Immigration rules for dependents tightened


by Rumbold
14th July, 2011 at 11:40 am    

The government has announced new proposals which add further restrictions on people bringing spouses and other dependents from abroad, and lengthening the amount of time which they can claim benefits:

Currently, non EU Spouses of British citizens now get “indefinite leave to remain” in the United Kingdom after two years of marriage but under the new measures they would only do so after a period of five years as well. In addition, the government wants to also reform article 8 of the European Human Rights Convention, that stops the UK from deporting illegal migrants because of disruption to family life.

Recently, convicted terrorists have used that clause to prevent their deportation from the United Kingdom. The Home Secretary Theresa May earlier this month expressed her concern about convicted criminals and terror suspects abusing the European Human Rights Convention.

There are also going to be restrictions on Britons who cannot financially support themselves bringing over extra dependents:

British citizens who are poor or unemployed could be prevented from marrying the spouse of their choice if new family migration proposals become law. The government wants to introduce a new minimum income threshold for those looking to sponsor a spouse, partner or dependants to come to the UK. Under the proposals the unemployed or those living on less than around £5,000 a year would be banned from doing so, while the probation period before spouses and partners can apply for settlement in Britain would be raised from two to five years.

The Guardian headlined the piece as “Poor to be banned from bringing spouses to the UK from overseas”, and providing for foreign dependents has always been a difficult issue. Given that migrants have no access to public funds for the first few years (and this would be extended under the proposals), the question is how would the foreign spouse support themselves if their partner could not support them?

For a long time, one of the main risks of the ‘no recourse to public funds’ rule has been that vulnerable migrants (such as women feeling domestic violence) couldn’t get the help they need. The coalition government established a pilot last year to provide these women with help, such as emergency housing and possible residence. Hopefully this will be extended and expanded as a way to combat this major problem with the ‘no recourse’ rule (which is a good one generally).


              Post to del.icio.us


Filed in: 'Honour'-based violence,Current affairs






54 Comments below   |  

Reactions: Twitter, blogs
  1. sunny hundal

    Blogged: : Immigration rules for dependents tightened http://bit.ly/nGlYpi


  2. Clive Burgess

    Blogged: : Immigration rules for dependents tightened http://bit.ly/nGlYpi


  3. Jillian Li-Sue

    Blogged: : Immigration rules for dependents tightened http://bit.ly/nGlYpi


  4. Noxi

    Immigration rules for dependents tightened http://bit.ly/nGlYpi RT @sunny_hundal:




  1. platinum786 — on 14th July, 2011 at 12:49 pm  

    That’ll keep the paki’s out.

  2. Optimist — on 14th July, 2011 at 1:37 pm  

    Looks like the ‘nasty party’ is getting even nastier. They wanted to put the ‘family at the centre’ but when it comes to immigrants they can’t wait to break up the families. This is just another one of their attacks upon the poor and the vulnerable.

    When it comes to the rich and the powerful, like the monster Murdochs or the greedy bankers they would lie in front of them to have their ‘tummy tickled’ or worse. But when facing the unemployed, the single mothers, the poor pensioners, the asylum seekers or the NHS users, the usually spineless creatures, come on all macho.

    This rule change would not only deprive many people to the right to family life but also boost the agenda of the likes of the EDL and the BNP as it would make racism more respectable.

  3. damon — on 14th July, 2011 at 4:31 pm  

    Platinum786, I think it’s more to do with keeping the numbers down overall, and poor third world immigrants particularly. As we build to a population of 70 million anyway, there has to be some kind of brake on the numbers as otherwise things would get out of hand.
    I’m glad I live in Ireland, where the total population is less than London’s.

  4. Optimist — on 14th July, 2011 at 4:56 pm  

    damon-

    Its a myth that population would grow to 70 million as the immigrants as well as the indiginous population themselves tend to migrate to other countries.

    But the ecomomic growth needs migration as discussed by Prof. Nigel Harris below in – Thinking the Unthinkable: The Immigration Myth Exposed:

    “What is the relationship between migration and economic growth?

    Economic growth requires both a labour force of a certain size, and a changing labour force in terms of skills. Economic growth and economic development both require structural change and therefore transformation in the demand for labour. In the past, each national economy in semi-closed systems was seeking to supply that demand completely from within the national boundaries. Now that is proving impossible. Not only can local resources not supply the structure of skills in a dynamically changing economy, they can’t even supply adequate unskilled labour.
    This problem relates to education policies. If a government is attempting to upgrade its population in terms of education, then it is tending to make it impossible to fill unskilled labour jobs. That in turn affects the productivity of skilled labour. If a hospital doesn’t have the low-skilled labour – porters, kitchen staff, laundry staff, etc. – then the doctors can’t do their work. The productivity of skilled labour is thus affected by the availability of unskilled. In general, economic growth involves continual structural change, and this is now so rapid and unpredictable that national training systems cannot cope. Structural change means changing labour demand in terms of skills. In a global economy, each national economy is increasingly unable to meet local demand. That’s why migration is a key factor making economic growth possible.”

    http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/resources/periodicals/shsviews/sv17/news/interview_with_nigel_harris_migration_is_the_factor_which_makes_economic_growth_possible/

  5. Imran — on 14th July, 2011 at 6:55 pm  

    What is never factored into the equation is the fact that for one person who has arrived to work in a hospital kitchen we could end up with half a dozen in their family who need to be housed, educated and whose health needs to be taken care of. All in all a drain on resources.

  6. joe90 — on 14th July, 2011 at 10:11 pm  

    i say more people coming in the better

    it’s fair deal the British government interfere,bomb and invade nations then start crying why the people want to leave those lands and immigrate to britian!

  7. Trofim — on 15th July, 2011 at 9:43 am  

    That’s interesting, optimist. I would have thought that in the case of “breaking up families”, the one who emigrated to the UK took the first step toward “breaking up the family”. If dependents are not allowed in, then said person has the option of either perpetuating the breakup of the family by staying in the UK or reuniting the family by returning to his home country. Easy peasy.

    As for “Its a myth that population would grow to 70 million as the immigrants as well as the indiginous population themselves tend to migrate to other countries”. It’s the logic of la-la land! If that is indeed the case then,
    Its a myth that population would grow to 60 million as the immigrants as well as the indiginous population themselves tend to migrate to other countries.
    Its a myth that population would grow to 50 million as the immigrants as well as the indiginous population themselves tend to migrate to other countries.
    Its a myth that population would grow to 40 million as the immigrants as well as the indiginous population themselves tend to migrate to other countries.
    and so on.

    Why do you think “economic growth” is necessary, optimist? Economic growth is the unnecessary fostering of addictive consumerism and greed. Apart from the fact that economic growth is the engine which drives global warming.

    Take a look at some basic common sense:

    http://steadystate.org/

    There is, of course, no reason at all why this island should “need” more human beings on it. Absolutely the reverse is the case. Most species of flora and fauna in the UK are diminishing, some catastrophically, due to the constant human destruction of their habitat. This island, like the world, desperately needs the human species to check its relentless proliferation, and the damage which is resulting from it.

  8. Imran — on 15th July, 2011 at 9:47 am  

    I would refer Joe90 to the comment by, I think, Mark Twain that it is better to remain silent and be thought stupid than to open ones mouth and confirm the fact.

  9. Optimist — on 15th July, 2011 at 9:50 am  

    Imran-

    Humans Migrate. That’s what we have always done and always will do, as that is what we do!

    The first immigration act was passed by the tories in 1962. Ever since then the politicians and the rightwing media always tried to whip up peoples emotions by saying there are too many immigrants. Yet more of us came – as we were needed OR as in the next post by joe90 – we were forced to come here. But we have always contributed far more to the economy than we have taken out.

    According to the Centre for Economic Performance (CEP), the immigrants are generally younger than average and contribute more to the ecomomy.
    “Compared with people born in the UK, immigrants were on average younger, better educated and concentrated in London. And new immigrants were on average more educated than immigrants who arrived in the past, the CEP said.”

    http://www.metro.co.uk/news/80603-immigration-not-affecting-wages

    Also, we immigrants create our own jobs and also add jobs to the general economy. The curry industry alone employs more that 100,000 people and is now bigger industry than car making, coal mining and steal making put together. It contributes more than £4 billion to the economy.

    So if some poor hospital or kitchen workers, who are needed to do those jobs, want to also be here withy there families, why do you want to deprive them that basic human right ? Maybe you should demand that the money grubbing bankers who have stolen trillions and are still getting bonuses in millions give up some of that money so that it could be spent on those resources you so much seem to care about!

  10. Optimist — on 15th July, 2011 at 10:37 am  

    Trofim-

    Economic growth is the unnecessary fostering of addictive consumerism and greed. Apart from the fact that economic growth is the engine which drives global warming.

    Its the capitalism that is the cause – production for profit – but not to full fill the need!

    We need the whole world to be ONE COUNTRY so that the world’s resources could be shared and then there would be no need for one particular island to become ‘overcrowded’. And that could only happen under an international socialist government .

    By the way even during ‘Middle Period’ they had argued that this island is over crowded and that was one of the reasons given to expel the Jews. However, the population then was less than 3 million and in dire poverty!

  11. Trofim — on 15th July, 2011 at 1:16 pm  

    The curry “industry”? INDUSTRY!!

    You mean we’ve got 100,000 people here who’s justification for being here is that they throw some spices into a pan? That’s 100,000 people burdening us unnecessarily. In a rational world, there is no need for their existence. Just think of the housing and other resources that could be freed up.

    Don’t forget, Optimist, under socialism, the economy will work not for profit, but to supply the needs of the people. Eating spicy food isn’t a need, and neither is going to a restaurant. And I must point out that eating rice in the UK is an anti-planetary activity. Rice has to be carted halfway round the world, using oil and creating unnecessary greenhouse gases. Anyone in the UK who wants to combat global warming should not be eating rice.
    It’s important to be able to distinguish the difference between the way the world IS and the way WE WANT IT TO BE. The way it IS, is reality. How you WOULD LIKE IT TO BE is fantasy. The world is NOT one country, never has been on country, will NOT be one country in 10 years time, 50 years or probably, in a 100 years time.

    And as for effing London – don’t start me off!

    Now why do I always get into arguments with kids?

  12. damon — on 15th July, 2011 at 1:17 pm  

    I live in Belfast at the moment, and watching the 12th parades which go past the end of my road on tuesday, I did wonder how compatable this white working class culture was with a multi-cultural society like we have in places like London. This is Lisburn Road where the main parade walks down, and is the most multi-cultural part of Belfast, but still ethnic minorites are a small minority.

    http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=lisburn+road+12th+&aq=f

    It’s a growing minority, as many of the people who are now my neighbours were not here five years ago. Lots of African people, Somalians, Malaysians, Chinese of course who have been here for decades. Eastern Europeans (including quite a lot of Roma), Indians, but still in overall small numbers.

    I have the idea that the people who march and watch these parades in their thousands, wouldn’t want Belfast to become as diverse as Brent, Southall, Brixton, East Ham and Tottenham. Birmingham, Bradford etc.

  13. Optimist — on 15th July, 2011 at 1:34 pm  

    Trofim-

    Now why do I always get into arguments with kids?

    Does it have something to do with that you are out for ‘care in the community’ and the community is not doing its job properly?

  14. vimothy — on 15th July, 2011 at 2:01 pm  

    “Its a myth that population would grow to 70 million”

    Our population will eventually reach 70 million as a mathematical matter of fact as long as the population is growing.

    The issue of immigration being “necessary” for economic growth is not serious. Canada and Australia both have sensible point-based immigration policies; presumably their economies are collapsing for lack of unskilled labour. No?

    It’s fallacious to assume that there is demand for some fixed quantity labour and that if this is not supplied, everything grinds to a halt. If you increase the quantity of labour, then your going to increase demand for govt services and output in product markets as well and we’re not actually going anywhere.

  15. vimothy — on 15th July, 2011 at 2:20 pm  

    And of course, you’re suppressing the wage of unskilled labour, and raising the relative wage of skilled labour. Hello, income inequality.

    Now, in the long-run, in a standard model, capital adjusts and this effect fades away. But it seems to me that this is both 1, totally inconsistent with the idea that we “need” some fixed quantity of unskilled labour as if we were a static economy, and 2, irrelevant, because immigration is continuous, preventing us from ever reaching the long-run.

    But arguments like these are merely the sideshow. Rational thought is not welcome in this debate. What we have is massive, continuous flows of in-migration. One group of people–most of the inhabitants of the country, in fact–foolishly believe that since this is their country and a democracy, they should be allowed to say who gets to live here. Another group of people has decided that this is racist and despicable, and that the first group should be patronised and made to think differently, or at the very least, ignored. Fortunately, it is the latter group that sets policy.

  16. Optimist — on 15th July, 2011 at 2:40 pm  

    vimothy -

    It’s fallacious to assume that there is demand for some fixed quantity labour and that if this is not supplied, everything grinds to a halt.

    Yes,everything grinds to a halt, ‘as a mathematical matter of fact as long as the’ demand for labour remains.

    And of course, you’re suppressing the wage of unskilled labour, and raising the relative wage of skilled labour

    Could easily be corrected by collective trade union action.

  17. vimothy — on 15th July, 2011 at 2:51 pm  

    Actually, everything does not grind to a halt. That’s a fallacious argument. The number of people in the country doesn’t prevent growth. That’s why you can have countries of different sizes who still have functioning economies. That’s how we got where we are today–you know, in the past, the population was smaller.

    The number of vacancies created doesn’t change with the amount of immigration, just as it doesn’t change with the size of the population. There is no relationship between them. In 2002: 600,000 vacancies. In 2008: 600,000 vacancies. What happened to the 1.1 million net migrants we added?

    “Could easily be corrected by collective trade union action.”

    How, if the flow of unskilled in-migration is continuous?

  18. Trofim — on 15th July, 2011 at 2:57 pm  

    Here’s an interesting paper on the marginal need for foreign workers in a country which is governed in the interests of its people.

    Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, Volume 33, Issue 5 July 2007 , pages 767 – 782.

    Conspicuous By Their Absence: Why Are There So Few Foreign Workers in Finland?
    Author: David Bartram – David Bartram is Senior Lecturer in Sociology at the University of Leicester

    Abstract

    Migration scholars commonly assume that employment of low-wage foreign workers is a universal feature of labour markets in wealthy countries. However, several wealthy countries have very few foreign workers proportional to their labour force. Existing theories of international labour migration are not well equipped to explain these anomalies. This paper summarises the challenge presented by ‘negative cases’ of labour migration and explores an explanation for the minimal presence of foreign workers in Finland, where they amount to less than 1 per cent of the labour force. Most Western governments prefer not to allow employers to import low-level workers, but many do not succeed in transforming this preference into actual policy. Finland is able to do so because of an activist economic policy that results in a reduced prevalence of low-level jobs. This policy is supported by a mode of governance that constrains opportunities for employers to play a dominant role in policy-making. Another supporting condition is the presence of a highly organised labour movement.

    vimothy @ 15:
    Absolutely, and eloquently expressed. You are right, of course, that there is no place for rational discussion here. To the left, and particularly to the ethnic left, immigration is not a topic which can be approved or disapproved of in various measures like another similar topics. Neither is a topic where rational arguments have any meaning in the context of a left-wing blog. Immigration has a special, most special status to the left. It is axiomatic, it is a given, to the left, that immigration is a noble thing beyond questioning. It is the jewel in the crown. It is a holy cow, the very holiest and most precious of all holy cows. To question the precious nature of immigration is, to the left, the most evil of heresies. It is equivalent to standing in the middle of Mecca and saying “Hang on folks, what if there isn’t a god?” So strongly to lefties identify with immigration, that I believe it actually causes them pain to see its value questioned. To imagine that a rational discussion of immigration could take place on PP would be to stretch the imagination to its limits.

  19. Optimist — on 15th July, 2011 at 3:02 pm  

    vimothy-

    One group of people–most of the inhabitants of the country, in fact–foolishly believe that since this is their country and a democracy, they should be allowed to say who gets to live here.

    I am sure the same thoughts went through the minds of people in all those countries that were looted and plundered for more than three centuries by the forefathers of the people you talk about. In fact it was far worse than that – they took some 22 million people out of Africa as slaves and half of whom parished on the way.

    But the story still has not ended as west is casuing countious wars all over the place, displacing millions of people – and when they want to find a place to live people like you begin to moan.

  20. vimothy — on 15th July, 2011 at 4:00 pm  

    It’s like (Groucho) Marx’s famous dictum, “These are my principles. If you don’t like them, I have others”.

    You were saying that immigration is necessary for economic growth. But now you are making a completely different argument. It seems to me that proponents of uncontrolled immigration say, this is what we should be doing because of reason X, and if X isn’t any good, then here’s reason Y, and if that doesn’t get you excited have a look at Z… Basically, whatever it takes to get you to quieten down and take your licks.

    You don’t think that the people of Britain have any moral right to the territory of Britain because of the crimes of our ancestors. Well and good. At least you are honest. But let me ask you a couple of things: Since populations of immigrants today become populations of Britons tomorrow, do you think that they have a right to call for restrictions on immigration? And, how do you see rates of migration evolving in the future? Will we reach some point where we stop needing unskilled labour? If flows ultimately stop or reverse (in your view), what has caused them to do so?

    How, if the flow of unskilled in-migration is continuous?

    To come back to this momentarily, look–You want unskilled labour to have leverage when it is bargaining for wages. But if you make the pool of unskilled labour infinitely deep, then you remove any leverage. Unions can always be undercut.

  21. Optimist — on 15th July, 2011 at 4:40 pm  

    vimothy-

    If you look at your previous comments, it was you who introduced the emotional aspect of ‘most of the inhabitants of the country, in fact–foolishly believe that since this is their country’ rather than giving an economic argument.

    Well, in 1260 there were only three thousand Jews in this country, less than 1.00% of the population when the ‘Jewish Edict’ was introduced.

    According to the German census of June 16, 1933, the Jewish population of Germany was approximately 505,000 people out of a total population of 67 million, or somewhat less than 0.75 percent.

    So, the economic argument has nothing to do with emotional argument as peoples emotions can be easily inflamed by some demagogue regardless of the numbers.

    I again quote what I said above :

    Humans Migrate. That’s what we have always done and always will do, as that is what we do!

    The first immigration act was passed by the tories in 1962. Ever since then the politicians and the rightwing media always tried to whip up peoples emotions by saying there are too many immigrants.

    Also, you can not just have some sort of amnesia about history. History does matter as it shapes the future.

    But based on purely economic arguments, many Indians are now returning to India to work in the expanding Indian economy. Similarly, other developing countries will need more labour in the future.

    So, this process goes on – how long the economy of this country would require unskilled labour ? Well how long is a piece of string ?

    One thing will that not help is the undue restrictions on immigration – as people would always find ways to full fill that gap in the labour market – but, sadly, they would be exploited by unscrupulous employers unless the unions act and fight for all workers rights – regardless who they are and where they come from !

  22. Jai — on 15th July, 2011 at 6:04 pm  

    I would refer Joe90 to the comment by, I think, Mark Twain that it is better to remain silent and be thought stupid than to open ones mouth and confirm the fact.

    It was famously stated by Abraham Lincoln, not Mark Twain.

  23. Don — on 15th July, 2011 at 6:22 pm  

    Proverbs 17:28, I think, Jai.

    Or as they say in Yorkshire, if you know nowt, say nowt and ‘appen no-one will notice.

  24. Jai — on 15th July, 2011 at 6:52 pm  

    Proverbs 17:28, I think, Jai.

    Correct Don, although President Lincoln’s paraphrased version has subsequently become very famous, ie. “Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to open one’s mouth and remove all doubt”. I’ve previously quoted it in a couple of my PP articles too.

    Wise words indeed, from a very wise man.

  25. douglas clark — on 15th July, 2011 at 8:13 pm  

    I’d have thought that a true born Brit should be able to go anywhere in the world, chat up a lad or a lass and expect to be able to bring them back to good old Blighty. Chances are this foreigner they have met is better educated and probably more likely to be able to earn an income here. Mayhaps the foreigner would deign to marry them.

    It is a bit odd that true born Brits do assume that the immigrant would be the weaker in the marriage. Financially or in any other way. Just an assumption or a nonsense?

  26. damon — on 15th July, 2011 at 8:58 pm  

    Proverbs 17:28, I think, Jai

    Though there is the other side of that .. with people who think saying nothing at all is full of restrained wisdom. Which on these internet forums can mean that discussion is stilted and haulting.

    I live on probably the most multi-cultural road in Belfast as it’s full of big old houses that have been divided up in to flats and bedsits, and at my end, it could be 30% black and minority ethnic. It’s hard to tell exactly, but something like that.

    South Belfast has long been known as a melting pot and today’s mix is very clear in one of its inner city primary schools. Botanic Primary’s 185 children come from 23 different nationalities and speak 21 languages. Fifty-five per cent of the enrolment is white and indigenous with 45 per cent coming from indigenous ethnic minority or foreign backgrounds.

    http://www.agendani.com/botanic-primary-school

    Down the other end of my side road, people still put union jacks above their front doors and the area has a reputation for being very insular and for white working class protestants only. As five years ago many of the people whose children who now go to the primary school weren’t living here, I do wonder if this is just the start of an immigration boom as more and more people just end up here for whatever reason. Having family and friends here becomes a reason for new people to chose a city like Belfast. But it’s in the next side road to mine that Roma gypsies were diven out of in 2009.

    I was thinking on the 12th watching the parades, that it must take the ”defeat” of a strong white working class identity like exists here, to develop the kind of multi-cultural society we have in the most diverse London boroughs.
    Ethnic minorities are just about tolerated here it seems to me. Because they keep their heads down so much, apart from the Roma who got pushed out to a catholic/student area nearby. It’s an interesting situation to see and compare.

  27. douglas clark — on 15th July, 2011 at 9:25 pm  

    damon

    I was thinking on the 12th watching the parades, that it must take the ”defeat” of a strong white working class identity like exists here, to develop the kind of multi-cultural society we have in the most diverse London boroughs.
    Ethnic minorities are just about tolerated here it seems to me. Because they keep their heads down so much, apart from the Roma who got pushed out to a catholic/student area nearby. It’s an interesting situation to see and compare.

    Eh?

    You really do need to work that out for yourself. Ethnic minorities that are neither Protestant nor Catholic don’t reallty matter. Let’s just fight each other.

    That is your measure of it, isn’t it damon?

    I would be quite ob;iged if you kept that pish over there in Northern Ireland and didn’t try to spill that sort of shite elsewhere. For there are mongrel morons around here that would listen to your sort of shite. And I would rather you just fucked off.

    You are quite a corrupt wee cunt damon.

    You like fucking people up, you like pretending that there is anything worthwhile whatsoever in the shite you write here.

    No, damon. There isn’t. You are a piece of shite.

    Fuck off.

    ——————————

    This is probably a point that no-one that is neutral about white fight will probably understand.

    Our good friend damon has, almost continually, attacked anyone that wasn’t white. It mi8ght have been more subtle than that, I’d argue otherwise, that was and is his game.

    But our good friend damon loves hating white folk too.

    It is what he does.

    Down the other end of my side road, people still put union jacks above their front doors and the area has a reputation for being very insular and for white working class protestants only. As five years ago many of the people whose children who now go to the primary school weren’t living here, I do wonder if this is just the start of an immigration boom as more and more people just end up here for whatever reason. Having family and friends here becomes a reason for new people to chose a city like Belfast. But it’s in the next side road to mine that Roma gypsies were diven out of in 2009.

    He wonders, he cares, he writes mince.

    Love damon, or hate him, at least judge him on what he says. And what he says is not exactly loveable, is it, dear reader?

  28. damon — on 15th July, 2011 at 11:05 pm  

    Poor Douglas. He has the perception of a gnat.
    If this website is part of his care in the community, then I suppose I shouldn’t begrudge him that.

    My points about Belfast are because here it’s like going back forty years and more in London, seeing the beginnings of large scale immigration.

    Until ten years ago there were hardly any ethnic minorities here apart from Chinese. And now a local primary school has 45% of pupils coming from an ethnic minority background. I don’t know why raising such a point gets CU Jimmy to blow a gasket.

    Platinum786 gave his/her opinion about the OP in post #1, and I think it’s a point worth taking in to consideration. It’s a valid point of view as much as someone wanting the government to tighten up immigration like was outlined in the opening post.
    Because not everyone wants to live in live in a place as diverse as Tower Hamlets or Birmingham.
    This website is supposed to be about ideas and opinions I take it. So it’s good to set the parameters wide I think. And I was trying to respond to the OP in as far reaching a way as possible.
    Beyond Dougie’s ken though.

  29. Don — on 15th July, 2011 at 11:47 pm  

    …it must take the ”defeat” of a strong white working class identity like exists here, to develop the kind of multi-cultural society we have…

    Damon, you keep returning to this point (usually ‘wondering’) but how do you define defeat? What aspects of the society you describe would, if they faded from history, constitute defeat of a strong white working class identity?

  30. damon — on 16th July, 2011 at 1:14 am  

    Well Don, in the most working class streets in Belfast, you still see people leaving their front doors open during the day. The outer door is left open, and you just push open the inner door which is not locked. Because people all know each other.
    I have a brother inlaw here and that’s exactly what his family are like. People are constantly popping in and out of each others houses. It’s nothing like that in any place I know in London. Apart from perhaps within some very tight South Asian communities in somewhere like Tower Hamlets.

    Also, in much of inner city London, even the traditional cockney style accent has been usurped by the strret language of the urban hip hop culture.
    You might just say it’s a natural progression of the language …. but that’s a whole other conversation.

    Architecturaly, the road I live in could be in Hackney. Big old three story brick houses, divided up into flats. But it’s not like that because even though it’s 20 or 30% minority ethnic locally, the immigrant communities haven’t matured yet with second and third generation. There have never been the likes of the Brixton or Bradford riots here.

    If you saw those youtubes of the twelfth of july parades, you see a white working class culture that is unimaginable in inner city London. If those bands tried to walk through Hackney or Camberwell there would probably be a riot. As the idea would get around that all those white blokes in uniforms must be racists or something.

    Same as the Teddy Boys. They would be getting chased ragged if they were to come back as a working class youth culture in London. It would be presumed that they were racists I think. Particularly if some of them were.
    If you ever read Rod Liddle’s (infamous) Millwall football fans website, many of them say they moved away from inner city south east London where they grew up, as they didn’t want their kids growing up in an area that was dominated by the ‘post code gang’ carry on. Where some tough white lads would have to watch it, or they could have the Peckham Boys coming after them.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peckham_Boys

    This may well be the wrong place to even try to discuss this though. Several people are just not up to it, and I find it a bit hard myself.
    The OP lays out a subject, but to try to talk about it in a wide ranging way, seems to be met with either indifference … or what Douglas just did.
    I think that’s a pity, but it’s what I expect.

  31. AbuF — on 16th July, 2011 at 4:32 am  

    I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that joe90 is in fact a spoof being conducted by an individual with a very twisted sense of humour… either that or he has severe mental health issues.

  32. Boyo — on 16th July, 2011 at 8:17 am  

    Cheer up Damon. I’m reminded of the ending of the Neil Jordan film Angel…

    - So what are you then? A Catholic or a Protestant?
    - Neither. I’m a Jew.
    - Ah… so are you a Catholic Jew or a Protestant Jew?

  33. Niels Christensen — on 16th July, 2011 at 12:25 pm  

    The proposed rules are not unlike the rules in Holland, Denmark and Norway, and they could well be EU standard.
    At a time where most european welfare societies have big financial problems, it might be a good idea to restrict migration a bit in the lower end.

  34. Don — on 16th July, 2011 at 2:54 pm  

    Damon,

    Are you saying that ‘strong white working class identity’ = not locking your front door, Orange Order marches, teddy boys and Milwall supporters?

    The first is rather sweet, but the other three are principally associated with violence and intimidation. These are not characteristics of any working class ‘identity’ I am familiar with.

    I remember marches, of course, at the Bedlington Gala and Durham Big Meeting.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fKipahb9gLI

    But unlike the ones you seem to see as emblematic of the WWC, no one was in the least intimidated by those marchers. It still goes on, but is much reduced and no doubt will fade into history in time. Nothing to do with immigration, all down to Thatcher. You say that if the Orange Order marched in London the idea would get about that ‘ all those white blokes in uniforms must be racists or something.’ Well, given that the point of these marches is to intimidate their neighbours from a minority group, bigotry at least would be a reasonable assumption.

    There have never been the likes of the Brixton or Bradford riots here.

    This is Belfast you’re talking about, right? A city whose hospitals are world leaders in reconstructing the knee-cap.

  35. damon — on 16th July, 2011 at 4:57 pm  

    Interesting Don. You equate the Orange parades, Teddy Boys and Millwall supporters with violence and intimidation. Would you use such casual associations to the Hip Hop/Rap/Grime music and culture? The police have done so, with their stop and searching of black youth, and their wanting to specially monitor music venues that host such events.
    It’s just as well there isn’t any Orange kind of culture in London and Birminghamm, as you can see how easily wrong assumptions could be made.

    Btw, anyone who might be interested, here was Ulster TV’s round up of the Twelfth the other day.
    http://www.u.tv/utvplayer/video/137856

    This thread is about the government trying to slow down the rate of immigration. And particularly of the kind outlined in the opening post. It’s an interesting subject for discussion. Why should anyone care how many people come to live in the UK? What difference does it make? I raised the situation in Belfast, as it’s a place that never had the kind of immigration that many English cities have had. There is no Brick Lane, Brixton or Alum Rock here, but there are the beginnings of a BME population developing. Like I mentioned, with one primary school having children speaking 21 different languages. All in the space of five or ten years. Obviously, immigration has had a huge effect on how particular neighbourhoods in England actually are. For better or worse, however you look at it. And that’s the point. People do look at these things in different ways. For some, East Ham is a wonderfully vibrant place .. with a South Asian culture being the most pronounced. Other people who remember it from the 1950s might be nostalgic for a time where it was solidly white working class.

    This road in Bury Park Luton could be Lisburn Road in Belfast where I’m living, apart from the fact that Belfast hasn’t had that level of immigration from Pakistan over succesive decades.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kVefDOSY4d0

    I’m not saying one is better than the other. They are just different because of that different history.
    And that is sort of the point of the thread I’d have thought. The government wants to reduce immigration, and are focussing on areas such as were outlined in the OP.

    Spouse visas are a perfectly legitimate area for discussion, even if it is unfortunate the way the Daily Mail covers such things.

  36. Don — on 16th July, 2011 at 5:35 pm  

    Interesting Don. You equate the Orange parades, Teddy Boys and Millwall supporters with violence and intimidation.

    Yes, that’s what I said. And your response is to echo that?

    Would you use such casual associations to the Hip Hop/Rap/Grime music and culture?

    It wasn’t casual and I’m afraid I have absolutely no knowledge of Hip Hop/Rap/Grime music and culture. Other than a cartoonish idea of posturing buffoons.

    It’s just as well there isn’t any Orange kind of culture in London and Birminghamm, as you can see how easily wrong assumptions could be made.

    Yes, it’s a good thing, but the assumptions would not be wrong.

  37. damon — on 16th July, 2011 at 7:40 pm  

    ”Yes, that’s what I said. And your response is to echo that?”

    I echoed it because what you said was so blasé.
    It doesn’t hold water unless you were to explain saying such a thing.

    I think the problem lies in your assertion that: ”the other three are principally associated with violence and intimidation.”

    Principally associated by whom? The Sunday Express and the News of the World? In the popular imagination?

    But that is going off at a tangent.
    Immigration changes the places it touches. And that can be a good thing. The places of greatest diversity can be quite fascinating, and in some ways I miss London. They also can produce some of the most intractable social problems in the whole of the UK, and require wholescale retraining of institutions in how to be diversity sensitive. The Met Police still stamds accused of being ”institutionaly racist” by the black police officers association, who suggest that black people don’t join it.
    So, going for the multi-cultural society is not without it’s problems.
    One could say though, that it makes life more interesting. I think it does.

  38. Don — on 16th July, 2011 at 9:03 pm  

    It doesn’t hold water unless you were to explain saying such a thing.

    Fair enough. Let’s start with Orange Order marches. Their reason for existing is to keep the catholic population in their place. As a symbol of WWC identity it is a bizarre choice and makes no sense outside of that specific context. Of course it is about violence and intimidation. Of other WWC people. I will mourn the day the last miner’s banner is paraded, but I would not mourn the last swaggering march of the Orange Order.

    Teddy boys? A bit before my time and I’m sure many were nice lads only interested in the drapes and crepes. But as an example of what has been lost in working class culture? Undoubtedly the violent aspect of Ted culture has been fetishised, but back in ’58 it was a real thing. With real casualties.

    Milwall supporters, as defined by you as the habituates on that site Liddle loves? I’m sure most of them are merely full of shit and have never caused serious damage to another human being in their lives, but their loud mouthed ethos is that status is about having being involved in a ruck. Having kicked someone’s head in. So, yeah. Your examples of working class identity being threatened are mainly about violence and intimidation as a cultural marker.

  39. damon — on 17th July, 2011 at 12:03 am  

    Orange Order marches are a lot more complex than that.
    Because Northern Ireland is a divided society where the two communities are at political loggerheads. Even when the political parties work together at Stormont.
    The Orange Order would have faded away if it hadn’t been for The Troubles and the continuing disire by nationalists, to push Northern Ireland out of the UK.
    I’m not here to defend them, but to say that that kind of cultural expression would be very suspect in a multi-cultural society like London. People wouldn’t understand it and would be highly suspicious of it.
    Like I think some black and minority ethnic people who were standing on Lisburn Road watching the parade on tuesday were.

    As for Teddy Boys, do you remember this thread on PP Don? About Form 696 and the police wanting to ”reduce clubland violence”. You commented on it.
    http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/5724

    Teddy Boys, Rastafarians, Mods and Rockers, Rappers and Grime fans. They’ve all been maligned at some time. But the point is, if there were any people like the Teds around in the most diverse neighbourhoods today, they might find the landscape too hot to handle.
    The Thornton Heath Teddy Boys used to be the big shots down there, but today that wouldn’t wash, as the last overt white racists were chased out 25 years ago.
    And even if they weren’t racists particularly, they might not get the benifit of the doubt from the local tough lads. Who these days are mostly black.

    And as for football fans, many grounds are now in areas with a big ethnic minority population, and saturday can be an odd day when thousands of out of area white blokes turn up and frequent pubs that are quiet most of the week. So it’s probably better for everyone that they leave the area soon after the match and leave the locals in peace.
    There’s not much trouble that you hear of that way, but I have this suspicion that many in the Asian community that grew up around Manchester City’s old ground, were glad to see the club move out to a new stadium.

    And all this is kind of tied in with the opening post I think, as the government wants to keep a brake on the growth of these communities. Perhaps they don’t think that you can just keep piling people into areas at the rates that there have been.
    Whether that is a fair thing for the government to do is a difficult question.

  40. Boyo — on 17th July, 2011 at 6:29 am  

    “The Orange Order would have faded away if it hadn’t been for The Troubles and the continuing disire by nationalists, to push Northern Ireland out of the UK.
    I’m not here to defend them…”

    I’m no expert o NI, but the Orange Order goes back hundreds of years, and as Wiki states:

    “From 1921 to 1969, every Prime Minister of Northern Ireland was an Orangeman and member of the Ulster Unionist Party (UUP); all but three Cabinet Ministers were Orangemen; all but one unionist Senators were Orangemen; and 87 of the 95 MPs who did not become Cabinet Ministers were Orangemen.”

  41. Vikrant — on 17th July, 2011 at 8:21 am  

    There are people immigrating to Britain still?

  42. notbrownenough — on 17th July, 2011 at 3:15 pm  

    There are people immigrating to Britain still?

    What to say? The world’s full of losers.

  43. damon — on 17th July, 2011 at 5:34 pm  

    An area near where I live has a reputation for being a Loyalist stronghold. Donegall Road close to the city centre. The area has been losing population for decades, as housing estates were built further out in the suburbs. Many of the houses are boarded up and whole streets are empty and set for demolition.
    It’s in such places in England that immigrant communities formed, as the houses were cheap and so many were already vacant.
    Immigrant people have been moving in there too, as location wise, you cant beat it. But there have been quite a few racist attacks as the hard core loyalists don’t seem to want to share their neighbourhood in the way that is common in so many British towns and cities.

    It’s a place of terraced houses where people still fly union jacks above their doors, and it would be worthwhile to look at it on Google maps and Streetview. ”Euterpe Street” is the street to type in. Short side streets between Donegall Road and the hospital. I walk past them all the time and wonder how becoming as ethnically dverse as Hackney would change them. It would change them greatly of course.

    http://www.bing.com/search?q=donegall+road+racist+attacks&src=IE-SearchBox&FORM=IE8SRC

    Although this is beyond poor Douglas’ understanding, I mention this because many English towns are beyond this stage now, and it’s interesting to see it like it probably was 40 plus years ago in England, when new people turned up in very long established traditional communities.
    And comparing this to (for example) east London or Leicester today.

  44. joe90 — on 17th July, 2011 at 7:58 pm  

    post #8 imran

    what a plonker. Got your quotes muddled up and you lecturing others on stupidity lol

    thanks for the laugh made my weekend!

  45. Optimist — on 18th July, 2011 at 5:11 pm  

    douglas clark -

    Love damon, or hate him, at least judge him on what he says. And what he says is not exactly loveable, is it, dear reader?

    But I havn’t got a clue what damon is going on about !

  46. damon — on 19th July, 2011 at 1:19 am  

    Optimist. It’s about the numbers. The government want to slow it down. As do a majority of Brits I think.

    You can argue why. Why does it matter how many people come to the UK?
    There were 17,000 spouses coming from Subcontinent recently, and that’s quite a lot.
    http://www.bing.com/search?q=17%2C000+spouses+india+uk&src=IE-SearchBox&FORM=IE8SRC

    And what with net migration going up by 100,000 a year to 243,000, then it’s easy to see why people will say that it can’t continue. You denied these figures I think Optimist. You said that immigration and emegration would equal themselves out. They might one day but aren’t at the moment. That’s a hell of a lot of people needing to be housed and travelling about on the roads and public transport..

    Comparing Belfast – which is quite new to immigration – to the long established centres of multi-culturalism in London was worthwhile I thought, as those huge numbers of the net migration figures are going to make more places in the UK more like Wembley, Tower Hamlets and Southwark. And I was asking whether anyone should care less if that happens. People do care, but should they?
    It’s not something I’m really able to come down on on way or the other, because I see two different points of view. There are pros to it, and there can be some cons too.

  47. damon — on 19th July, 2011 at 4:40 pm  

    There’s a Guardian piece today titled:
    ”Where is the outcry at this attack on migrant families?”

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jul/19/migrant-families-rights

    It’s well worth reading through the reader’s comments, as many of them slam the article.
    Whether people in the UK have the right to have an opinion on arranged marriages with spouses coming to the UK from south Asia is the contentious issue.
    People have very different views. There’s not a right opinion and a wrong opinion here IMO. It just depends on how you view things. Our ranting ‘care in the community case’ doesn’t seem to be able to get such a subtle point.

  48. douglas clark — on 19th July, 2011 at 5:02 pm  

    douglas clark -

    Love damon, or hate him, at least judge him on what he says. And what he says is not exactly loveable, is it, dear reader?

    But I haven’t got a clue what damon is going on about either

    Well, join the club.

    It is what damon does, it is who he is.

    Forgive me Optimist, I have no idea whether you meet our favourite idiots ideas about you or I.

    It is perhaps the case that we ought to hate each other, in order to fulfill the damon dream, that whilst you and I might not hate each other, then we ought to.

    Just because.

    Bloody embarassing to not hate you, just because the likes of damon says we should?

    What a disaster that is.

  49. Optimist — on 19th July, 2011 at 5:24 pm  

    douglas clark -

    Coul not agree more !

  50. damon — on 19th July, 2011 at 6:13 pm  

    Really optinist? You’re not a 17 year old student who’s just got into the Socialist Workers are you?
    Have a look at that Guardian article I linked to above and tell us if you think any of the criticism of it by readers is warranted.
    Accepting points of view that you don’t particularly agree with as still being legitimate, is one of those signs of maturity in political debate I find.

    So the writer of the article says how unfair the new rules on overseas spouses being questioned on their relationship are, because people having arranged marriages might know very little about each other.

    She says that, and several commentators disagree with her. Can you see how both views are legitimate, and that the people who say she has it very wrong are not automatically hard hearted or racist?
    I don’t think you and ‘Auchtermuchty’ get points like that. Maybe everything has to be black and white for you.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2010. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
With the help of PHP and Wordpress.