IWCA statement on BNP

[smokedout]

For the record he won 11 wards out of 18. Which is precisely what Gilligan said.

he also said

the white working class remains the largest single group in the city - something of which it reminded us on election day, by voting almost as one for Boris.

which just isnt true is it

 

[tbaldwin]

i said the three wards where boris did best, not the three wards where he won

Have you any idea of the ethnic breakdown of those areas?

 

[Joe Reilly]

he also said



which just isnt true is it

Who knows for sure with a secret ballot. but if B&D is extrapolated outwards, with a strong emphasis on the 'almost' it could well be. For instance if you look at the nearby wards in Newham where Johnson did best, it was in the still, as I understand mainly wwc wards around Canning Town whereas in wards around Green St, the deliberately cultivated Muslim voted 'almost as one' for Livingstone.

This evidence of 'racialisation' was in other words what Gilligan was saying; Livingstone had deliberately sucked up to the Muslim and ethnic vote generally at the expense of the wwc - and lost because the wwc are still the largest ethnic bloc in the city.

 

[smokedout]

This evidence of 'racialisation' was in other words what Gilligan was saying; Livingstone had deliberately sucked up to the Muslim and ethnic vote generally at the expense of the wwc - and lost because the wwc are still the largest ethnic bloc in the city.

I think youve got to be careful, livingstone undoubtably sucked up to the ethnic vote, whether it worked is another matter, Harrow and Hounslow have a lower percentage of white people then Lewisham or Haringey, but boris won there whilst was trounced in haringey and lewisham

Its also worth noting how similiar Kens 2008 results were to Labours in the 2009 election, and you can hardly accuse new lab of courting the muslim vote

Its a factor undoubtably, but i would suggest, in the mayoral election at least, less than the factor of whether someone drives a car to work or not

 

[newbie]

Livingstone had deliberately sucked up to the Muslim and ethnic vote generally at the expense of the wwc - and lost because the wwc are still the largest ethnic bloc in the city.

While it's easy for you to identify every bit of provision for obviously non-white groups and to use that to encourage resentment that they're getting preferential treatment, I don't really understand what policies you would want City Hall to aim at white working class voters, just because they're white, to redress the balance.

Do you really think the majority wwc deserted him (if indeed they did) because they are white (rather than, say, because he turned out to be a bit crap)?

 

[The39thStep]

While it's easy for you to identify every bit of provision for obviously non-white groups and to use that to encourage resentment that they're getting preferential treatment, I don't really understand what policies you would want City Hall to aim at white working class voters, just because they're white, to redress the balance.

Do you really think the majority wwc deserted him (if indeed they did) because they are white (rather than, say, because he turned out to be a bit crap)?

Missed the point. Its about class not race. Community resources should be there for all the community not just groups that either the govt or council funding streams identify as being a 'priority'. One of the reasons the Labour vote shas switche dto BNP is precisely because of the preception that New labout favour any one but the traditional working class.

 

[treelover]

4) The majority of those who voted have voted for parties that reject the Lisbon Treaty, reject Eurofederalism and want a much tougher policy on immigration. These are issues that the inner Labour factional struggle does not seem even to engage with: Labour's policy document, "Winning the Fight For Britain's Future" - currently being honed by Ed Miliband into an election manifesto - barely acknowledges the anger and disenchantment shown last Thursday.

5) Labour knew in advance how big the BNP threat was but had no effective strategy to counter it. I spent the Summer of 2007 touring Britain on the trail of Gordon Brown and constantly reported on the following: many in Labour's core constituency of white, English, low-paid manual workers believe the party has deserted them; that migration - above all legal migration from Eastern Europe - has undercut their wages and placed strains on their services. And they feel threatened about their identity.

Last year, when I followed David Cameron to Nuneaton, where the Conservatives won the council, I met former miners who had not voted "because the BNP weren't standing". In Thurrock I heard tales of hundreds of people in council elections writing in "BNP" where the party was not standing. Labour was, in short, fully appraised of the threat from the BNP. The party's strategists now have to explain how and why they failed to deal with it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/paulmason/2009/06/my_take_on_seven_days_of_labou.html

some intersting comments from the very perceptive Paul Mason of Newsnight, etc, though the piece is not about the BNP, more about the LP.

 

[newbie]

Missed the point. Its about class not race.

I get that.

Community resources should be there for all the community not just groups that either the govt or council funding streams identify as being a 'priority'.

really? Provision shouldn't be targeted at need?

One of the reasons the Labour vote shas switche dto BNP is precisely because of the preception that New labout favour any one but the traditional working class.

fostering that perception is in the interests of some political parties, I get that too. What I don't get is what policies should be targeted at people just because they're white. Or indeed 'traditional'- what is there in that tradition that politicians need to nurture? Anecdotally I'd say most of the modern w/c are pleased as punch to get away from a tradition that includes crumbling estates run by remote bureaucracies, drudgery on the line, rotten schools and healthcare and identikit lack of control over their lives.

 

[The39thStep]

I get that.


really? Provision shouldn't be targeted at need?


fostering that perception is in the interests of some political parties, I get that too. What I don't get is what policies should be targeted at people just because they're white. Or indeed 'traditional'- what is there in that tradition that politicians need to nurture? Anecdotally I'd say most of the modern w/c are pleased as punch to get away from a tradition that includes crumbling estates run by remote bureaucracies, drudgery on the line, rotten schools and healthcare and identikit lack of control over their lives.

What are the unintended consequences sabout trying to meet need solely by race however well meaning the intentions are? Normally at best they are resentment by those who don't benefit, exclusion of other racial groups, duplication and cost and usually they are marginalised and go down the pan at some point.

Noone is suggesting ( aside from the BNP) that policies are targeted at people simply because they are white.

Re your last point ; first of all why should that be the tradition? and secondly those that are left behind are exactly the ones that the BNP not the left are mopping up.

 

[newbie]

What are the unintended consequences sabout trying to meet need solely by race however well meaning the intentions are? Normally at best they are resentment by those who don't benefit, exclusion of other racial groups, duplication and cost and usually they are marginalised and go down the pan at some point.

Noone is suggesting ( aside from the BNP) that policies are targeted at people simply because they are white.

That resentment is wider than just race, of course, it extends to any minority that gets funding that's seen as somehow being at the expense of others. Prioritising new changing rooms for the football team leaves those in the cricket pavilion feeling resentment. That's rather inevitable, and unless you think the answer is to fund neither, or somehow to magic the money to fund both (& the swimming pool and what about the skateboard park or the bowls green?) it doesn't have a simplistic answer. The fundamental policy of identifying and prioritising need has reasonable popular support, I think, but it requires judgement calls and it's no secret that nulabs judgement has been very poor.

Re your last point ; first of all why should that be the tradition? and secondly those that are left behind are exactly the ones that the BNP not the left are mopping up.

that certainly appears to be the case. One of the traditions those w/c estates have inherited is being left behind, they & their forebears always have been and that's not changing- just think how long were their parents left to rot before the slum clearances. Many estates built in the 50s & 60s have had stable populations and working patterns for decades, but the population is ageing, work has changed dramatically, the young leave for something better elsewhere (quite possibly the inner city), no doubt the housing is showing it's age. People in pretty little villages feel much the same, watching their way of life disappear with urban incomers and shop, pub & post office closures and the like. There's a localised long term, and no doubt justifiable, sense of resentment that politicians can use- the nice ones explain in terms of class, the nasty ones in terms of race.

What I still don't get is what City Hall should do about it, particularly if, as you say, provision shouldn't be targeted at those estates just because they're white. If some other area has a greater measurable need for a social centre or something, shouldn't it get it? Should provision be thrown at traditional (but not particularly representative) areas like B&D in order to keep the BNP at bay?

 

[happie chappie]

some intersting comments from the very perceptive Paul Mason of Newsnight, etc, though the piece is not about the BNP, more about the LP.

Mason's analysis, IMHO, hits the nail firmly on the head, and corresponds with my political discussions with friends etc in a reasonably-sized provincial town where I live - a town that has seen a good deal of inward migration over the past few years.

A number said they were going to vote BNP, although whether they actually did so I'm not too sure. Many are well-educated and in middle class jobs. They simply do not like mass immigration and feel no-one apart from the BNP is willing to listen to their concerns. The traditional response of the left - "we all are living in a multicultural nirvana, and if you don't agree you can fuck off you filthy racist" is simply a recipe for disaster.

Unfortunately large scale, and lately totally unplanned, mass immigration has had some negative effects on the white working class communities, and the labour party’s dismal failure to address these problems (indeed, you could argue they've actually created them) will just drive more people into the arms of the BNP.

Happie Chappie

 

[audiotech]

Mason's analysis, IMHO, hits the nail firmly on the head, and corresponds with my political discussions with friends etc in a reasonably-sized provincial town where I live - a town that has seen a good deal of inward migration over the past few years.

A number said they were going to vote BNP, although whether they actually did so I'm not too sure. Many are well-educated and in middle class jobs. They simply do not like mass immigration and feel no-one apart from the BNP is willing to listen to their concerns. The traditional response of the left - "we all are living in a multicultural nirvana, and if you don't agree you can fuck off you filthy racist" is simply a recipe for disaster.

Unfortunately large scale, and lately totally unplanned, mass immigration has had some negative effects on the white working class communities, and the labour party’s dismal failure to address these problems (indeed, you could argue they've actually created them) will just drive more people into the arms of the BNP.

Happie Chappie

Avoiding the silly characterisation of 'the left' in your post.

There has not been any 'large scale, unplanned, mass immigration' to this country.

What we have seen however, is movements of labour from some countries in Europe to some other countries in Europe - migration in other words. Usually, with workers working and living temporarily in some other EU state to their own. It should also be noted, living and working in the private sector, often with accommodation supplied as part of the contract.

I would have thought then that any extra demands on services would therefore be temporary and that not all of these demands would be necessarily "negative"?

I would have thought too that your well-educated, middle-class friends 'do not like' the financial meltdown affecting services and jobs at present, rather than worrying about some European migrant labour, working in a food processing plant, or picking fruit and vegetables say, living in some poxy caravan, or multi-occupancy private housing with the liklihood of them falling ill being sent back home at a drop of a hat?

Any outward migration from that 'reasonably sized provincial town' where you live?

 

[happie chappie]

Avoiding the silly characterisation of 'the left' in your post.

There has not been any 'large scale, unplanned, mass immigration' to this country.

What we have seen however, is movements of labour from some countries in Europe to some other countries in Europe - migration in other words. Usually, with workers working and living temporarily in some other EU state to their own. It should also be noted, living and working in the private sector, often with accommodation supplied as part of the contract.

I would have thought then that any extra demands on services would therefore be temporary and that not all of these demands would be necessarily "negative"?

I would have thought too that your well-educated, middle-class friends 'do not like' the financial meltdown affecting services and jobs at present, rather than worrying about some European migrant labour, working in a food processing plant, or picking fruit and vegetables say, living in some poxy caravan, or multi-occupancy private housing with the liklihood of them falling ill being sent back home at a drop of a hat?

Any outward migration from that 'reasonably sized provincial town' where you live?

I would guess most people who voted/were thinking of voting for the BNP are not particularly bothered about the (hair splitting) distinction between immigration and migration.

If my friends were more exercised about the financial crisis they would have:

[a] said so;
not told me they were going to vote for the BNP BECAUSE of immigration/migration; and
[c] would have voted for one of the far-left anti-capitalist parties.

But as they didn't, I took what they told me at face value.

I could, of course, do what you and others on the left (yes, that term, the "left" - I would guess you are either, in or a supporter of, the SWP) ignore what (often white) working class people tell you when it doesn't accord with your narrow view of the world.

Of course, we can continue on this well-worn path, while the BNP continues to gain ground. But just don't moan about it when they do.

Happie Chappie

 

[audiotech]

I would guess most people who voted/were thinking of voting for the BNP are not particularly bothered about the (hair splitting) distinction between immigration and migration.

If my friends were more exercised about the financial crisis they would have:

[a] said so;
not told me they were going to vote for the BNP BECAUSE of immigration/migration; and
[c] would have voted for one of the far-left anti-capitalist parties.

But as they didn't, I took what they told me at face value.

I could, of course, do what you and others on the left (yes, that term, the "left" - I would guess you are either, in or a supporter of, the SWP) ignore what (often white) working class people tell you when it doesn't accord with your narrow view of the world.

Of course, we can continue on this well-worn path, while the BNP continues to gain ground. But just don't moan about it when they do.

Happie Chappie

Unlike you it seems I challenge spurious statements confusing immigration with migration and point to who is really responsible for the present crisis.

You keep talking to your well-educated, BNP voting, middle-class friends why don't you and I'll continue to speak to and organise my working class colleagues, some of whom are not "white" btw.

 

[Joe Reilly]

There has not been any 'large scale, unplanned, mass immigration' to this country.

What we have seen however, is movements of labour from some countries in Europe to some other countries in Europe - migration in other words.

Hilarious. When the left can't find the words to address a problem the formula is to pretend it dosen't exist.

A 2001 census found that approx a third of London was non-white. What European country did they 'migrate' from then?

 

[Jeff Robinson]

Hilarious. When the left can't find the words to address a problem the formula is to pretend it dosen't exist.

A 2001 census found that approx a third of London was non-white. What European country did they 'migrate' from then?

You do know that there are non-white people born in the UK don't you? And at any rate why is one third of London being non-white a "problem"?

 

[audiotech]

Hilarious. When the left can't find the words to address a problem the formula is to pretend it dosen't exist.

A 2001 census found that approx a third of London was non-white. What European country did they 'migrate' from then?

Eighty-seven per cent of the population of England and 96 per cent of the population of Wales gave their ethnic origin as White British in that census.

Interestingly, the largest proportions of White Other (that is, not White British or White Irish) people are in central London, particularly the borough of Kensington and Chelsea at 25.3 per cent.

So, what problem exists in Kensington and Chelsea then do you think Joe?

 

[Joe Reilly]

You do know that there are non-white people born in the UK don't you? And at any rate why is one third of London being non-white a "problem"?

Simply explain how a 4.5 million non-white population is not down to mass-immigration...?

 

[tarannau]

Why the dubious focus on 'non white' then? This whole country has been shaped by mass migration.

 

[audiotech]

People born abroad and living in the UK has gone from 4.55% in 1971 to 7.53% in 2001 - 4.3 million in total.

Four out of 10 people born abroad have their home in the capital. Immigrants make up about a quarter of London's population

source


The story of immigration to Britain in the past has involved a small number of nations, whilst recent immigration has come from a much wider range of countries.

....the numbers of people born in places such as the former Yugoslavia, Sierra Leone and South America have increased sharply, while the numbers of people born in the Caribbean or Ireland (traditionally, key immigrant groups) have actually fallen.

Obviously, some are perturbed by these changes, but I was hoping that general claims about immigration would give way to a more nuanced discussion on the issue.

 

[Joe Reilly]

People born abroad and living in the UK has gone from 4.55% in 1971 to 7.53% in 2001 - 4.3 million in total.

Four out of 10 people born abroad have their home in the capital. Immigrants make up about a quarter of London's population

source


The story of immigration to Britain in the past has involved a small number of nations, whilst recent immigration has come from a much wider range of countries.


Obviously, some are perturbed by these changes, but I was hoping that general claims about immigration would give way to a more nuanced discussion on the issue.

So does 4.3 million figure you quote register with you as 'mass immigration' or not? Simple question.

 

[audiotech]

So does 4.3 million figure you quote register with you as 'mass immigration' or not? Simple question.

Record migration levels, certainly in London.

 

[Silver_Fox]

Countries have huge population increases all the time, mostly that doesn't come from migration but the birth rate going up.

And I wouldn't say the population going up by 7.53% (in this case through migration) is much of a big deal on the scale of things.

The actual problems are that council housing has been decimated by about 50% from a height of over five million, welfare at both a national and local government level has been severely cut back and there has been mass privatisation of public services. This has gone hand in hand with a severe decline in the strength of trade union organisation (where the rank and file is now in a terrible state), a severe decline of forces on left and a similar decline of community campaigns. On the last of these the BNP have aimed their strategies at this area and, sadly, done very well out of it. Unfortunately the left, of whatever variety, haven't had much success with the unions or local communities/campaigns, largely because in most cases they haven't tried.

 

[Joe Reilly]

Record migration levels, certainly in London.

What about Wolverhampton, Bradford, Leicester, Birmingham...?

 

[Joe Reilly]

Countries have huge population increases all the time, mostly that doesn't come from migration but the birth rate going up.

And I wouldn't say the population going up by 7.53% (in this case through migration) is much of a big deal on the scale of things.

The actual problems are that council housing has been decimated by about 50% from a height of over five million, welfare at both a national and local government level has been severely cut back and there has been mass privatisation of public services. This has gone hand in hand with a severe decline in the strength of trade union organisation (where the rank and file is now in a terrible state), a severe decline of forces on left and a similar decline of community campaigns. On the last of these the BNP have aimed their strategies at this area and, sadly, done very well out of it. Unfortunately the left, of whatever variety, haven't had much success with the unions or local communities/campaigns, largely because in most cases they haven't tried.

What you say is indeed true. Except for the refusal to admit that immigration is inevtibaly a factor in everything you address. Why the ommission?

 

[durruti02]

Why the dubious focus on 'non white' then? This whole country has been shaped by mass migration.

and what the IWCA believe is that the whole country should be shaped by those who live there .. not forces beyond their control .. immigration shows how we the ordinary people have lost control .. we are forced to migrate to feed our families or live in places where there is a decent standard of

.. the sooner people get a handle on the fact that there is fuck all generalised racism ( i.e. people who beleive in racism as a creed as opposed to people who complain at what they see as 'black gangs' in london or 'asian gangs' in bradford .. if they lived in middlesboro they would complain at 'gangs' simply) left in this country but tonnes of anger and resentment at being dis-empowered after 30 years of Thatcherism that expresses itself in anger at Muslims protesting at soldiers homecomings, anger at housing policies which favour migrants (i.e. those without housing. as opposed to those who still live at home and can get no where to live), anger at migrants working at below the going rate etc

becuase the left has not supported 'sons and daughters' ( racist apparrently!), because the left is scared to criticise ( until this year and then with major rows) the use of migrant labour to undercut wages and terms, becuase the left does not understand why people relate to their 'country' or that the army is more w/c than the left (LOL) they fail to comprehend the anger the anti homecoming demos cause

and because of this many are prey to the BNP .. the IWCA is one of the few groups that is genuinely trying to del with this

 

[Silver_Fox]

What you say is indeed true. Except for the refusal to admit that immigration is inevtibaly a factor in everything you address. Why the ommission?

I didn't say it wasn't a factor, I just don't think it's a very big one or at all significant. An increase in the population of 7%, whether from immigration, or increase in birth rate isn't anything out of the ordinary.

durutti whether you have sons and daughters or not makes fuck all difference to social housing. Many councils do have a sons and daughters policies. But if there are no council houses being built and tens of thousands of people on the waiting list you can tinker round the edges all you like, but it's a mass build of council housing that is needed and then all the other issues would pretty much become an irrelevance.

Again with the housing policies there is a system that says homeless people should be the top priority. Fair enough I'd say. But that does mean that migrant families, who will often be homeless, will therefore get priority along with indigenous homeless families. I don't think anyone would suggest not making homeless families a priority so again the answer is more social housing.

One of the issues of migrants working below the going rate is that because the unions are so weak they aren't in a position to impose a decent and enforced minimum wage and force firms to have set terms and conditions no matter who they employ, apart from in isolated incidents. Again this won't change until if/when the unions become strong again.

 

[Joe Reilly]

I didn't say it wasn't a factor, I just don't think it's a very big one or at all significant.

Ok so if an immigration figure of 4.5 million is not at all significant, when in your view might it become socially, economically, and politically significant?

At 6 million? At 9 million? At 15 million?

 

[Silver_Fox]

Well it seems from the figures given that actually that there are now 4.3 million immigrants in the UK. This is up from 2.6 million in 1971.

So in the last 40 years there has been an increase of about 1.7 million people in the UK from immigration. Personally I wouldn't say that is that significant. If you think it is fair enough. But take into account that the population in the UK in last 200 years has gone up from 10 million to 60 million as a whole and in the 40 years from 1901 to 1941 the population went up by 12 million.

What increasing populations do mean, whatever their source, is that a lot more social housing needs to be built and there needs to be a lot more investment in welfare services. However in the last 30 years there has been a massive decrease in the amount of social housing and welfare services have been cut all over the place.

 

[durruti02]

I didn't say it wasn't a factor, I just don't think it's a very big one or at all significant. An increase in the population of 7%, whether from immigration, or increase in birth rate isn't anything out of the ordinary.

durutti whether you have sons and daughters or not makes fuck all difference to social housing. Many councils do have a sons and daughters policies. But if there are no council houses being built and tens of thousands of people on the waiting list you can tinker round the edges all you like, but it's a mass build of council housing that is needed and then all the other issues would pretty much become an irrelevance.

Again with the housing policies there is a system that says homeless people should be the top priority. Fair enough I'd say. But that does mean that migrant families, who will often be homeless, will therefore get priority along with indigenous homeless families. I don't think anyone would suggest not making homeless families a priority so again the answer is more social housing.

One of the issues of migrants working below the going rate is that because the unions are so weak they aren't in a position to impose a decent and enforced minimum wage and force firms to have set terms and conditions no matter who they employ, apart from in isolated incidents. Again this won't change until if/when the unions become strong again.

SF NO councils have sons and daughters mate .. it is deemed discriminatory .. housing allocation is done on need .. so if you are homeless yet from wherever you have more points than if you still live at home but are cramped etc .. as you say

so you simply suggest we need more houses .. why don't you ask why we NEED more houses? er an extra 2 million migrants must be part of that sum

and yes exactky the unions are weak .. but we need to address union control of workplaces as much as communities control of where they live

workers should be able to enforce who gets jobs and TRAs should be able to say who gets housed ..