In the UK it is the Pot which is Melting

by Lynda Goetz

Photo by Nathan Dumlao on Unsplash

For those old enough to remember, the song Melting Pot was the debut single released in 1969 by UK pop group, Blue Mink. Although it has since been banned from the airways for “offensive racist language”, it was in fact a hymn to racial tolerance and multiculturism. This ‘hippy’ call for blending and racial integration was banned in 2019 as “likely to cause offence” after just ONE complaint to Ofcom when the song was played on ‘golden oldies’ station Gold. Frankly I never liked the song and the lyrics were pretty silly, but  in some ways this popular song (it reached No 3 in the charts in January 1970 and remained in the charts for fifteen weeks) expressed and reflected, and still does, in spite of the crass lyrics, the wish that all humans could get along “and turn out coffee-coloured people by the score”.

Unfortunately, this is a forlorn hope, based on an idealistic view that one day, as we humans evolve, our natural tribalism will somehow disappear. Like so many idealistic views it is unrealistic and ignores human nature. As individuals, we can certainly get to know and like others who are not part of our tribe; others who may be from a different class; others of  a different culture and/or skin colour; others of different religions and beliefs. Inherently however, we tend on the whole to cleave to those who are like us, or as Nancy Mitford famously put it, those who are PLU (People Like Us). This may sound absolutely outrageous to modern ears but let us look at some of the evidence.

Since the end of World War II we have been living through an era where the overriding hope has been that such a wide-ranging war involving so many nations will never again be fought. Indeed, the hope and aim has been that fewer and fewer wars will be fought and that those which are will involve civilians as little as possible. This, of course, did use to be much more the case in previouscenturies. Battles were fought between rival armies or navies on battlegrounds or at sea. Before that, whole tribes or villages were involved, whole villages, towns or cities were sacked, whole populations displaced or captured. After World War II serious attempts were made to enable humanity to move forward in a more civilised way. Thus the United Nations was set up in 1945 to “maintain international peace and security”. It had been preceded by The League of Nations, set up and ratified by forty-two nations after World War I but collapsing in 1939.

This essay is no place for an examination of the differences between patriotism and nationalism, although the general consensus seems to be that the older term ‘patriotism’ is ‘good’ and the more recent term ‘nationalism’ is ‘bad’.*  It would seem that in general, nationalism is regarded as more of a political term and tends to feelings of superiority, aggression and division,  whereas patriotism tends to constructive loyalty to one’s country which is, or should be, more inclusive in its nature. Whatever the case it does seem to be that at the moment the views of the general populace are not in sync with those of our political masters. This is true in many parts of the world, but here in the UK the dissonance seems to be increasing year on year. A recent survey for the Daily Telegraph found that 76% of those questioned agreed that Britain is more divided than it was at the time of the Brexit referendum ten years ago. The public feels the country has been let down by many of its national institutions, including the Government, the Police and the BBC. The reasons for these conclusions are not always the same, however.

Immigration is a major cause for concern amongst a majority  and yet few feel able to really express their feelings on the subject. Time and again voters have told politicians in no uncertain terms that they want immigration reduced or certainly slowed. In spite of this, immigration has grown exponentially since World War II and faster than ever since Tony Blair’s tenure as Prime Minister. We have now reached a point where our government has completely lost control of our borders and appears to lack the gumption to take any serious steps to deal with this issue, referring endlessly to its obligations under international law and the European court of Human Rights (ECHR), also set up post World War II. The judges and the courts inevitably follow suit. Migrants, here legally or illegally, seem to be given better treatment than our own indigenous homeless, and those who pay taxes are increasingly being asked to support not only a growing idle population of our own, but a non-working population from abroad, many of whom arrived here illegally. Anyone who dares to question such a system is immediately branded a “racist” (although some kinds of racism, such as anti-Semitism  appear to be more acceptable than others) or “far-right”.

Is it really racist or nationalistic to feel that in the indecent haste to welcome (and pay for) all and sundry we are losing our own national identity and culture? We are constantly being told that “Diversity is our strength”. Is it? Looking at the state of the country now we are at the weakest (in all sorts of ways) we have been for a long time. Economic growth is stagnant; the cost of living is rising (not just due to the war in Iran, as our political masters keep trying to pretend, but due to their own policies of tax and spend); our benefits bill is out of control; our government cannot defend our country, as recent events have clearly highlighted (threats to Russia which cannot be carried out; bases abroad which we cannot defend) and those in work are increasingly wondering why they bother when it is quite evidently the case that for many life is more comfortable on the dole.

One of the biggest problems for those of a patriotic or nationalist bent is that for many years politicians on all sides have been swayed by the idea that migration is essential for economic growth. Like many of the ideas and situations which we face now, this one started after the end of World War II. The British Nationality Act 1948 gave citizen status and the right of settlement in the UK to those  who had been born in a British colony. Short of workers, the British government of the time encouraged those in Caribbean countries to come and settle here and between 1948 and 1970 some half a million or so did just that. (This later led to the Windrush scandal under Theresa May’s government). Under Tony Blair, immigration from Eastern Bloc countries which had recently joined the EU was allowed to happen unimpeded and led to what was at the time a huge influx of migrants from Poland, Hungary, the Czech Republic etc. From the time of the so-called A8 accession to the EU in 2004 to 2010, the influx, instead of being between 5,000 and 13,000 a year reached a quarter of a million in 2010. Whilst this compares with some 850,000 legals in 2025 and some 70,000 illegals since Labour came to power, it is the ongoing increases and the changes it brings to the country which concern people.

The so-called “Boris wave” refers to the large number of legal immigrants, largely from India, Pakistan and Nigeria, who came into the country following Conservative Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s introduction of a points-based system in 2021. Although Johnson had campaigned on reducing immigration, his post-Brexit policies actually resulted in a surge of people coming into the country. It was argued that we needed to address workforce shortages and encourage skilled workers into the UK, but the policies put in place seemed to serve simply to increase the numbers of low-skilled workers, students and dependents of those allowed in or already here.

It is this focus on ‘need’ which has driven the post-war rise in immigration. In spite of the wishes of the indigenous population, politicians of all stripes seem to have regarded this simply as ignorance of a situation in which they knew better. According to this view, we needed increased immigration for economic growth. There are still many who believe this to be the case and trot this out as the argument for continuing immigration, in spite of the number of economists who have pointed out that on the contrary, whilst some immigrants might boost growth in the immediate or short term, the overall need for health care, education, housing and pensions, not only cancels out any advantage, but in the long term actually costs the country  (and hence, of course, the taxpayers) money.

Peter Sutherland, a prominent Irish and international lawyer and politician, who died aged 71 in 2018  and was  dubbed the “father of globalisation”, was representative of much of the UN and World Economic Forum (WEF) thinking which has led to the situation in which developed countries find themselves today. In 2006, after a stellar career, which included being awarded a knighthood by Queen Elizabeth II for services to industry in 2004 (he also received a Papal knighthood in 2008), he was appointed UN Special Representative on Migration in 2006. In this position he was instrumental in setting up the Forum on Migration and Development and was a huge supporter of Chancellor Angela Merkel’s gesture, in 2015, of welcoming a million refugees into Germany. In 2006 he wrote the following: ‘We must use migration to turn the English into a minority in England. This will allow us to undermine the identity of the native English and import a new majority that will end the very idea of England. This is critical for globalisation to take hold of England’. He actually said much the same thing  about European ‘homogeneity’ to a rather shocked sub-committee of the House of Lords in 2012, which earned him apparently a sneering denunciation from a Daily Mail journalist.**

However, whilst the populist Daily Mail might not have agreed with the “globe’s grandee”, as the sneering journalist had dubbed him, his ideas were clearly popular amongst the Davos elite and those in charge of economic policies at government level. The indigenous populations in Europe and the UK have made quite clear their views on being “swamped” by hordes of legal and illegal migrants from other continents. Unfortunately, the politicians, in spite of making the right noises do not really seem to share that view, which may explain to a large degree their apparent inability to do anything very much about it.

When or if we vote in a government which does not see ‘patriotism’ or ‘nationalism’ as dirty words (and possibly one which stops trying to court the vote of the fastest-growing, non-integrating, foreign element in our population) then and only then might we be able to recover from the increasingly unpleasant sectarianism now plaguing this and other European countries (although several others do seem to have woken up to the dangers and be doing something to turn the situation around). That great big melting pot is a mirage,  a figment of the imagination, which isn’t about to become reality any time soon. What is needed is much more recognition of the fact that those who choose to move must do so on the basis of integrating into the societies which they have chosen to join. It is not for the indigenous population to conform to the requirements of the incoming communities. Yes, we are welcoming, yes we are tolerant, but not if that welcome and that tolerance is abused and leads, as it appears to be doing, to self-destruction.

Peter Sutherland was wrong. We Brits do not wish to become a minority in our own country, nor to have our identity undermined. This is the point at which we must say “Enough!” and our politicians need to heed us. The appalling rise in anti-semitism and the recent spate of attacks on Jews and Jewish establishments surely spells out loud and clear the dangerous direction in which we are heading.

*From ‘The Conversation’; from ‘Mental floss’; from English Study Online

** from his Obituary in The Irish Times