Perhaps an unfair comparison, but it does highlight two criticisms. The first is the lack of particularity: for a thesis so rightly concerned with the intimacies of national identity, this is a broad-brushed work of political science that seeks to impose the policy solutions of Canada and Australia on Britain. In particular, it fails to deal with the issue of welfare and identity in the context of mass migration – the question of migrant need versus indigenous contribution, of diversity versus solidarity.
Assertion one: Canada and Australia have nothing to tell us about immigration.
Assertion two: Migrants are, in general, “needy”.
Assertion three: “Indigenous” people are, in general, “contributors”.