Immigration to the UK - do you have concerns?

[Gramsci]

Fair enough. I meant really on the detail of immigration control. Certainly I think more can be done to have communities talking to each other. How that's done without it just happening organically or not part of some cringey council lead thing, I'm not sure about off top of my head.

I think a rough idea of how immigration control can be altered is all part of it.

Will wait to see what response it gets

 

[littlebabyjesus]

I don't think many people would disagree that there are a lot of people who may see themselves as culturally middle class, often because they don't do physical work, but who could be regarded as structurally working class.

But the small business owner who employs ten people does have power. They may not have the same power as more successful capitalists but their interests are more aligned with them then they are with those they employ. If those ten workers decided to unionise and agitate for better wages or conditions that would become apparent very quickly. It is in the business owner's interests to prevent that happening and they will align with other, bigger capitalists to do so.

While this is true, it's not the whole story. Many small business owners, while they are richer than their employees, are not rich compared to, say, a head teacher or a senior doctor. And their position in the food chain of their industry is often not aligned with the interests of capital, which may be actively trying to put companies like theirs out of business through measures such as globalisation, etc.

Structurally, even business owners can often be fundamentally on the working side of class and class interests in many important respects while at the same time having opposing interests wrt their employees' wages and rights. Meanwhile, you can be a well-paid employee of a company with no direct ownership of the means of production at all and have interests that align with those of the company paying you (your interest being that you continue to earn the big money), which include actively seeking to trample on said small businesses and their employees.

These things are messy.

 

[mojo pixy]

I'm getting irritated with repeated refrain on this thread about out of touch people who don't understand the concerns about immigration.

Ive lived in the middle of it. Somehow despite saying this the same old refrain is posted here about not understanding peoples concerns.

I have concerns. However that does not mean I oppose immigration.

Understand what you mean, I lived in Hackney for years, Tooting also at another time, also Bristol - both inner city St.Werburghs and outer edge Kingswood. I've lived multiculturally and through gentrification, I've lived in white-flight suburbs and I grew up in poor, white, working class Gosport. I live in a very White town in a very White county (though one which sees very diverse seasonal influxes). Working in Care, got a mixed-race kid (mum's an immigrant) about to start secondary school, I really do like to think I've got a pretty clear view on this particular issue. It comes up in conversation at times, I never call anyone racist, I just make the points I've been making here:

It's not really immigration. It's shitty governments. It's our privatise-the-profit / nationalise-the-debt economic system, deliberate morbid neglect of industries and hobbling of unions, fetishisation of finance and crazy inflation of house prices, underfunding of councils leading to services either vanishing entirely or being taken up by volunteers. Volunteers! The list goes on, but even if you can get someone to agree, they still kind of go ... yyyeah but .. immigration though, eh?

Because it's also our very Brittttish culture of deference up while punching down. And it's easier to burn down an immigrant's house than it is to burn down the king's house, even though me and the immigrant have more in common than either of us has with the king.

Anyway, just because someone doesn't share particular concerns about society doesn't mean they must be out of touch. I have lots of concerns about society. I just want to direct my concerns at where I think they belong, instead of where oligarchs and gaslighters and demagogues and grifters want me to direct them.

 

[lengualo]

Yes I know. My response was to brogdale who was answering mentalchik. i.e. telling people who are uneasy about the pace of change, seeing a seemingly large number of people with different language, different culture, who for obvious reasons, may socialise amongst themselves, that it's all neoliberal blah, blah, is pointless. Most of them probably realise this but it doesn't change their emotional response to change.

I live in an urban area, which has several takeaways, Turkish, Thai, Indian, Polish shops etc. Lots of Spanish people live in the same building. This is all good and fine to me but I grew up in London. If I were older, lived in a smaller place most of my life, with a level of cultural homogeny, perhaps I would feel different, as described by many posters. It's worth trying to understand that feeling and not handwave it all away with but yeah Marx, blame the govt, just suck it up, do you only like fish and chips or sommat.

But then there is the question of whether what is being concerened over is even worth being given time of place, or whether the thing is racist in the first place.

with different language

What has that got to do with anything? Why the heck is anyone bothered about this? I live in a multi-lingual home and we speak between English and Spanish, sometimes in the same sentence. I've been told to speak English in England before and have had this conversation many times. It always boils down to feeling uncomfortable because people could be saying anything about them or plotting something, or some other crap. And its like what the actual fuck has it got to do with them, and why the hell do they think they are so interesting and special that we want to slag them off behind their backs?

Do they get uncomfortable with deaf people using sign language? Because unless you also know sign language you don't understand them either. And there are multiple languages spoken in these lands anyway. The language thing is ridiculous, I'm sorry but it deserves the hand waving it gets. Just because something concerns someone doesn't mean its worth being discussed as though they have some kind of point, especially not when its based in some weird paranoia in the first place.

I've actually found the best approach is to say "why are you being weird and trying to listen into a strangers conversation?". Sometimes concerns need a bit of honesty, if you're bothered about language you're being a bit weird, intrusive, and paranoid.

may socialise amongst themselves,

OK, so groups of people who are of minority backgrounds hanging out together make them feel uncomfortable? But different demographics of people do this anyway, all of the time. Do groups of grandmas outside of bingo club make people feel uncomfortable? or football fans, nerdy people at a comic book convention, teenagers, students? Do groups of gingers make people uncomfortable? Or blonde people? Tall people? Disabled people? People waving little flags?

Is it something like gangs of youths or men, do they also get concerened about gangs of white british youths or men? And if so, why the differentiation? The issue is a fear of gangs of youths, or gangs of men rather than where they come from and thus their ethnicity shouldn't come into it at all. If it does, there is a subtext to that and people shouldn't be expected to pander to it less they are being dismissive of "legitimate concerns".

More to the crux of the matter though, when they see a group of brown skinned people what do they think, what do they say about it? We can try to come up with answers, but I am yet to find anyone who doesn't answer in a way that isn't revealing about their views on ethnicity.


You might think some of the responses people give to concerns are a bit dismissive or patronising but they're often based on the kinds of crap they've encountered.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Understand what you mean, I lived in Hackney for years, Tooting also at another time, also Bristol - both inner city St.Werburghs and outer edge Kingswood. I've lived multiculturally and through gentrification, I've lived in white-flight suburbs and I grew up in poor, white, working class Gosport. I live in a very White town in a very White county (though one which sees very diverse seasonal influxes). Working in Care, got a mixed-race kid (mum's an immigrant) about to start secondary school, I really do like to think I've got a pretty clear view on this particular issue. It comes up in conversation at times, I never call anyone racist, I just make the points I've been making here:

It's not really immigration. It's shitty governments. It's our privatise-the-profit / nationalise-the-debt economic system, deliberate morbid neglect of industries and hobbling of unions, fetishisation of finance and crazy inflation of house prices, underfunding of councils leading to services either vanishing entirely or being taken up by volunteers. Volunteers! The list goes on, but even if you can get someone to agree, they still kind of go ... yyyeah but .. immigration though, eh?

Because it's also our very Brittttish culture of deference up while punching down. And it's easier to burn down an immigrant's house that it is to burn down the king's house, even though me and the immigrant have more in common than either of us has with the king.

Anyway, just because someone doesn't share particular concerns about society doesn't mean they must be out of touch. I have lots of concerns about society. I just want to direct my concerns at where I think they belong, instead of where oligarchs and gaslighters and demagogues and grifters want me to direct them.

Well said.

 

[The39thStep]

Fair enough. I meant really on the detail of immigration control. Certainly I think more can be done to have communities talking to each other. How that's done without it just happening organically or not part of some cringey council lead thing, I'm not sure about off top of my head.

Absolutely. Very often the Council doesn't have to lead, instead it can help facilitate ie funding, getting rid of red tape, allowing its resources to be used etc. I worked with local community members on a couple of cohesion projects , one in an area where there was an active campaigning BNP group, and another around a long running issue regarding parking near a mosque.

 

[Sue]

Is it something like gangs of youths or men, do they also get concerened about gangs of white british youths or men? And if so, why the differentiation? The issue is a fear of gangs of youths, or gangs of men rather than where they come from and thus their ethnicity shouldn't come into it at all. If it does, there is a subtext to that and people shouldn't be expected to pander to it less they are being dismissive of "legitimate concerns".

A lot of people* find groups of male youths/men hanging about outside shops etc intimidating. Whatever the colour of their skin.

*A lot of women at least and I've heard the same from older people of both sexes.

 

[lengualo]

There is no middle class, structurally speaking. Today’s structural analysis tends to focus on the following groups defined by the way that their field of activity creates, in Bourdieu’s terms, a particular “habitus”, or internal model of the world that creates particular dispositions, behaviours and meanings:

- Those who work in industries that have been “Taylorised”, ie the “scientific management” of time and motion studies has allowed for the embodied knowledge of individual workers to be externalised into the system. This means the workers are readily replaceable. It also, however, allows for collectivisation — individuals do not feel they can improve their individual lot without the class as a whole also being raised. The bedrock of the old left.

— Those who have gained some social capital that means they are in charge of the first group, as low level managers, foremen etc. This individual’s position is precarious — they are in constant danger of falling back into the first group. This fosters both an individualised set of interests and a desire to create cultural differentiation from the first group. Classic “working-class” Tories.

— Children from the above groups who then acquired intellectual and cultural capital, e.g. by going to university, but do not have the social capital required to turn this into financial capital. This group is also defined by social mobility and precarity — they seek to exit the groups they came from but the lack of social capital tends to create a downward mobility in respect of this expectation. The result is an individualised set of interests combined with a social resentment that their aims have been thwarted. Asu such, forms the bulk of the modern Labour Party and “progressive” movements — neoliberal in world-conception but angry that “meritocracy” hasn’t meant they personally are in charge.

— Sole traders, small capital etc, who tend to employ themselves and one or two others at most. Much of what I would write here is similar to the second group above, but this group is more defined also by a distrust of systems that would benefit large capital, which includes regulation and red tape. Individualistic, but prone also to form special interest groups that have the appearance of solidarity, albeit without ideological substance

— The professional managerial class. A stable class, who make decisions on behalf of the owners of capital. Key differentiator is a lack of precariousness — children of the PMC will end up as PMC regardless of how poorly they do at school. Have an assumption that they are the rightful rulers, and look down on aristocratic owners of capital that they view as fools. Those running the Labour Party exemplify the PMC — Blair, Starmer etc.

— Owners of capital, who do not have to get involved in the management of that capital, but can simply live off the proceeds. The classic bourgeoisie.

— Those unable to sell their labour, and thus must rely for survival on, eg, state benefits.

Note that specific individuals will often move between groups during their own lifetime — particularly the first four of them. Groups 2-4 are defined by precariousness and mobility, in fact. Class is not some essentialised identity attached to the self, and that is why it is meaningless to spend your time trying to allocate individuals to buckets. Class is a way of understanding why certain groups might react in certain ways to certain situations.

Then we generally agree with each other, I have some differences of view in this. But my broader point then was that the first 4 groups should be unified rather than played against each other, and we do live in that system, so people shouldn't be looked down as bad for moving up through those groups. I'm also more a mixture of social democrat and socialist so we might have some ideological differences too.

 

[lengualo]

I don't think many people would disagree that there are a lot of people who may see themselves as culturally middle class, often because they don't do physical work, but who could be regarded as structurally working class.

But the small business owner who employs ten people does have power. They may not have the same power as more successful capitalists but their interests are more aligned with them then they are with those they employ. If those ten workers decided to unionise and agitate for better wages or conditions that would become apparent very quickly. It is in the business owner's interests to prevent that happening and they will align with other, bigger capitalists to do so.

True, but talking SME's you're in a very diverse bunch that range from the downright exploitative through to those who are just trying to make their lot in life and do their best with their small teams. Those who value them as essential and those who see them as essential. SME's are a far more diverse bunch compared to national and multinationals.

Given the choice, most people would prefer to work for a decent SME than a decent multinational. If you catch where I'm coming from?

 

[lengualo]

While this is true, it's not the whole story. Many small business owners, while they are richer than their employees, are not rich compared to, say, a head teacher or a senior doctor. And their position in the food chain of their industry is often not aligned with the interests of capital, which may be actively trying to put companies like theirs out of business through measures such as globalisation, etc.

Structurally, even business owners can often be fundamentally on the working side of class and class interests in many important respects while at the same time having opposing interests wrt their employees' wages and rights. Meanwhile, you can be a well-paid employee of a company with no direct ownership of the means of production at all and have interests that align with those of the company paying you (your interest being that you continue to earn the big money), which include actively seeking to trample on said small businesses and their employees.

These things are messy.

Put better than me, this.

 

[lengualo]

A lot of people* find groups of male youths/men hanging about outside shops etc intimidating. Whatever the colour of their skin.

*A lot of women at least and I've heard the same from older people of both sexes.

Which I explicitly addressed in the post you quoted and you've chosen to ignore.

 

[Sue]

Which I explicitly addressed in the post you quoted and you've chosen to ignore.

I was emphasising your point but whatever.

 

[lengualo]

I was emphasising your point but whatever.

OK fair enough, sorry, it read differently due what I was saying in the post. I retract.

 

[kabbes]

Then we generally agree with each other, I have some differences of view in this. But my broader point then was that the first 4 groups should be unified rather than played against each other, and we do live in that system, so people shouldn't be looked down as bad for moving up through those groups. I'm also more a mixture of social democrat and socialist so we might have some ideological differences too.

You’re making it about individuals again. Individual blame, individual action, individual responsibility. This is the consequence of growing up in a neoliberal world — a neoliberal subjectivity is the sea you swim in. Escape from it.

 

[smokedout]

While this is true, it's not the whole story. Many small business owners, while they are richer than their employees, are not rich compared to, say, a head teacher or a senior doctor. And their position in the food chain of their industry is often not aligned with the interests of capital, which may be actively trying to put companies like theirs out of business through measures such as globalisation, etc.

They are capital, just not big capital. There is tension amongst all capitalists, it's called competition, and it's ultimately what draws even 'nice' small capitalists into agitating for the interests of capital. The less they pay their workers the more money they make, just like big capital. They will go bust if they don't organise their business around this. They are locked in. And they will usually vote and act politically on that basis.

Structurally, even business owners can often be fundamentally on the working side of class and class interests in many important respects while at the same time having opposing interests wrt their employees' wages and rights. Meanwhile, you can be a well-paid employee of a company with no direct ownership of the means of production at all and have interests that align with those of the company paying you (your interest being that you continue to earn the big money), which include actively seeking to trample on said small businesses and their employees.

Income can be a factor of course. A highly paid employee may feel it is in their interests to pay less tax for example and support less spending on public services than a relatively low earning business owner who is in a lower tax bracket. But even then the small business owner may align with the well paid employee's interests because they aspire for a higher income through increasing their profits from the exploitation of their workers, not collectivism. And they don't want to pay more tax if they are successful at that.

The existence of a well paid managerial class doesn't place the small business owner on the other side in the class war, it means that a privileged group of professional workers have been co-opted (bribed) by capital into supporting the interests of capital.

Sure it's messy. And sometimes better to look at it in terms of interests and antagonisms rather than fixed discrete classes with clearly definable edges. But competition between capitalists, no matter how viciously pursued, is not analogous to class struggle, it is the glue that holds it all together.

 

[lengualo]

You’re making it about individuals again. Individual blame, individual action, individual responsibility. This is the consequence of growing up in a neoliberal world — a neoliberal subjectivity is the sea you swim in. Escape from it.

Heh, I'm not really on the socialist > collectivism/communist end of the political spectrum if thats what you're referring to. I think that system has its own set of problems and frankly I havent got a clue whether it would actually end up being better.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

They are capital, just not big capital. There is tension amongst all capitalists, it's called competition, and it's ultimately what draws even 'nice' small capitalists into agitating for the interests of capital. The less they pay their workers the more money they make, just like big capital. They will go bust if they don't organise their business around this. They are locked in. And they will usually vote and act politically on that basis.



Income can be a factor of course. A highly paid employee may feel it is in their interests to pay less tax for example and support less spending on public services than a relatively low earning business owner who is in a lower tax bracket. But even then the small business owner may align with the well paid employee's interests because they aspire for a higher income through increasing their profits from the exploitation of their workers, not collectivism. And they don't want to pay more tax if they are successful at that.

The existence of a well paid managerial class doesn't place the small business owner on the other side in the class war, it means that a privileged group of professional workers have been co-opted (bribed) by capital into supporting the interests of capital.

Sure it's messy. And sometimes better to look at it in terms of interests and antagonisms rather than fixed discrete classes with clearly definable edges. But competition between capitalists, no matter how viciously pursued, is not analogous to class struggle, it is the glue that holds it all together.

I don't think it's always right to characterise it as 'competition between capitalists', though. Many small business owners, like the one I used to work for and thousands of others, set up in business initially to subcontract the work they were previously doing as an employee. Sure they can have dreams of making it big - sure my boss did - but until that point they are not in any meaningful sense in competition with the big capital interests that own the companies they subcontract for. Different universes.

 

[Gramsci]

Absolutely. Very often the Council doesn't have to lead, instead it can help facilitate ie funding, getting rid of red tape, allowing its resources to be used etc. I worked with local community members on a couple of cohesion projects , one in an area where there was an active campaigning BNP group, and another around a long running issue regarding parking near a mosque.

That's interesting.

Every now and again issues around this have come up. And there are differences


One example was where the Council was updating its Equal opps policy. Wanted to include more on gay people. Decided to consult on that.

One of the local Black community leaders objected to this on grounds of:

Being gay is a lifestyle choice. If your Black then your colour marks you out and you have no choice in the matter

And Black people are religious and don't hold with that sort of thing

He basically didn't want rights for Black people to be in same document as Gay people

The other time I remember was someone at a meeting about leisure services complaining about men and women swimming together and it wasn't appropriate. He was a Muslim

In both instances I objected to these comments. I do have my red lines on issues like this

And was taken aside by Council officers after meeting on both occasions to be told I should have better understanding of peoples cultural backgrounds.

This kind of thing can cause resentment.

Thing is in both cases the Council I know would not have taken notice of these comments and stop men and women swimming together or not have Gay rights in equal opps. It's that your not supposed to actually say something.

I'm quite happy living in multicultural area. That doesn't mean I don't think there are frictions.

I do think the way its dealt with often is to paper over the cracks and pretend their aren't frictions.

 

[smokedout]

I don't think it's always right to characterise it as 'competition between capitalists', though. Many small business owners, like the one I used to work for and thousands of others, set up in business initially to subcontract the work they were previously doing as an employee. Sure they can have dreams of making it big - sure my boss did - but until that point they are not in any meaningful sense in competition with the big capital interests that own the companies they subcontract for. Different universes.

A small shopkeeper who's just had a Tesco Express open up next door is unlikely to think they are not in any meaningful sense in competition with them. Tesco certainly don't think that.

 

[lengualo]

Yes, got to keep it simple for the thicko chavs, eh?

Really? Thats your take away from that? It got the response it did because it was actually a really naive and ridiculous thing to pull me up over and if anything exposed a lack of understanding about how other cultures operate and how cultural blending over food has influenced all cultures for the better.

Even a basic understanding of other cultures, and even our own history, should inform this.

People don't gravitate towards food as a point of multicultural benefit because they're shallow, derranged foodies. There is a reason people do this. I can forgive it perhaps going over some peoples heads because we don't really have a "food culture" as it were, however many different cultures, particularly a number of cultures who migrate here, do.

Food isn't just a thing in their culture, or a part of their culture, but is right at the heart of it, it IS their culture, its at the heart of how they interact, socialise, behave, and share. They have diverse and excellent flavour in their cuisine and they full well know it. It's something they take incredibly seriously, are passionate and intensely defensive over, and actively want to share.

Because of this, the point of engagement most people will have if they approach and bond meaningfully with the people of many other cultures will be food not because "oooh food" but because thats how the other culture operates socially and culturally. Food scientifically also makes us happier, as does social bonding over it. To be able to share in that is an important point of contact with the people of other cultures, and the diversity of food enriches our own culture because it facilitates the adding of something qualitative into our own through cultural blending and sharing.

Thats not for the "thicko chavs" its fucking universal. Its something most people, regardless of who they are, understand as a cultural benefit and can enjoy because you're biologically a human being.


Furthermore, I didn't even bring class into that post, I was thinking as much of middle class people as I was working class people. The only time anything vaguely related to class was brought into my post was about a cost benefit. Highlighting a cost benefit to international food is patronising? Oh how dare I highlight that you can make more food for less money, how horribly classist of me.

 

[kabbes]

Heh, I'm not really on the socialist > collectivism/communist end of the political spectrum if thats what you're referring to. I think that system has its own set of problems and frankly I havent got a clue whether it would actually end up being better.

No, I’m saying that your response to seeing a structural breakdown of society is to personalise it as “but not all mans do bad thing, not all bad mans!” It’s an individualistic response. Look:

…so people shouldn't be looked down as bad for moving up through those groups.

This is a classic neoliberal subjectivity — ignore the power relations that precipitate particular responses due to aligned interests and just consider the innate goodness or badness of the sovereign individual.

 

[lazythursday]

Really? Thats your take away from that? It got the response it did because it was actually a really naive and ridiculous thing to pull me up over and if anything exposed a lack of understanding about how other cultures operate and how cultural blending over food has influenced all cultures for the better.

Even a basic understanding of other cultures, and even our own history, should inform this.

People don't gravitate towards food as a point of multicultural benefit because they're shallow, derranged foodies. There is a reason people do this. I can forgive it perhaps going over some peoples heads because we don't really have a "food culture" as it were, however many different cultures, particularly a number of cultures who migrate here, do.

Food isn't just a thing in their culture, or a part of their culture, but is right at the heart of it, it IS their culture, its at the heart of how they interact, socialise, behave, and share. They have diverse and excellent flavour in their cuisine and they full well know it. It's something they take incredibly seriously, are passionate and intensely defensive over, and actively want to share.

Because of this, the point of engagement most people will have if they approach and bond meaningfully with the people of many other cultures will be food not because "oooh food" but because thats how the other culture operates socially and culturally. Food scientifically also makes us happier, as does social bonding over it. To be able to share in that is an important point of contact with the people of other cultures, and the diversity of food enriches our own culture because it facilitates the adding of something qualitative into our own through cultural blending and sharing.

Thats not for the "thicko chavs" its fucking universal. Its something most people, regardless of who they are, understand as a cultural benefit and can enjoy because you're biologically a human being.

I think you are meaning well with this, but personally, I find this blanket 'this is how it is in their culture' stuff a bit questionable. Other cultures aren't necessarily monolithic either.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

A small shopkeeper who's just had a Tesco Express open up next door is unlikely to think they are not in any meaningful sense in competition with them. Tesco certainly don't think that.

As I said, it's messy, and various small businesses will have very different relations with big capitalist enterprises. My whole point really is that it is very hard to generalise.

To go back to a subcontractor situation, it may well not even be in their interests for wages of employees like theirs to be suppressed. Suppression of wages across their sector will also suppress the amount they can charge for their services.

 

[lengualo]

I think you are meaning well with this, but personally, I find this blanket 'this is how it is in their culture' stuff a bit questionable. Other cultures aren't necessarily monolithic either.

Depends upon the culture obviously, but if they have a food culture then what I'm saying isn't incorrect, its broadly true. That doesn't mean every single person as an individual is going to sort of converse and share the food stuffs, but broad brush you're going to encounter it a lot if you socialise. I'm saying this as someone who has family and has lived in a country that is world famous for its food culture, it could be exhausting at times.

And food is an important point of bonding and cultural exchange anyway, almost always. Is there a point in history where food has not been involved in cultural exchange and cultural enrichment?

 

[lengualo]

No, I’m saying that your response to seeing a structural breakdown of society is to personalise it as “but not all mans do bad thing, not all bad mans!” It’s an individualistic response. Look:

This is a classic neoliberal subjectivity — ignore the power relations that precipitate particular responses due to aligned interests and just consider the innate goodness or badness of the sovereign individual.

OK I get you. I still don't think you can ignore the difference between being a business that has a real position of power or is being exploitative to those who are more modest or have more in common with the traditional working class.

 

[brogdale]

Yes I know. My response was to brogdale who was answering mentalchik. i.e. telling people who are uneasy about the pace of change, seeing a seemingly large number of people with different language, different culture, who for obvious reasons, may socialise amongst themselves, that it's all neoliberal blah, blah, is pointless. Most of them probably realise this but it doesn't change their emotional response to change.

I live in an urban area, which has several takeaways, Turkish, Thai, Indian, Polish shops etc. Lots of Spanish people live in the same building. This is all good and fine to me but I grew up in London. If I were older, lived in a smaller place most of my life, with a level of cultural homogeny, perhaps I would feel different, as described by many posters. It's worth trying to understand that feeling and not handwave it all away with but yeah Marx, blame the govt, just suck it up, do you only like fish and chips or sommat.

OK, fair enough.
I think it might to understand that "feeling" if you could pin down a little more explicitly what you mean by that. I see you mention takeaways, shops and people not born in the UK, but I'm not exactly sure what I'm being asked to empathise with.

 

[brogdale]

Only in your fevered imagination tbh, it's almost like you want everyone who disagrees with you to be far right so that you can comfort yourself with the blanket of your own towering moral superiority.

OK, if that's what you think is going on inside my head Funky; thanks for having a guess, I suppose.

 

[brogdale]

Which is all very well but to the people mentalchik is talking about, not the thugs but the people uneasy with the pace of change, what good is this critique. Understanding it's the fault of government etc, etc, most people get that. It doesn't change what they see on the ground, their immediate day to day. Maybe they just need a few pamphlits or pontificating posts to read.

I agree that most people know, or at least sense that the government has made decisions that have left us in the shit...but, the riots and the not insignificant polling figures that demonstrated understanding of the rioters concerns, show us that too many don't. There are too many who are susceptible to the right's permanent-campaign to persuade people that the root of their (genuine) grievances lies in immigration. What has been most disturbing in this thread is to see some posters repeat and amplify that ill-informed correlation as causation fallacy.

 

[Pickman's model]

Obviously those who have retired have paid their dues and deserve their retirement. Christ alive I can’t believe this needs spelling out to you.

I wouldn't have thought that thatcher's legacy needed to be pointed out to you or that today's young people are poorer than their parents. Those were real holy mother of God moments. You say here i shouldn't take you at your word. You've come out with some right batshit bollocks on this thread so it's hard to know which bits you'll row back from as you've done here

 

[smokedout]

OK I get you. I still don't think you can ignore the difference between being a business that has a real position of power or is being exploitative to those who are more modest or have more in common with the traditional working class.

Do those more modest employers pay more, or offer more holiday entitlement or other benefits? Which is better, working for a small business owner who would really love to pay you more or give you the time off you asked for (and are entitled to) but things are just so difficult right now, I'm sure you understand, or a large unionised employer with collective wage bargaining and a functional HR department that abides by regulations because it's too much hassle not to?

The idea that small businesses are better employers is just sentimental nonsense. Both exploit labour for profit and both vary massively in how they otherwise treat their employees.