, Yusuf and Anderson for trying to get him sent to jail.
These are uncertain but very interesting political times.
«1) economic - do they contribute to society. Do they stand on their own feet? 2) politically - do they join in with general political discourse or do they seek to pursue sectarian interests? 3) Crime - are their crime rates high? Are they overrepresented in organised crime?[ ...]
But the 1st three are setting tests that useful immigration should be able to pass. Basically an immigrant group shouldn't make the life of the native population worse or harder.»
The tests that matter to "Middle England" voters (and of course also to "Upper England" sponsors) are actually:
A) Does immigration increase demand for housing boosting the price and rents of my properties?
B) Does immigration cut my labor costs making deliveries, gardening, cleaning, etc. cheaper?
C) If A is true (ideally B too) can we ensure that immigrants stay in a few places and we rarely see them in our tree-lined suburbs until they are coming to deliver, clean, garden, etc.?
Since at least the Blairwave of 2004 immigrants have given a massive contribution to “make the life of the native population” (where “population” means "Middle England property owners") a lot better by delivering significant labour cost savings and massive increases in property rents and prices.
But only until 2022: until 2021 the Conservatives were either keeping by-election seats or even winning them from New Labour, something quite rate for a incumbent government.
What happened in 2022 and subsequent years is that property prices have been rather flat (despite the Boriswave which has mostly boosted rents) in most of England depriving "Middle England" property owners of a large part of their living standards and they are naturally angry about it. New Labour have not been able to pump up property prices either so "progressive" property owning "Middle England" voters are angry with them too.
So mass immigration is very popular with "Middle England" voters if it comes with big property price increases, but if the big property price increases stop then immigration (or anything else...) becomes unpopular.
Since the huge "property based voting" elephant braying and jumping up and down in the room cannot be mentioned by professional politicians they make-believe that the switch by thatcherite voters from Conservatives and New Labour is not a giant strop by angry property owners but a switch to "civnat" politics.
Restore Britain was never an ethno-nat party (this term is just used as an attempted smear) and it is certainly not a civ-nat party. It is not a case of either/or