UK Politics: Deal, or No Deal. To May and Beyond.

[SeanF]

56 minutes ago, A Horse Named Stranger said:

Industrial revolution had an abundance of young folks, though.

Anyway, you are aware, that your are talking about an retirement of well above 70? That might be an option for the white collar jobs, but for certain blue collar jobs not so much.

Moving on.

The correlation between low percentage of leave voters in high places with a high percentage of migrants is hardly suprising. A bit simplified, when you are living next door to Johnny Foreigner, he is simply less scary. And you end up viewing him as an actual human being.

Sure, but in 1820 the average working life was about 25 years, compared to about 45 years today.  People are simply healthier for much longer now.

WRT Leave, plenty of cities and boroughs with high immigration voted Leave, like Birmingham, Nottingham, Bradford, Sheffield, Oldham, Luton.  A  bigger distinction is between industrial cities, which voted Leave, and centres of government and academia, which favoured Remain.

[Werthead]

I find it amusing that anyone thinks that idea of Britain as a mongrel nation is in any way controversial, or that it's a pejorative statement. Britain always has been a melting pot of different cultures and races and it's that blending together which has created British culture as it stands today.

[Heartofice]

16 minutes ago, Werthead said:

I find it amusing that anyone thinks that idea of Britain as a mongrel nation is in any way controversial, or that it's a pejorative statement. Britain always has been a melting pot of different cultures and races and it's that blending together which has created British culture as it stands today.

Always?

[The guy from the Vale]

For the last 2000 years at least, sure.

[Heartofice]

2 minutes ago, The guy from the Vale said:

For the last 2000 years at least, sure.

Yeah I'm not sure you want to be including invasions and genocide in your arguments for immigration tbh.

[The guy from the Vale]

Even if we just restrict ourselves to the time since the last invasion, almost 1000 years ago. First of all, the Normans did not commit genocide against the Anglo-Saxon population but certainly affected English culture immensely. Then, the EIC brought people from India over to britain as early as the 1670s and the black community of Liverpool has roots stretching back to about 1730. Later on, being the focal point of the Empire, people from all over the world came to Britain - including people like Ito Hirobumi, Sun Yat-sen or Mohandas Gandhi, who all spent considerable time there.

[Heartofice]

3 minutes ago, The guy from the Vale said:

Even if we just restrict ourselves to the time since the last invasion, almost 1000 years ago. First of all, the Normans did not commit genocide against the Anglo-Saxon population but certainly affected English culture immensely. Then, the EIC brought people from India over to britain as early as the 1670s and the black community of Liverpool has roots stretching back to about 1730. Later on, being the focal point of the Empire, people from all over the world came to Britain - including people like Ito Hirobumi, Sun Yat-sen or Mohandas Gandhi, who all spent considerable time there.

And what kind of percentage of the UK population did these people make up. I'll give you a hint. Not very many. 

http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/images/BP6_1/figure-1.png

[Derfel Cadarn]

37 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

Always?

Name a period where Britain did not see an influx of 'foreigners' and/or have its culture (at that time) influenced by foreign ideas.

[Werthead]

10 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

And what kind of percentage of the UK population did these people make up. I'll give you a hint. Not very many. 

http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/images/BP6_1/figure-1.png

Excellent. And a graph of the percentage of the population of the UK who can trace their ancestry to immigrants would also be quite instructive, if it didn't simply say "fucking everybody" on it.

[Heartofice]

1 minute ago, Werthead said:

Excellent. And a graph of the percentage of the population of the UK who can trace their ancestry to immigrants would also be quite instructive, if it didn't simply say "fucking everybody" on it.

https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/48

You can read the whole thing if you like, just takes a quick google. 

Either way, the numbers of people coming into the area are really quite tiny, even when you include actual violent invasions.
Britain may have experienced immigration, but the claim it is anything like a 'melting pot' is really not accurate. Britain is nothing like the US in that regard.

[The guy from the Vale]

Over two million people immigrated to Britain between 1800 and 1940. The population of Britain in 1800 was about 18 million and rose to 30 million by 1940. So, about 10% of people in Britain at that time were immigrants or children of immigrants. In the last 70 years, there have been eight times as many immigrants to the UK per year, but the country also has four times the population it had in 1800, so effectively, the rate of immigration as a percentage of the population has only about doubled.

 

[Heartofice]

3 minutes ago, The guy from the Vale said:

Over two million people immigrated to Britain between 1800 and 1940. The population of Britain in 1800 was about 18 million and rose to 30 million by 1940. So, about 10% of people in Britain at that time were immigrants or children of immigrants. In the last 70 years, there have been eight times as many immigrants to the UK per year, but the country also has four times the population it had in 1800, so effectively, the rate of immigration as a percentage of the population has only about doubled.

 

1.5 million of those were irish. Ireland was part of the UK

[polishgenius]

But even if you accept your argument there about the pure numbers, you're having to pretend that British culture hasn't been hugely influenced by foreign culture forever, much of which it went out and took. The idea of some pure unchanging British way that must be protected from outside influence is literally the opposite of true. Britain loves outside influence, historically.

[The guy from the Vale]

And you think the Irish were not seen as dangerous foreigners with different religion, customs, culture and when they arrived in England?

Quote

[The Irish] hate our order, our civilization, our enterprising industry, our pure religion. This wild, reckless, indolent, uncertain and superstitious race have no sympathy with the English character. Their ideal of human felicity is an alternation of clannish broils and coarse idolatry. Their history describes an unbroken circle of bigotry and blood.

Whoever said that must have been quite the outlier in British politics, right?...

Well, no. It was Benjamin Disraeli.

[Heartofice]

Just now, polishgenius said:

But even if you accept your argument there about the pure numbers, you're having to pretend that British culture hasn't been hugely influenced by foreign culture forever, much of which it went out and took. The idea of some pure unchanging British way that must be protected from outside influence is literally the opposite of true. Britain loves outside influence, historically.

Even if I accepted that, does that constitute a melting pot? The implication of a melting pot, based on its original definition is of a nation made up of people from many different cultures and backgrounds merging into one nation, as happened in the US. That is clearly not what has happened with the UK where the population has remained relatively unchanged. 

[TrueMetis]

Just now, Heartofice said:

Even if I accepted that, does that constitute a melting pot? The implication of a melting pot, based on its original definition is of a nation made up of people from many different cultures and backgrounds merging into one nation, as happened in the US. That is clearly not what has happened with the UK where the population has remained relatively unchanged. 

That's literally what the UK is. You don't even need people from outside the British Isles for this to be true. That why it's a United Kingdom and not just a Kingdom.

[Heartofice]

3 minutes ago, TrueMetis said:

That's literally what the UK is. You don't even need people from outside the British Isles for this to be true. That why it's a United Kingdom and not just a Kingdom.

I think I see where you are going with that argument, but if you are saying what I think you are saying then I think there is a big difference between the merging of peoples from around the world, and peoples from Yorkshire and Norfolk. 

[The guy from the Vale]

The arguments made have not changed though, whether the foreigners in question came from across the Channel and the Irish Sea then or from India and Africa now. As in, the above Disraeli quote could easily changed to a modern anti-Muslim rant without changing just about anything - well, except the out-dated style

[TrueMetis]

4 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

I think I see where you are going with that argument, but if you are saying what I think you are saying then I think there is a big difference between the merging of peoples from around the world, and peoples from Yorkshire and Norfolk. 

Well first, Yorkshire and Norfolk are both in England, and while I'm sure we could find plenty of examples of people from southern England talking about Northerners in the same vein as that example of anti-Irish propaganda The guy from the Vale posted (After all the Iceni probably didn't think very much of the Brigantes or Parisi and vice versa), we're talking about people from different Nations, so maybe use Norfolk and Aberdeenshire instead. Second, there really isn't as The guy from the Vale showed with what he posted about the English's views on the Irish.

[Chaircat Meow]

1 hour ago, The guy from the Vale said:

Over two million people immigrated to Britain between 1800 and 1940. The population of Britain in 1800 was about 18 million and rose to 30 million by 1940. So, about 10% of people in Britain at that time were immigrants or children of immigrants. In the last 70 years, there have been eight times as many immigrants to the UK per year, but the country also has four times the population it had in 1800, so effectively, the rate of immigration as a percentage of the population has only about doubled.

 

It rose by 30 million actually, population in 1940 was 48 million.