Characterising UKIP?

[Bernie Gunther]

Yeah, ignore all the people supporting UKIP and talk just about UKIP and its formal policies. Working a treat right now.

This seems to be a fundamental point to me.

I've had conversations with a number of neighbours and relatives (in an ultra-safe Labour seat) who are more or less pro-UKIP and to at least some degree the roots of what's driving them politically seem to me to be 1) consequences of neo-liberal capitalism like precarity, roll-back of the welfare state etc and 2) disillusionment with the political status quo, their inability to influence any of that stuff by voting Labour or Tory etc.

That all might get expressed as stuff about hating immigrants, the EU, middle-class do-gooders etc and seeing UKIP as standing up for "the man in the street" but that seems to me to be effect, albeit one UKIP has been successful in channeling, rather than cause and certainly isn't the only imaginable political expression of those underlying concerns.

 

[andysays]

Sorry, but I think that's balls. UKIP are anti-EU first and foremost because membership of the EU leads to uncontrolled immigration. That's their thing. Anything else they may have in terms of policy - and it's not much - is secondary stuff most people don't even know about. UKIP exist to get Britain out of the EU, and limiting immigration is the single clarion call - they are of course quite right that you can't limit immigration from the EU without leaving the EU, and that is hitting a chord. It's hitting a chord most where there are fewest immigrants, because people are blaming all kinds of social ills, from lack of jobs to lack of housing, on immigration. UKIP is winning that narrative. It has Cameron following it now.

'anti-immigration' is UKIP.

So are you arguing that being "anti-immigration" is UKIP's first and founding principle, that everything is based on that as a foundation? You don't think there might ultimately be economic interests underlying their position which they believe can best be furthered by getting out of the EU and bringing all aspects of "national sovereignity", including but certainly not limited to immigration control, back under the control of the UK govt?

If so, that strikes me as being a ludicrously superficial way of looking at things, and if not, how would you describe their first principles?

And the idea that UKIP is somehow forcing Cameron and the Tories to become anti-immigrant, as if they never were before or never would have thought of it on their own is a little naive.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

And the idea that UKIP is somehow forcing Cameron and the Tories to become anti-immigrant, as if they never were before or never would have thought of it on their own is a little naive.

UKIP is forcing Cameron to adopt their narrative, yes. Or at least, Cameron is choosing to adopt their narrative as a response to UKIP successes.

There's a lot of confusion on here, I think, where people are jumping all over any poster who talks about what UKIP are, suggesting immediately that they are talking about everyone who votes UKIP as well. UKIP are an anti-immigration party. They stand for little else. There is a separate discussion to be had about what is motivating people to vote for them and why - or indeed whether - their message is being taken on board.

 

[butchersapron]

UKIP is forcing Cameron to adopt their narrative, yes. Or at least, Cameron is choosing to adopt their narrative as a response to UKIP successes.

There's a lot of confusion on here, I think, where people are jumping all over any poster who talks about what UKIP are, suggesting immediately that they are talking about everyone who votes UKIP as well. UKIP are an anti-immigration party. They stand for little else. There is a separate discussion to be had about what is motivating people to vote for them and why - or indeed whether - their message is being taken on board.

Maybe some sort of thread? One where uncomprehending liberals could shout about UKIP candidates? Sort of like was suggested above.

 

[andysays]

UKIP is forcing Cameron to adopt their narrative, yes. Or at least, Cameron is choosing to adopt their narrative as a response to UKIP successes.

There's a lot of confusion on here, I think, where people are jumping all over any poster who talks about what UKIP are, suggesting immediately that they are talking about everyone who votes UKIP as well. UKIP are an anti-immigration party. They stand for little else. There is a separate discussion to be had about what is motivating people to vote for them and why - or indeed whether - their message is being taken on board.

But why are UKIP an anti-immigration party do you think*?

Is it just because they are nasty people who don't like immigrants (which seems to be where your characterisation begins and ends) or are there economic interests which are finding expression through anti-EU/anti immigration ideas?

And can you not remember the Tories ever before using "get tough on immigration" talk as part of their electioneering before UKIP even existed?

ETA: * and I'm not agreeing that they are, in the simplistic way you're suggesting

 

[laptop]

UKIP are an anti-immigration party. They stand for little else.

No, they're an anti-EU party. They stand for hiring and firing workers at will, no health & safety and no right to paid time off.

Anti-immigration rhetoric is mostly the means to that end.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

No, they're an anti-EU party. They stand for hiring and firing workers at will, no health & safety and no right to paid time off.

Anti-immigration rhetoric is mostly the means to that end.

That's not the stuff they push, though. That's not the rhetoric that they use to get votes. It's ammunition, hopefully, to get people not to vote for them. Again, I think there are two separate things - first, why is the anti-immigration rhetoric winning so many people over: so you point at the real causes of the problems immigration is being blamed for; second, all the other stuff you would get with UKIP in power, and yes, stuff you would lose if you left the EU.

But most people aren't voting UKIP because they think workers have too many rights.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

No, they're an anti-EU party. They stand for hiring and firing workers at will, no health & safety and no right to paid time off.

Anti-immigration rhetoric is mostly the means to that end.

Not the whole story, but I think this is a valid point.

I strongly suspect that another goal, and one which helps them get generously funded, is to protect the City from EU regulation.

 

[two sheds]

What approach to you suggest butchers? That's why I made the post - I want to know what tactics are best in combatting it.

 

[two sheds]

OK, I think we're at cross purposes now.

I agree that there's been plenty of Oh look at what ukip members say.

I'm wondering why there hasn't been more of what I called above

genuine criticism of UKIP which points out Farage and co's background in the finance world (rather than just pointing out that he's "posh"), and examines where their interests and sympathies really lie without reducing it to them being all about the racism

I thought that was what two sheds was calling for, though having re-read I suspect I may have been giving him the benefit of the doubt, and what you're characterising him as saying is less of a characature than I thought.

I'm interested to know what the caricature is - I tried to be careful in my choice of words. What you said is broadly what I was suggesting,

Butchers in his last couple of posts before the one of yours I'm quoting has been saying that I'm suggesting targeting ukip members. I was suggesting detailing where he was getting his finances from rather than being posh, and views of ukip candidates rather than members - like the one who said some particular storms were a punishment by God for the government's decision to legalise gay marriage.

I'm specifically interested because of other boards I go on where the threads are being overrun by Kippers. If they made comments like the ones they do on here, the response would be to first patiently explain why people feel that what they've said is wrong (which I've tried) and when it happens again start in with the multiple "fuck off you racist cunt"s until they leave, but that won't work on other boards because you put off people who haven't made their minds up yet. I want to respond without pushing undecided parties their way.

Another reason I suggested it is that it is in my experience a good approach with people in cults. You need to show the contradictions in what the cult leaders say in different places, and in what they say and what they do. What other people say about them doesn't have any effect.

 

[andysays]

I'm interested to know what the caricature is - I tried to be careful in my choice of words. What you said is broadly what I was suggesting,

Butchers in his last couple of posts before the one of yours I'm quoting has been saying that I'm suggesting targeting ukip members. I was suggesting detailing where he was getting his finances from rather than being posh, and views of ukip candidates rather than members - like the one who said some particular storms were a punishment by God for the government's decision to legalise gay marriage.

I'm specifically interested because of other boards I go on where the threads are being overrun by Kippers. If they made comments like the ones they do on here, the response would be to first patiently explain why people feel that what they've said is wrong (which I've tried) and when it happens again start in with the multiple "fuck off you racist cunt"s until they leave, but that won't work on other boards because you put off people who haven't made their minds up yet. I want to respond without pushing undecided parties their way.

Another reason I suggested it is that it is in my experience a good approach with people in cults. You need to show the contradictions in what the cult leaders say in different places, and in what they say and what they do. What other people say about them doesn't have any effect.

Thanks for clarifying what you were saying, and apologies if I was putting forward a caricature of what you were saying.

In my opinion, it's the question of where he's getting his finances from, and expanding on that to look at whose interests he's ultimately serving, that I'd suggest would be most relevant. In other words, what is actually behind the anti EU/anti immigration stuff? It's not that they're genuinely concerned about the issues that most people who are attracted to them are concerned by, they're merely exploiting those issues to mask their real interests which are those of a section of the best off, particularly the financial sector.

I'd be less keen on focussing on some of the off-the-wall statements of some members, because that can just play into the idea that they are saying the unsayable and the liberal establishment is trying to censor them.

And I'd also be a little wary about making references to cults, because that may come across as if you think that UKIP supporters are somehow equivalent or similar to brain washed cult members, and that's not a tactic likely to win many arguments.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

But why are UKIP an anti-immigration party do you think*?

Is it just because they are nasty people who don't like immigrants (which seems to be where your characterisation begins and ends) or are there economic interests which are finding expression through anti-EU/anti immigration ideas?

And can you not remember the Tories ever before using "get tough on immigration" talk as part of their electioneering before UKIP even existed?

ETA: * and I'm not agreeing that they are, in the simplistic way you're suggesting

UKIP existed for many years as the anti-EU party and very much a fringe party because nothing they said struck a chord with many people. Borderline cranks wittering on about nonsense. What changed? I suggest a combination of economic 'austerity' and a change in net migration such that there are now significantly more people coming into Britain now than leaving. Despite the 'austerity', there are bits of Europe where job prospects are bleaker, and many people from those places are emigrating to places like the UK and Germany, which is also seeing lots of immigration from the rest of the EU.

And yes, the tories have a long history of blaming the social ills they create on immigrants. Thatcher did it, and effectively neutralised the National Front in doing so. The tories were doing it against Brown, prompting Brown's absurd 'British jobs for British people' line. Labour do it.

But Farage is right about one thing - the UK govt cannot control how many people come here from the rest of the EU, and despite setting targets and talking big, this govt has seen net immigration continue to rise. None of the major parties seems willing or able to discuss this in positive terms - 'UK can weather the economic storm because we have the added vibrancy of keen, hard-working young immigrants' would be another way they could characterise net immigration. This leaves the narrative of UKIP that immigrants are taking jobs away from British people unchallenged.

There is a long history of blaming all kinds of things on immigrants, from all parties, but the climate has changed now so much such that David Blunkett talking about being 'swamped' is left more or less unchallenged. We have a combination of people being fucked over and growing net immigration. Space is left open to UKIP to link the two in a causal way.

 

[two sheds]

I'd be less keen on focussing on some of the off-the-wall statements of some members, because that can just play into the idea that they are saying the unsayable and the liberal establishment is trying to censor them.

And I'd also be a little wary about making references to cults, because that may come across as if you think that UKIP supporters are somehow equivalent or similar to brain washed cult members, and that's not a tactic likely to win many arguments.

I wasn't planning on introducing the cult stuff it was more as background, but good points both, ta.

 

[rover07]

If only there were less people in the UK then there would be plenty of jobs and housing.

Just like in the 1930's when the UK population was 30 million.

 

[andysays]

UKIP existed for many years as the anti-EU party and very much a fringe party because nothing they said struck a chord with many people...

So are you saying now that they are anti-EU rather than/before being anti-immigration, and that the anti-immigration is an expression of their more fundamental anti-EUness rather than their entire reason for being?

And if so, why are they anti-EU? Is it just because NF doesn't like Europeans, or is there some economic interest at the bottom of it?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

So are you saying now that they are anti-EU rather than/before being anti-immigration, and that the anti-immigration is an expression of their more fundamental anti-EUness rather than their entire reason for being?

And if so, why are they anti-EU? Is it just because NF doesn't like Europeans, or is there some economic interest at the bottom of it?

I have said from the start that they are anti-EU. That is now expressing itself as anti-immigration - it is their opposition to immigration, not the EU in general, that they now stress above all else. It is what they push and push and push. It is by presenting themselves as the anti-immigration party that they have achieved the success they've had so far, that makes the difference between now and 20 years ago. It's also the thing they have found that they think might just work in getting the UK out of the EU.

I'm not sure it matters why they choose to be anti-immigration. What matters is to counter the arguments they put, and the blame they place on immigration/immigrants. One fundamental argument has to be: If you think there are not enough jobs now, you just wait and see how few there are when strict immigration limits are set. That's one of the biggest lies, that immigrants are taking away jobs. None of the major parties is countering it. They've used it themselves in the past - Brown, for instance. Instead of countering it, the Tories and Labour are enthusiastically coopting it. That will probably be UKIP's biggest legacy - their effect on the other parties.

 

[two sheds]

In my opinion, it's the question of where he's getting his finances from, and expanding on that to look at whose interests he's ultimately serving, that I'd suggest would be most relevant. In other words, what is actually behind the anti EU/anti immigration stuff? It's not that they're genuinely concerned about the issues that most people who are attracted to them are concerned by

I'm not even sure that saying they're not genuinely concerned about these issues is good - as you say a lot of people *are* genuinely concerned, so saying 'I know you're genuinely concerned but he's not' could sounds somewhat weasley.

they're merely exploiting those issues to mask their real interests which are those of a section of the best off, particularly the financial sector.

Private Eye says Farage claims that he is "campigning for a "radical change from "corporatist politics" but are being funded by Christopher Mills of Harwood Capital Management (£50,000), Odey "who pocketed £28 million after short-selling Bradford & Bingley shares as the bank collapsed in 2008" (£22,000) and Stuart Wheeler, "the spread-betting "pioneer"" (£197,300). And "Last month Arron Banks, the insurance tycoon, pledged £1 m."

I'm not sure how convincing that is, though, not a huge difference from the other parties really.

 

[mauvais]

The UKIP supporters that I encounter most are a particular subset, but fairly easy to characterise or caricature. They're monied, comfortable, often owning businesses etc, and generally most concerned with protecting that personal position now that it's established. They're what I would rightly or wrongly file under the term libertarian; rabid free marketists who believe that any given person in any scenario can match their achievements by simply getting on one's bike, and that the individual ought to be solely responsible for themselves. There's a distinct lack of self-awareness and empathy running through all that rhetoric, but as far as I can tell it is a genuinely held belief, rather than a wilfully self-serving stance.

I agree with andysays that 'anti-EU' isn't a political ideology that can survive on its own. What's the point of it? I think it's partly the above, and partly some doomed attempt to revive the imagined version of some former era, sort of the height of the British Empire meets Just William. A psychologist could have a field day with that.

 

[two sheds]

One fundamental argument has to be: If you think there are not enough jobs now, you just wait and see how few there are when strict immigration limits are set. That's one of the biggest lies, that immigrants are taking away jobs.

Any figures/estimates? The other side is the fairly simple equation: jobs taken by immigrants = jobs lost by British people.

Related are the recent figures for whether immigrants represent a cost or a benefit, but they were a bit nuanced according to http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2014/nov/05/telegraph-mail-headline-migrants-cost-contribution

 

[littlebabyjesus]

The UKIP supporters that I encounter most are a particular subset, but fairly easy to characterise or caricature. They're monied, comfortable, often owning businesses etc, and generally most concerned with protecting that personal position now that it's established. They're what I would rightly or wrongly file under the term libertarian; rabid free marketists who believe that any given person in any scenario can match their achievements by simply getting on one's bike, and that the individual ought to be solely responsible for themselves. There's a distinct lack of self-awareness and empathy running through all that rhetoric, but as far as I can tell it is a genuinely held belief, rather than a wilfully self-serving stance.

Interesting. I'm guessing that was the subset more or less that was already voting UKIP before their recent rise.

 

[andysays]

I have said from the start that they are anti-EU. That is now expressing itself as anti-immigration - it is their opposition to immigration, not the EU in general, that they now stress above all else...

Well, a little while ago you said this (emphasis mine):

Sorry, but I think that's balls. UKIP are anti-EU first and foremost because membership of the EU leads to uncontrolled immigration. That's their thing. Anything else they may have in terms of policy - and it's not much - is secondary stuff most people don't even know about. UKIP exist to get Britain out of the EU, and limiting immigration is the single clarion call - they are of course quite right that you can't limit immigration from the EU without leaving the EU, and that is hitting a chord. It's hitting a chord most where there are fewest immigrants, because people are blaming all kinds of social ills, from lack of jobs to lack of housing, on immigration. UKIP is winning that narrative. It has Cameron following it now.

'anti-immigration' is UKIP.

This thread, as I understand it, is about characterising UKIP, examining what they are fundamentally about, rather than why they are currently on the rise which is the subject of another thread (although ultimately the two things need to be examined together).

And you still seem to be running shy of addressing why they are anti-EU or anti-immigration - is it simply because of NF's personal dislike of foreigners, is it a purely cynical tapping into the feelings of a section of the electorate, or is it perhaps the expression of a particular economic interest?

I'd argue that it's the latter and until you recognise this, until you manage to distinguish between the interests they ultimately serve and the policies and ideas they put forward to support those interests (in the same way as you should do with any other political party), you won't really understand them and you won't be able to counter them effectively.

 

[mauvais]

Interesting. I'm guessing that was the subset more or less that was already voting UKIP before their recent rise.

As I understand it, they're all ex-Tory voters, although that's a fairly wide political spectrum in itself. Some of them seemed to have historically placed faith in Cameron, to do what I don't really know, now evaporated. The detail is where they start to fan out into different and more complicated origins IMO, but I'd suggest that the key drivers away from previous allegiances would be Labour public spending, the perception of the Cons becoming more centrist (ho ho), and general disenfranchisement from main party politics (more chuckles, of course)

 

[littlebabyjesus]

And you still seem to be running shy of addressing why they are anti-EU or anti-immigration - is it simply because of NF's personal dislike of foreigners, is it a purely cynical tapping into the feelings of a section of the electorate, or is it perhaps the expression of a particular economic interest?

Some people from the old UKIP have actually left now, precisely because they think it is no longer just an anti-EU party, and that Farage has turned it into an anti-foreigner party. Why were they or are current UKIP people anti-EU? I'm not sure that's the most important question, tbh. Why are people voting for them? What bad things do those voters blame on the things UKIP blames them on?

 

[andysays]

Some people from the old UKIP have actually left now, precisely because they think it is no longer just an anti-EU party, and that Farage has turned it into an anti-foreigner party. Why were they or are current UKIP people anti-EU? I'm not sure that's the most important question, tbh. Why are people voting for them? What bad things do those voters blame on the things UKIP blames them on?

It's certainly not the only question, but it's an important one.

In the same way, you can't adequetely understand the Labour party by focussing solely on why people are voting for them, the policies they put forward or the ethos they claim to believe, you also have to consider what interests they ultimately serve to understand the complete picture and why people's hopes and expectations for Labour will ultimately always be dashed.

Or are you saying that UKIP is somehow unique amonst political parties in that they exist only to promote a handful of headline policies with no wider overall socio-economic interest? Maybe once they have achieved withdrawal from the EU, Nigel will pack the whole politics thing up and go back to his original career in the city, happy in the knowledge that UK independence has once more been achieved.

 

[mauvais]

I also don't think that the people I'm referring to support UKIP on the basis of it being racist, or even anti-immigration. It just doesn't strike much of a chord at that level. Some of the people might be racist, and generally a long way from progressive or even average contemporary views, and so as a result don't really care if UKIP are accused of racism, but it's just not an important piece for them. If your political aspirations mostly loop back to yourself, rather than the welfare of some general population, who gives a fuck about whether your aligned party is or isn't racist? Unless you become some sort of Nazi social outcast. So that line of attack does nothing.

Aside from nationalism and that weird false traditionalism, the motivation seems to be largely about economics and public spending, which immigration & the EU feed into, but mostly don't become the dominant issue themselves. You can do what you like with the specific arguments within, because for most people they're intangible and complicated effects, and so you can take mostly ideologically driven positions.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

It's certainly not the only question, but it's an important one.

In the same way, you can't adequetely understand the Labour party by focussing solely on why people are voting for them, the policies they put forward or the ethos they claim to believe, you also have to consider what interests they ultimately serve to understand the complete picture and why people's hopes and expectations for Labour will ultimately always be dashed.

Or are you saying that UKIP is somehow unique amonst political parties in that they exist only to promote a handful of headline policies with no wider overall socio-economic interest? Maybe once they have achieved withdrawal from the EU, Nigel will pack the whole politics thing up and go back to his original career in the city, happy in the knowledge that UK independence has once more been achieved.

I'm not sure UKIP represents a coherent set of interests, no. Most business owners are not pro-UKIP. Big business certainly isn't. It was suggested that the City might be pro-UKIP, but I suspect only a small minority. Leaving the EU could be disastrous for London's financial sector.

ETA: They're nationalists. Nationalists represent the idea of a nation at a particular (essentially arbitrary) level and giving power to a govt at that level. Does the BNP represent particular economic interests? No, they represent a particular racist vision of the British nation. UKIP take out the formally racist bit, but they also represent primarily the vision of the British nation whose sovereignty is sacred. At root, that's not a rationally arrived at position. It's a position based on faith in an idea - in this case the idea of 'Britain'.

 

[J Ed]

The UKIP supporters that I encounter most are a particular subset, but fairly easy to characterise or caricature. They're monied, comfortable, often owning businesses etc, and generally most concerned with protecting that personal position now that it's established.

None of this applies to the UKIP suppporters I know. In fact if it applies at all to anyone then it applies a bit more to the people I know who are anti-UKIP.

 

[laptop]

UKIP are anti-EU first and foremost because membership of the EU leads to uncontrolled immigration.

But they existed for years as an anti-EU party before they started banging on about immigration.



That doesn't mean they're not racist. It doesn't mean an anti-immigration line doesn't win them votes.

It does mean that the actual reason for their existence is to promote the interest of those businesses that want rid of EU regulation (those that want a return to Victorian employment practices, and as BG notes the banks).

 

[newbie]

Some people from the old UKIP have actually left now, precisely because they think it is no longer just an anti-EU party, and that Farage has turned it into an anti-foreigner party.

I think you're misreading him. He's been at pains to say that foreigners from outside the EU should have as much, not less, not more, as much, opportunity to come here as those from inside, within whatever limits "we" set. His message is not crudely anti-foreigner, and importantly not pro-white and against all the rest. He's demanding a sense of fairness which plays on his little islander, British sense of values, underlying message.

I've heard him explicitly reject anti-foreigner rhetoric, quite angrily, using his German (?) wife to show he takes that stuff personally. I've also heard his anger when candidates or supporters have been outed as BNP, or ex BNP, and didn't think he was playing to the gallery.

 

[newbie]

It does mean that the actual reason for their existence is to promote the interest of those businesses that want rid of EU regulation (those that want a return to Victorian employment practices, and as BG notes the banks).

no. That may be an underlying message that leftist economists can identify, and it may be why they have a funding stream, but it's not what they're for, not what has motivated people to spend year after no hope year building the party. The specific interests of British (or more accurately British-American) capital is low on their priorities. They're small government Little Englander nationalists who resent 'interference', especially with sovereignty.

There's a spirit of the age aspect to that- much of left of Labour is saying similar stuff, though with different emphasis.