This is the thing I don't get. Why the presumption that only "lefties" oppose racism? (Or that lefties are "liberal" for that matter, given that Marxist-Leninist socialism is essentially a highly authoritarian and prescriptive political creed). The only "racist" in terms of (former, of course, youthful error of judgement and all that ) membership of a racist political party I can think of in showbiz circles is Ricky Tomlinson, who combined it with miltant trade-unionism. (And the two are not as contradictory as our Guardian-and-natural-yoghurt-for-breakfast chums would like to believe.) The only political constituencies where the NF and the BNP have ever made any headway are ones that were otherwise staunchly Labour. I know the left always likes to assume the moral high ground but I don't think they can claim a monoply on anti-racism.

As for rock music being generally a leftie business. Well it's certainly true that rocks stars have tended to be counter-culture figures but this is more about bugging the straights than any serious political thought. Rock stars also like to make a song and dance about "leftie" issues like the environment, globalisation etc. etc. But let's look at the business they operate in: the production and consumption of its products involves full use of the bounteous fruits of the petro-chemical industry (and I don't suppose any of the Third World sweatshops involved in the manufacturing of CDs, mp3 players. computers and hi-fis have a Fair Trade licence.)
Its practitioners spend most of their time jetting round the world, not always for the purposes of tax-avoidance. As far as eco-friendy businesses go it‘s about as "green" as Ewing Oil when JR was up to his dastardly worst. The major record companies are as "global" as McDonalds. And when it comes to the distribution of income between those at the top and those at the bottom it makes the investment bankling industry look like a hippy commune. A good many of its practitioners have also, historically, been notorious for a lifestyle of self-centred hedonistic decadence. The industry exists solely to create and then service a demand for a completely inessential (apart from Pet Sounds obviously) product and has no qualms about overlooking any enviromental damage it may leave trailing in its wake whilst taking full advantage of any tax-avoidancve loopholes it can get away with. (Yes even St.Bono)
The rock industry is capitalism red in tooth and claw. In fact, when you chuck in the po-faced sanctmoniousness when it comes to how other people should behave it‘s hard to think of a business which embodies more "the unacceptable face of capitalism".
And "Thom" Yorke‘s a twat.

Is a comment like his about Nazi Germany architecture actually racist, or even a slightly dodgy thing to say? There were presumably many Germans in the 30s and 40s who did many good things but who made a life-death decision to go along with Nazi works even if they didn't agree with the ethics. The architects, builders, plumbers, painters who produced the buildings that Ferry admired - are they all complicit/guilty? Would you extend that to musicians, composers, artists of the time?

...didn't Lulu only vote along with the majority of the British public? As is her constitutional right.

It's about time we reconciled ourselves to the fact that Englishness doesn't really exist any more. We can't have it both ways: we can't promote a multi-cultural society and then moan about our lack of national identity. I put this to someone recently and they said "Can't our national identity reflect that we are a cosmopolitan society?" Well, no. Not really. The two are contradictory. We simply have to admit that 'Englishness' is a concept that predates us, and move on. I don't think it's any great loss: hopefully our society is more open minded, and I personally find patriotism to be a bit of a shaky concept anyway. But it's time people stopped tangling themselves in knots trying to have the best of both worlds.

I think they do too.

As does 'Englishness'. Culture is what you want it to be and where you find it.

Ask a Londoner and a resident of a small sleepy Suffolk village whether the culture has changed in forty years and you will, of course, receive a different answer. Hopefully though, they will both acknowledge a) change and b) that the change hasn't rid their respective lives of a sense of place. London still trades (however tackily) on the very fact that it is 'London'. Red buses, the West End, Parliament and the Thames; all quintessentially English and very much a part of the culture, as is the ebb and flow of colour and creed.

Culture is in essence our collective understanding of 'the way things are around here', and the majority of English people are, at the same time, averse to radical change whilst being capable of rationalising and adapting to it. We've done it for thousands of years.

Similar 'anti-English culture' arguments have arisen for thousands of years and yet we're probably more of a hybrid ethnicity than any other nation; the diversity should be celebrated, not worried about.

The issue of whether an individual likes or dislikes cultural change is only prevalent because some individuals are in the privileged position to be able to voice an opinion and have it published. That some of those individuals don't engage their brains before their mouths does not make them inherently racist, just mildly stupid.

Mozzer and Ferry didn't need academic qualifications or common sense to create great music that will eventually transcend the rather tawdry attempts to characterise them as something they're (probably) not. If they spout off nonsense or are misinterpreted (whichever it was), it's not the beginnings of a nationalist manifesto, more an unfortunate mis-calculation of timing and circumstance, so decide for yourself whether to listen to or ignore any future comments they make, and then go back to listening to the music.