Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

The children of Windrush

Good grief, do you ever stop banging the Brexit drum? :confused:
Was that aimed at me?

It's actually Brendan O'Neill that is banging the Brexit drum but I thought it was an interesting take on the situation, because it gives lie to many remainer predjudices about Brexiteers as racists.
 
Just trying to point out that Brixton is not the centre of the universe, and though anti-semitism doesn’t affect your local population the perception is hurting Labour more widely. That’s why Labour is pushing hard on the the landing cards issue...
the earth isn't the centre of the universe, you know, yet you seem to focus your concerns on happenings in the backwoods not only of the universe but also of the galaxy.
 
Relavant article by Kenan over the weekend: ELITE RACISM AND THE WORKING CLASS AS ALIBI

"The ‘white working class’. It has become, in recent years, almost a synonym for ‘racist’. The belief that racism is a working-class problem, and that many in the white working class voted for Brexit for racist reasons, has become widely accepted among liberals (and not just among liberals).

So, where does the Windrush scandal fit into this narrative? After all, it’s not the white working class that promised to create a ‘hostile environment’ or refused Britons who had been here for decades the right to use the NHS or ripped up their landing cards. Polls show, to the contrary, that most people are shocked by the unfairness and cruelty of the government’s policy."

"Many politicians, on the other hand, may pay lip service to liberal values, but too often care little for fairness or equity, whether for migrants or for the working class. Until the public pressure got too great, Theresa May and Amber Rudd were happy to ignore the evidence of gross injustice towards the Windrush generation. That is not an aberration. That is how the elite has always acted. That is how the system has always worked."
 
A take on this from Brendan O'Neill from Spiked..

The Windrush fallout has shattered every Remainer prejudice


You're quoting Spiked as if its any kind of reputable source? :rolleyes: :hmm:

Even though so many articles published in it are froth-foamingly insane? And as often as not, conspiracy theory-laden bollocks? :(

Get on your bike and ride. Spiked and its conspiracy theorists, as well as those who are hooked in by them, are twats.
 
Relavant article by Kenan over the weekend: ELITE RACISM AND THE WORKING CLASS AS ALIBI

"The ‘white working class’. It has become, in recent years, almost a synonym for ‘racist’. The belief that racism is a working-class problem, and that many in the white working class voted for Brexit for racist reasons, has become widely accepted among liberals (and not just among liberals).

So, where does the Windrush scandal fit into this narrative? After all, it’s not the white working class that promised to create a ‘hostile environment’ or refused Britons who had been here for decades the right to use the NHS or ripped up their landing cards. Polls show, to the contrary, that most people are shocked by the unfairness and cruelty of the government’s policy."

"Many politicians, on the other hand, may pay lip service to liberal values, but too often care little for fairness or equity, whether for migrants or for the working class. Until the public pressure got too great, Theresa May and Amber Rudd were happy to ignore the evidence of gross injustice towards the Windrush generation. That is not an aberration. That is how the elite has always acted. That is how the system has always worked."


That Malik article was definitely worth a re-read, excellent. I think the blog version you link to is a slightly extended (?) version of what was in the Observer last week** -- I find that his columns there are consistently good/worth reading generally :)

**ETA : sorry that was a mistake :oops: -- the Sunday just gone was when I read the Obs version, not last week.
 
Last edited:
Its the difference between doing something for short term gain which actively breaks organised solidarity with clear boundaries (ie scabs crossing a picket line), and moving country as a way of just getting on with your life the best you can whilst perhaps being used by capital in aggregate to drive down wages (though this is not always the case - capitalists also use immigration to expand industries). Capital pits many sections of the working class against each other in this way through immigration and through other mechanisms and its nonsense to blame workers for that (or do you also think uber drivers are the same as strike breakers against taxi drivers for example, or warehouse workers at amazon are the cause of Toys R Us shop assistants losing their jobs). Our only defence against this is solidarity - which takes effort to build - which is why people crossing a picket line and breaking a strike are treated with disdain and anger. And why you're on such dodgy ground comparing immigrants to strike breakers.

"perhaps being used by capital in aggregate to drive down wages (though this is not always the case - capitalists also use immigration to expand industries)"

Perhaps? in some trades, that's a definite. Yes, we should welcome immigrants in expanding trades, that's how a points based system would work. The differences you describe are technical. The effects are the same.

The other examples you've given where capital pits workers against each other are all cases where it's british citizens against each other. Theyr'e competing on fair terms, a black cab driver can sign up with uber if he wants to.

The UK is at the bottom of the literacy tables yet our youth are expected to compete in a european sized job market. We're also well known for not speaking other languages, our working classes are not well equipped to go and get a job on the continent. Sure, we should fix both those issues but it doesn't seem to be happening and in the meantime people cannot compete, are written off as lazy, don't want to do these jobs....

Solidarity would be great but hows that working out? Eastern european immigrants are half as likely to be in a union, do you honestly see them bucking the general trend of a decline in unionisation? While we're failing to get immigrants to join unions people are having their livlihoods taken away and they're starting to turn to the right and far right for support because the left is fixed on it's ideals of solidarity.

In the case of free movement, solidarity is not our only defence. Nations exist and nations are perfectly entitled to enforce border restrictions if the populace votes to protect wages. It's not the end of the world, it's not evil, it's just a points based immigration system. Some people will just have to go and work elsewhere. I'd like to have free movement rights with the US but i don't, no big deal.

I don't know why this is the hill we're choosing to die on, while the right wing parties across europe are exploiting the situation and no doubt planning on implementing far more restrictive immigration policies than a mere points based policy.

To take your argument to it's logical conclusion, should we have worldwide solidarity and allow free movement from anywhere on the planet? They'd all join a union right? so it would all work out ok wouldn't it. How do you really think that'd play out?
 
You're quoting Spiked as if its any kind of reputable source? :rolleyes: :hmm:

Even though so many articles published in it are froth-foamingly insane? And as often as not, conspiracy theory-laden bollocks? :(

Get on your bike and ride. Spiked and its conspiracy theorists, as well as those who are hooked in by them, are twats.

That Malik article was definitely worth a re-read, excellent. I think the blog version you link to is a slightly extended (?) version of what was in the Observer last week -- I find that his columns there are consistently good/worth reading generally :)

You know Malik has written for Spiked yeah?

(I don't disagree with either of these posts fwiw, but they seemed odd bedfellows considering Malik's roots in the RCP and ongoing - if increasingly fading - links with the post-RCP gang)
 
Not saying this won't happen as an effect of Brexit, but that is very flimsy evidence that it is happening now, especially as it shows wages still rising below inflation, and the rates of wage increases only being remarkable in the context of the last 2-3 years: plenty of times pre-Brexit when wages were rising more quickly. The special austerity-based conditions in the immediate run-up to Brexit were cutting wages across the board. Where wages are on average rising below inflation, which was the case in 2017, that means that wages are falling. So in the first year after the Brexit vote, wages fell.

of course there are plenty of other things that play into ti but when you have recruitment peopel in the industry telling you they're having to increase wages due to a shortfall in staff I think it's fair to say the surplus staff were previously having a supressive effect on wages.

The gain may not be as large as it appears because it's masked by inflation, we don't know yet. We do know that surplus labour does affect wages, which is in line with what we know about supply/demand.

Another facet to this is that some EU workers have been negotiating higher salaries for themselves in light of their now uncertain status, which would also contribute to wage increases all around.
 
The gain may not be as large as it appears because it's masked by inflation, we don't know yet. .
This is muddled thinking. It's meaningless to talk about wage rises without adjusting for inflation, and, adjusted for inflation, wages on average went down last year, again, despite small growth in the economy. So the long-term trend of decline in wages as a percentage of GDP, which started in the 1970s, continues.

One of the things that happened soon after the brexit vote was a significant devaluation of the pound against a range of currencies. Whether that was caused by the vote or not, we can argue, but it doesn't matter what caused it, devaluation of any kind is an inflation pressure. So you have inflation rising due to a weak pound and wage demands rising as a response. There is always an argument from the right that inflation is caused by wage demands, but the evidence is normally the other way around - that rising inflation stimulates greater wage demands. That is certainly what the evidence points to here.
 
This is muddled thinking. It's meaningless to talk about wage rises without adjusting for inflation, and, adjusted for inflation, wages on average went down last year, again, despite small growth in the economy. So the long-term trend of decline in wages as a percentage of GDP, which started in the 1970s, continues.

One of the things that happened soon after the brexit vote was a significant devaluation of the pound against a range of currencies. Whether that was caused by the vote or not, we can argue, but it doesn't matter what caused it, devaluation of any kind is an inflation pressure. So you have inflation rising due to a weak pound and wage demands rising as a response. There is always an argument from the right that inflation is caused by wage demands, but the evidence is normally the other way around - that rising inflation stimulates greater wage demands. That is certainly what the evidence points to here.

Possibly, I don't pretend not to be muddled by economics.

I'm not suggesting that people are in a better state now than they were before brexit when inflation is taken into account. I'm just saying that immigration has suppressed wages.

The value of the pound may rise again or it may not but a surplus of anything leads to a reduction in value of that thing.
 
Not really - to say that "Labour is pushing hard on the landing cards issue" because of anti-semitism is to miss the point considerably.

This is an outrage that even the Tory papers have found impossible to defend - given that it disproportionately affects the law-abiding, the people who worked hard and got on, people who like (and in at least one case played at county level) cricket etc and who are being subjected to indefensible treatment as as result. That the current Labour leadership have picked up on it can be explained simply by the fact that Lammy, Corbyn, Abbott (especially) and McDonnell all had the sense to oppose this at the time.
You seem to be missing the point that, even though discrimination has reduced considerably over the decades, there is still a significant antipathy to foreigners to be found throughout society, including most political parties. And it’s politics that’s currently driving attacks on Conservatives by Labour which, itself is under attack for antisemitism. Claiming that these campaigns (or anti-foreign sentiment) are unrelated or coincidental seems to selectively ignore the timings and what’s being reported. Incompetence is no doubt a factor in the Windrush affair, and the Guardian should be applauded for running with the story. But there must be reasons why it has only recently surfaced despite harsh immigration decisions by officials being reported in Black media for years...
 
You seem to be missing the point that, even though discrimination has reduced considerably over the decades, there is still a significant antipathy to foreigners to be found throughout society, including most political parties. And it’s politics that’s currently driving attacks on Conservatives by Labour which, itself is under attack for antisemitism. Claiming that these campaigns (or anti-foreign sentiment) are unrelated or coincidental seems to selectively ignore the timings and what’s being reported. Incompetence is no doubt a factor in the Windrush affair, and the Guardian should be applauded for running with the story. But there must be reasons why it has only recently surfaced despite harsh immigration decisions by officials being reported in Black media for years...
the only people suggesting incompetence are the people who made the decisions which led to this clusterfuck
 
You seem to be missing the point that, even though discrimination has reduced considerably over the decades, there is still a significant antipathy to foreigners to be found throughout society, including most political parties. And it’s politics that’s currently driving attacks on Conservatives by Labour which, itself is under attack for antisemitism. Claiming that these campaigns (or anti-foreign sentiment) are unrelated or coincidental seems to selectively ignore the timings and what’s being reported. Incompetence is no doubt a factor in the Windrush affair, and the Guardian should be applauded for running with the story. But there must be reasons why it has only recently surfaced despite harsh immigration decisions by officials being reported in Black media for years...
I thought the story was broken by the Guardian? Are you seriously suggesting that there's some Corbynite master plan being operated from within there?

TBH, I think it's part of an ongoing continuum. The fallout from Grenfell Tower continues to paint a similar picture of blithe intolerance of anyone who doesn't have a gravel drive with two entrances, and the quieter, but slower car crash that is benefits policy yields a fairly continuous litany of tales of injustice, uncaringness, and incompetence. I think the thing that makes the Windrush story more significant is that it's actually putting people in the position of having to decide whether they think that the essentially racist immigration policies of the last decade or so are OK, or not, and where that leaves them in terms of their own outlook.
 
To back up the Malik pieces that danny la rouge posted, the hero of liberals and saviour of the EU, Macron has just introduced anti-immigration measures.
Ministers argue that the bill, given its first reading in the Assemblée Nationale, will speed up asylum applications. Opponents, including humanitarian organisations, claim it will hit the most vulnerable refugees and asylum seekers.
 
You might begin your quest here:

“The problem is not that white workers are desperate to protect their ethnic identity. It is, rather, that in the absence of political mechanisms and social movements that can challenge their wider marginalisation, such identity is all that many have to lean upon.

However low one caps immigration, it will not affect austerity policy, or the atomisation of society, or the crisis in the NHS, or the neutering of trade unions. The immigration debate cannot be won simply by debating immigration, whether from an economic or a cultural viewpoint. Anxieties about immigration are an expression of a wider sense of political voicelessness, abandonment and disengagement. Until those problems are tackled, the anxieties will remain.”

That working-class lives are more fraught is not down to immigration | Kenan Malik


“Too many who rightly bemoan the corrosion of working-class organisations see the problem as too much immigration. Too many who have a liberal view on immigration are willing to accept attacks on working-class living standards. Until both those blinkered approaches are confronted, there will be no real challenge to the populists, nor to the erosion of the influence of the left.”

THE WORKING CLASS, IMMIGRATION & THE LEFT


“The forms of social organization that once gave working class lives identity, solidarity, indeed dignity, have disappeared. Much the same developments can be seen in many other European nations. ‘One of the biggest failures’ of contemporary mainstream political parties, the American philosopher Michael Sandel has observed, ‘has been the failure to take seriously and to speak directly to people’s aspiration to feel that they have some meaningful say in shaping the forces that govern their lives’.

The result has been the creation of what many commentators in Britain call the ‘left behind’ working class. In France, there has been much talk of ‘peripheral France’, a phrase coined by the social geographer Christophe Guilluy to describe people ‘pushed out by the deindustrialization and gentrification of the urban centers’, who ‘live away from the economic and decision-making centers in a state of social and cultural non-integration’ and have come to ‘feel excluded’. Both these terms are, in my view, problematic, but both also give a sense of the social, political and existential changes that have been wrought.

Immigration has played almost no part in fostering the changes that have left so many feeling disaffected. Immigrants are not responsible for the weakening of the labour movement, or the transformation of social democratic parties, or the imposition of austerity policies. Immigration has, however, come to be a means through which many perceive these changes.

The so-called ‘left behind’ have been left behind largely because of economic and political changes. But they have come to see their marginalization primarily as a cultural loss. In part, the same social and economic changes that have led to the marginalization of the ‘left behind’ have also made it far more difficult to view that marginalization in political terms. The very decline of the economic and political power of the working class and the weakening of labour organizations and social democratic parties, have helped obscure the economic and political roots of social problems. And as culture has become the medium through which social issues are refracted, so the ‘left behind’ have also come to see their problems in cultural terms. They, too, have turned to the language of identity to express their discontent.

Through this process, the meaning of solidarity has transformed. Politically, the sense of belonging to a group or collective has historically been expressed in two broad forms: through the politics of identity and through the politics of solidarity. The former stresses attachment to common identities based on such categories as race, nation, gender or culture. The latter draws people into a collective not because of a given identity but to further a political or social goal. Where the politics of identity divides, the politics of solidarity finds collective purpose across the fissures of race or gender, sexuality or religion, culture or nation. But it is the politics of solidarity that has crumbled over the past two decades as social movements have eroded. For many today, the only form of collective politics that seem possible is that rooted in identity.”

POPULISM AND IMMIGRATION

danny la rouge

I did read all of these.

I don't disagree (and never have disgareed) with the basic message that it's very easy for immigration to get blamed for things that actually are the result of other processes.

The last link is the most relevant to my questions about the feasibility of fully open borders.

He talks about Spain having had an open border with North Africa for many years; this is not something I knew about and it's something I should read up on.

He also talks about numbers - and rightly points out that a million is not a large number, dispersed amongst the population of Europe. And I'd agree that even if we didn't go for open borders, we could and should be accepting more refugees. Of course, that million is the number of refugees that have come under the current system, and not the number of migrants who would potentially come, given open borders. I don't know if anyone has made an argument for what that number would likely be. It also ignores the reality that migrants don't necessarily diffuse evenly throughout, and that in certain areas, the number of newly arrived migrants would be much higher than others, in proportion to the longer established population.

I looked to see if I could find Malik talking specifically about having open borders as a 'real' option. I did find this:

ON BREXIT, BORDERS, BEING OFFENSIVE (BUT NOT BEING IN A HOLLYWOOD MOVIE)

a couple of bits from that:

MV: You are a supporter of open borders. Why?

KM: I don’t think we should throw open all borders tomorrow. The question of whether or not one has open borders depends on circumstances and context. I oppose arbitrary restrictions on people, and am in favour of freedom of movement. I also think that many of the fears about the negative impact of open borders are misplaced. The idea for instance, that the whole world will simply walk in. An open door, as the writer and economist Philippe Legrain puts it, is usually a swinging door. People come when there is work, they leave when there isn’t. Ironically, the closing of borders often leads to the very problems that the closure was meant to solve.

MV: How do we go forward from here?

KM: The dilemma we face is this: on the one hand, any moral and workable immigration policy will not, at least for the moment, possess a democratic mandate; on the other, any policy that has popular support is likely to be immoral and unworkable. That dilemma exists not because the public is particularly drawn to immoral or unworkable policies, but because of the way that the immigration issue has been framed by politicians of all political hues in the past few decades. That’s why it’s so important to have a broad debate on the underlying issues and concerns.

MV: You want a wide-ranging debate, but in the meantime immigrants will continue coming to Europe. Why don’t you just say: Brussels should make migration rules more liberal right now?

KM: Because a more liberal immigration policy can only be implemented with public support. Without a democratic mandate a more open policy will not work. You have to convince people that liberal policies are right.

MV: I wish you luck with that.

KM: Why do you think it’s impossible? There is no iron law that says that people are opposed to immigration. They have become so partly because of the ways in which the debate has been framed. That’s why it’s important to have an open, public debate on the issue.
 
Relavant article by Kenan over the weekend: ELITE RACISM AND THE WORKING CLASS AS ALIBI

"The ‘white working class’. It has become, in recent years, almost a synonym for ‘racist’. The belief that racism is a working-class problem, and that many in the white working class voted for Brexit for racist reasons, has become widely accepted among liberals (and not just among liberals).

I don't assume that the "white working class" voted for Brexit because they were racist.

I do however think that many voted for more control over immigration (I may of course be wrong).

But, according to some people on this thread, supporting any kind of immigration controls, or even raising immigration as an "issue" at all, amounts to being racist.

I read the Malik comments as saying that the route to more open border policies involves persuading more people that immigration isn't in itself the 'problem' they think it is. But that'll never happen if people aren't even allowed to talk about it without being called racists.

What I find particularly unhelpful is when, as soon as someone mentions something as resulting from immigration, they are jumped upon by people telling them to stop blaming immigrants. It's not only untrue - saying that something or other results from high levels of immigration (whether or not the thing even happens in reality) simply is not the same as laying blame at the feet of individual immigrants - but it makes people think feel they aren't allowed to talk about it, and that just fosters resentment, and an unwillingness to be persuaded.
 
You seem to be missing the point that, even though discrimination has reduced considerably over the decades, there is still a significant antipathy to foreigners to be found throughout society, including most political parties. And it’s politics that’s currently driving attacks on Conservatives by Labour which, itself is under attack for antisemitism. Claiming that these campaigns (or anti-foreign sentiment) are unrelated or coincidental seems to selectively ignore the timings and what’s being reported. Incompetence is no doubt a factor in the Windrush affair, and the Guardian should be applauded for running with the story. But there must be reasons why it has only recently surfaced despite harsh immigration decisions by officials being reported in Black media for years...

The problem here is that the articles in relation to this scandal in the Guardian have been going on for six months (and if you expand that to include articles reporting daft Home Office decisions to kick people out then its been running for the past couple of years), so it isn't something that has obviously been deployed as a political attack line. All that has happened in the past few weeks is that someone has come up with a punchy abbreviation for the crisis (ie: "Windrush generation"), and the Albert Thompson case has revealed the horror of what has been going on and the Governments ongoing inability to see that it has done anything wrong.

The Labour front bench response is what you'd expect any politician, of whatever stripe, who finds themselves confronted with a crisis that they had predicted.
 
I'm not happy with this talk of 'institutional racism'. It seems to me that it's a way for racist individuals within institutions to get a free pass. I want people to be asking whether individual ministers and civil servants are racists. Who thinks there are racists in senior positions driving the discrimination?
 
You know Malik has written for Spiked yeah?

No I didn't! :oops:

That's embarassing .. but I admit I've been increasingly avoiding Spiked the more I disliked its articles anyway.

(I don't disagree with either of these posts fwiw, but they seemed odd bedfellows considering Malik's roots in the RCP and ongoing - if increasingly fading - links with the post-RCP gang)

I've picked up on Malik more recently I suppose. If I'd noticed any RCP connections in his current articles, or any Spiked-like stuff, I'd have been a lot warier about him.

I like what he's writing at the moment though.
 
redsquirrel said:
To back up the Malik pieces that @danny la rouge posted, the hero of liberals and saviour of the EU, Macron has just introduced anti-immigration measures.

did you see the groan trying to pimp macron as some sort of 'trump whisperer' now ? twats

That pisses me off vastly as well :mad: - the general hero worship/under criticism of Macron in the Guardian.

To be slightly fair though, someone who isn't called Owen Jones ;) , honest :p , attacked Macron fair and square the other day

The above article puts Macron's immigration policy and refugee demonising at the middle of his argument too.
 
I don't assume that the "white working class" voted for Brexit because they were racist.

I do however think that many voted for more control over immigration (I may of course be wrong).

But, according to some people on this thread, supporting any kind of immigration controls, or even raising immigration as an "issue" at all, amounts to being racist.

I read the Malik comments as saying that the route to more open border policies involves persuading more people that immigration isn't in itself the 'problem' they think it is. But that'll never happen if people aren't even allowed to talk about it without being called racists.

What I find particularly unhelpful is when, as soon as someone mentions something as resulting from immigration, they are jumped upon by people telling them to stop blaming immigrants. It's not only untrue - saying that something or other results from high levels of immigration (whether or not the thing even happens in reality) simply is not the same as laying blame at the feet of individual immigrants - but it makes people think feel they aren't allowed to talk about it, and that just fosters resentment, and an unwillingness to be persuaded.

Who are these "people" "who aren't allowed to talk about it"?

You have already posted you are willing to see people drown in the Med.

Where is this resentment?

As we both live in Brixton the resentment fostered that I see from talkng to locals is resentment against racist immigration policy of this and past governmentts.

See my post #496

This resentment I hear in Brixton goes back beyond May hostile environment strategy to the 1971 act that effectively stopped Commonwealth citizens freedom of movement.

I asked you if you agreed that should be reinstated and you said no. Have you changed your mind?

I had another chat today with someone else today whose partner came from Barbados. Some of his partners friends from Barbados here haven't been home for years as they are afraid they won't get back into UK.

I asked him if he thought immigration policy of this country is racist. He said yes.

Back to my other friend in Brixton I posted up in post 496. We also got onto racism in UK and Brexit.

Btw he is working class Black Londoner. He saw Brexit vote as now allowing people to think its now ok to talk about immigration.

As he said when he grew up in Brixton in the seventies there were areas in London he could not go into as he was black. Things have improved. However Brexit has changed that for the worse. What he meant by going over his experience of growing up in London was that attitudes to immigrants and racism are linked.

It's that people deny the link. Like May the PM does. Why the term institutional racism is used.
 
To add some of the things I'm know hearing in Brixton post Commonwealth Conference is that ex colonies citizens want the right is to come here reinstated.

As one person in Brixton said to me UK got wealthy on back of exploiting colonies. The "Mother Country" was happy to exploit colonies.
 
I don't assume that the "white working class" voted for Brexit because they were racist.

I do however think that many voted for more control over immigration (I may of course be wrong).

But, according to some people on this thread, supporting any kind of immigration controls, or even raising immigration as an "issue" at all, amounts to being racist.

I read the Malik comments as saying that the route to more open border policies involves persuading more people that immigration isn't in itself the 'problem' they think it is. But that'll never happen if people aren't even allowed to talk about it without being called racists.

What I find particularly unhelpful is when, as soon as someone mentions something as resulting from immigration, they are jumped upon by people telling them to stop blaming immigrants. It's not only untrue - saying that something or other results from high levels of immigration (whether or not the thing even happens in reality) simply is not the same as laying blame at the feet of individual immigrants - but it makes people think feel they aren't allowed to talk about it, and that just fosters resentment, and an unwillingness to be persuaded.


Best post on this subject ive ever seen on here

"He saw Brexit vote as now allowing people to think its now ok to talk about immigration"
He is correct or are you saying its not ok , your "friend" i mean
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom