I'm glad you laid out the real reason most people voted for Brexit. I remember hearing Boris's first post-Brexit talk about how we would now be able to be a genuinely global Britain. Wait, what? That's not what we meant!' And I remember a friend saying, 'So let me get this straight. You voted for a stop to EU immigration because you want less non-EU immigration? Is that it?'
My reasoning at the time was this. Since the EU didn't seem bothered that it's southern border was being overrun and that hordes of alleged asylum-seekers were steadily making their way north I thought, this is a 'Tragedy of the Commons' problem: no one is dealing with it because it's not any individual country's problem. Okay then, let's go individual. Ah, if only things had worked out how I planned.
Strange you should say that. I'm in Japan right now, faced with all that awful monoculturalism - and enjoying it. Though it's not my culture, somehow all monoculturists understand each other.
I've lived there a couple times. Whatever you do don't talk to Americans there about the local culture. You'll get an earful about how Japan needs more diversity, more immigration, and multiculturalism. This is invariably packaged with something about "low birth rates".
I seem to remember Johnson stating after 2019 that he was aware that the Red Wall votes that had won him the election had been 'lent', and so Tories had better reflect carefully on what they needed to do to maintain their newfound supporters' fragile trust. The subsequent contempt and brazen deception over one of the issues they (and other natural conservatives) care about most deeply has been absolutely astonishing. Suicidally so, if they keep at it.
I have doubts over whether anyone, even the Melonis and Akessons, can do much about mass migration in Europe over the long run - the vested interests and demographic pressures are so overwhelmingly powerful - but it would be nice to be able to vote for someone who at least had a proper go.
"A small number perhaps believe that we can have more open borders and also evolve into a small-state economy blessed with a super-efficient bureaucracy ..."
I suppose people can believe anything if they want to believe it badly enough.
"a world of cheap luxuries and unaffordable necessities"
I will remember this phrase.
When I saw in the Times that Truss was planning even more immigration it did make me pause. After all these years? And what for? Even more expensive housing and overburdened social services?
It's interesting to compare to Japan, which has embraced population decline as the lesser of two evils, favoring preserving cultural cohesiveness. I daresay Japan will have the last laugh.
You should write an article on the deliberately carefully selected demographics of the Great British Bakeoff. Someone commented to me the other day that after all these years there's never been a contestant originally from Australia or Canada or the US, despite substantial populations living in the UK, even for most of their lives, and yet the show producers always manage to find a couple people who've barely lived in Britain. But perhaps more relevant, till about a few years ago the show's bakers were clearly selected to provide a regional representation of Britain, balanced among the four countries and English regions, but now it's pretty much mostly London / ethnic with a few token people from elsewhere in the UK isles.
The funny thing about Brexit was that it ‘meant’ whatever anyone wanted it to mean, on either side. You only had to be much too online to see this. More curry chefs was an oft-promised benefit too. Right there is a promise that will be kept.
It's quite disputed but one theory about the industrial revolution happening in England is to do with high wages. A high wage economy is an innovative economy, on top of being happier.
I can't possibly see how importing people to do work in say the hospitality industry at a basic level improves the economy. Some will turn out to be very bright and skilled at something else, but you won't be selecting for them so not many.
There was always a strong left wing case for Brexit. Recall the EU imposes neoliberalism in a way that placed it beyond democratic control. When a Labour government get into power they will have the opportunity to show that it is possible to combine social liberalism with a high wage economy. What is required is to allow immigration where needed for acute labour shortages but not to the extent that it suppresses investment in productivity. Sadly having an infinite pool of EU labour removed any incentive for managers to get their act together and improve labour productivity.
to me the entire point of Brexit was to slow down extreme globalisation and restrict the pool of unskilled and semi-skilled labour so that wages would go up and house prices go down. Obviously that would make some people worse off, but it's a price worth paying for a happier and less dystopian society. Sadly not what the Tory party had in mind!
Watching the GBP/gilts drama unfolding since Friday, especially with an emergency BOE hike being imminent, I'm becoming more and more convinced the Tories will be done much earlier than current consensus (ie in 2 years).
Immigration levels tend to have a lag until the public catches up, mortgage payments on the other hand provide an instant realisation.
I think we could end up as Argentina soon enough - a formerly wealthy, (demographically) European country racked by recurrent currency crises and political instability.
I'm pretty convinced that the touting of economic benefits of immigration by elites in all Western countries is just a sublimation of an open-borders modernist ideology that has nothing to do with economics and everything to do with contempt for things the rubes are into, like traditions and nations and people's pride in them. Mass immigration as the use of human beings as political bioweapons to dramatically say "take that!" at the lower orders one despises. Remember the Blair advisor's comment about "rubbing the right's noses in diversity"? Any economic benefits to one's supporters are secondary to this.
Giorgia Meloni is not a "fascist" politician. She is the exact opposite. She is a center-right politician and her planned policies are center-right. She supports freedom for the people of Italy, of which they have lost much to the dictatorial policies of the EU and left-wing governments.
Fascists are on the left side of politics, starting with Mussolini, who was a pure socialist and was publicly proud of it.
That was also my reaction to Ed calling Georgia Meloni "the 187th fascist politician to be elected to major office in the past 20 years". But having clicked on the associated link, I now realise he was being sarcastic and making a point about how every anti-establishment right-wing politician gets called "far-right" or "fascist".
And I think the most useful definition of "right-wing" or "left-wing" is "whatever the media in your culture at the present time describes as right-wing/left-wing". And the media in 2022 definitely regards fascism as right-wing and so did the media in the 1930s and 1940s - I think rightly so given that fascism is anti-democratic, nationalistic, and reactionary.
After my current book is out of the way I'm thinking of doing a piece on our hypochondria around fascism and why conservatism has been constantly labelled as so. And our general trauma about WW2 generally which overshadows our civilisation (for good reasons).
I wouldn't agree with people who say fascism isn't right-wing, though; it clearly is, even if it uses many methods of the Left and included some socialist methods. But then Italian fascism was also quite distinct to Nazism, which is what we think of when we say fascist and which was far more evil.
Fascism is a leftist ideology, not a right wing one. The fascists came from socialist parties that broke from communism and globalism in favor of technocratic control by the few to dominate businesses and economies and societies and inculcate them into doing what they were told “for the collective good”.
I'm glad you laid out the real reason most people voted for Brexit. I remember hearing Boris's first post-Brexit talk about how we would now be able to be a genuinely global Britain. Wait, what? That's not what we meant!' And I remember a friend saying, 'So let me get this straight. You voted for a stop to EU immigration because you want less non-EU immigration? Is that it?'
My reasoning at the time was this. Since the EU didn't seem bothered that it's southern border was being overrun and that hordes of alleged asylum-seekers were steadily making their way north I thought, this is a 'Tragedy of the Commons' problem: no one is dealing with it because it's not any individual country's problem. Okay then, let's go individual. Ah, if only things had worked out how I planned.
it is developed not necessarily in our favour, to paraphrase Emperor Hirohito
Strange you should say that. I'm in Japan right now, faced with all that awful monoculturalism - and enjoying it. Though it's not my culture, somehow all monoculturists understand each other.
I've lived there a couple times. Whatever you do don't talk to Americans there about the local culture. You'll get an earful about how Japan needs more diversity, more immigration, and multiculturalism. This is invariably packaged with something about "low birth rates".
This ONE WEIRD TRICK Destroys Your Electoral Credibility AND Your Country (Not Clickbait!!!)
haha
I seem to remember Johnson stating after 2019 that he was aware that the Red Wall votes that had won him the election had been 'lent', and so Tories had better reflect carefully on what they needed to do to maintain their newfound supporters' fragile trust. The subsequent contempt and brazen deception over one of the issues they (and other natural conservatives) care about most deeply has been absolutely astonishing. Suicidally so, if they keep at it.
I have doubts over whether anyone, even the Melonis and Akessons, can do much about mass migration in Europe over the long run - the vested interests and demographic pressures are so overwhelmingly powerful - but it would be nice to be able to vote for someone who at least had a proper go.
it's all very strange if I'm honest.
"A small number perhaps believe that we can have more open borders and also evolve into a small-state economy blessed with a super-efficient bureaucracy ..."
I suppose people can believe anything if they want to believe it badly enough.
"a world of cheap luxuries and unaffordable necessities"
I will remember this phrase.
When I saw in the Times that Truss was planning even more immigration it did make me pause. After all these years? And what for? Even more expensive housing and overburdened social services?
It's interesting to compare to Japan, which has embraced population decline as the lesser of two evils, favoring preserving cultural cohesiveness. I daresay Japan will have the last laugh.
You should write an article on the deliberately carefully selected demographics of the Great British Bakeoff. Someone commented to me the other day that after all these years there's never been a contestant originally from Australia or Canada or the US, despite substantial populations living in the UK, even for most of their lives, and yet the show producers always manage to find a couple people who've barely lived in Britain. But perhaps more relevant, till about a few years ago the show's bakers were clearly selected to provide a regional representation of Britain, balanced among the four countries and English regions, but now it's pretty much mostly London / ethnic with a few token people from elsewhere in the UK isles.
I saw someone use a similar phrase about the cheapness of stuff like phones and the expense of housing, but I cant remember who.
Have to admit, I've never seen GBB once. In fact, I don't think ive ever watched a cookery show in my life.
The funny thing about Brexit was that it ‘meant’ whatever anyone wanted it to mean, on either side. You only had to be much too online to see this. More curry chefs was an oft-promised benefit too. Right there is a promise that will be kept.
"The Tories seem to believe that immigration is necessary for economic growth, which might be true but doesn’t appear immediately obvious"
This article on the Conservative Home website sets out the case that *low-skilled* immigration is bad for economic growth:
https://conservativehome.com/2022/09/27/will-tanner-a-warning-shot-across-the-bows-to-the-government-on-relaxing-immigration-rules/
It's quite disputed but one theory about the industrial revolution happening in England is to do with high wages. A high wage economy is an innovative economy, on top of being happier.
I can't possibly see how importing people to do work in say the hospitality industry at a basic level improves the economy. Some will turn out to be very bright and skilled at something else, but you won't be selecting for them so not many.
There was always a strong left wing case for Brexit. Recall the EU imposes neoliberalism in a way that placed it beyond democratic control. When a Labour government get into power they will have the opportunity to show that it is possible to combine social liberalism with a high wage economy. What is required is to allow immigration where needed for acute labour shortages but not to the extent that it suppresses investment in productivity. Sadly having an infinite pool of EU labour removed any incentive for managers to get their act together and improve labour productivity.
to me the entire point of Brexit was to slow down extreme globalisation and restrict the pool of unskilled and semi-skilled labour so that wages would go up and house prices go down. Obviously that would make some people worse off, but it's a price worth paying for a happier and less dystopian society. Sadly not what the Tory party had in mind!
Watching the GBP/gilts drama unfolding since Friday, especially with an emergency BOE hike being imminent, I'm becoming more and more convinced the Tories will be done much earlier than current consensus (ie in 2 years).
Immigration levels tend to have a lag until the public catches up, mortgage payments on the other hand provide an instant realisation.
it's looking bleak all right
I'm in no way an expert on these matters, but I've found the Irish economist Philip Pilkington's commentary on all this very enlightening:
https://unherd.com/thepost/is-sterling-on-the-verge-of-collapse/
I think we could end up as Argentina soon enough - a formerly wealthy, (demographically) European country racked by recurrent currency crises and political instability.
I'm not _that_ pessimistic. It's just a (huge) gamble and I believe the chances this goes well are slim.
I'm pretty convinced that the touting of economic benefits of immigration by elites in all Western countries is just a sublimation of an open-borders modernist ideology that has nothing to do with economics and everything to do with contempt for things the rubes are into, like traditions and nations and people's pride in them. Mass immigration as the use of human beings as political bioweapons to dramatically say "take that!" at the lower orders one despises. Remember the Blair advisor's comment about "rubbing the right's noses in diversity"? Any economic benefits to one's supporters are secondary to this.
Giorgia Meloni is not a "fascist" politician. She is the exact opposite. She is a center-right politician and her planned policies are center-right. She supports freedom for the people of Italy, of which they have lost much to the dictatorial policies of the EU and left-wing governments.
Fascists are on the left side of politics, starting with Mussolini, who was a pure socialist and was publicly proud of it.
That was also my reaction to Ed calling Georgia Meloni "the 187th fascist politician to be elected to major office in the past 20 years". But having clicked on the associated link, I now realise he was being sarcastic and making a point about how every anti-establishment right-wing politician gets called "far-right" or "fascist".
And I think the most useful definition of "right-wing" or "left-wing" is "whatever the media in your culture at the present time describes as right-wing/left-wing". And the media in 2022 definitely regards fascism as right-wing and so did the media in the 1930s and 1940s - I think rightly so given that fascism is anti-democratic, nationalistic, and reactionary.
That was actually a follow up to this piece
https://unherd.com/2021/06/the-fascist-moment-isnt-coming/
After my current book is out of the way I'm thinking of doing a piece on our hypochondria around fascism and why conservatism has been constantly labelled as so. And our general trauma about WW2 generally which overshadows our civilisation (for good reasons).
I wouldn't agree with people who say fascism isn't right-wing, though; it clearly is, even if it uses many methods of the Left and included some socialist methods. But then Italian fascism was also quite distinct to Nazism, which is what we think of when we say fascist and which was far more evil.
Not piece - *book*
Fascism is a leftist ideology, not a right wing one. The fascists came from socialist parties that broke from communism and globalism in favor of technocratic control by the few to dominate businesses and economies and societies and inculcate them into doing what they were told “for the collective good”.