Why 'Broken Britain' is a myth

There's an excellent article in the Economist which, as one of the commentators below it notes, should be on the front page of every newspaper in the country. It pretty comprehensively skewers the Cameronite myth that we're all 'going to hell in a handcart'. On most of the indicators mentioned - e.g. crime, child murder, teenage pregnancies - things are usually better, and certainly no worse, than in recent times, and often over a far longer time period (crime is at about 1981 levels, for example).

The key question then becomes: why? Why do people think things are so much worse than they actually are? There's no doubt that many people buy into Cameron's thesis. Aside from the obvious (the press, for one thing; late-modern angst/insecurity, for another), I think two factors might be quite important. One is the cultural resonance of the war/post-war period/1950s, which are remembered, rightly or wrongly, as a halcyon period of cohesion and integrity against which present times can only compare unfavourably. And the comparison is often made, I think (just look at the continued resonance of World War II in British life). Of course the irony is that, in as much as this picture is true, this period was more cohesive because of little things like (more or less) full employment, greater job security, social stability and so on, all things that Cameron's party have done their level best to destroy.

Second I think the impact of recent immigration from Eastern Europe must be taken into account. Not because of the numbers of people involved, or because immigration is linked to crime or anything like that (it seems that by and large immigration leads to less crime) but because this has been immigration to parts of the country hitherto more or less untouched in this regard. The shires, county towns and similar places have for the first time experienced relatively large-scale inflows of 'foreigners'. And the middle-England types who live in these places, and who form the core audience for the Mail, Express and the Tories, don't like it. To them immigration is something that happens in cities, and should basically stay there. It's nice if you can get a curry after going to town for a show, but a Polish shop on the high street is just a step too far. Saying you're worried about crime and disorder are, on this account, in part ways of talking about the cultural threat people who have never experienced immigration currently feel. A threat whipped up and fed upon by the press, for sure, but I think felt subjectively to be real by many people.

Just two suggestions, obviously, and there must be much more going on. But I think factors like these, that is things that are 'real' in people's lives (nostalgia for a lost golden age, the experience of change associated with unexpected immigration) can help explain why Cameron's arguments find a lot of support, even though they are demonstrably built on sand.