Ukip - why are they gaining support?

[andysays]

Working class politics can only be mediated through political parties?

No, it can be mediated or operate in other ways too, but we've heard nothing on this subject.

On one or other of these UKIP threads, I've asked butchers and others in what way they see the increase in support as providing a positive opportunity for working class politics, either electorally or otherwise, and no one seems to have anything coherent to offer.

I guess it's easier to slag people off for the wrong sort of criticism of UKIP than say anything constructive or truely insightful.

 

[andysays]

andysays I'm not going to speak on behalf of butchersapron (he can do that himself should he choose to) but as another poster who has argued that (albeit more lukewarmly) that the UKIP vote is not entirely negative, that it does represent some potential positives and thus (at least part of me) can be pleased with their results, I feel obliged to respond.

I am coming from the following perspective:

1/ the Left as we understand it has lost, and to carry on regardless compounds this defeat.

2/ the status quo as represented by the main parties is "a bad thing" and means continuing, relentless attacks on the w/c.

3/ The UKIP vote (at this moment) is not going to lead to an (no doubt anti w/c) govt, but will weaken the stays quo and cause already existing fractures within capital and the ruling class to widen.

4) a mass expression of disaffection with the status quo at the ballot box is "a good thing" even if the vehicle isn't.

None of this adds up to support for the politics of UKIP but rather a (qualified) sense of optimism about some of the causes, and effects, of the UKIP vote coupled with a desire to recognise how/why an anti-UKIP stance that defends the status quo is counter-productive.

Fair enough, this is a coherent position, even if I don't agree that voting for UKIP really is a genuine expression of disaffection with the status quo.

You may have expressed this before, and if so I apologise for missing it, but butchers has been so busy cunting people off he's never come close to this.

 

[Brainaddict]

These are never the terms in which people disparage against the EU. Indeed, often the argument is formulated in terms that state the EU is not neoliberal enough; we spend too much on 'lazy southern European countries', we don't need regulation (or basic food safety standards), etc. So, when the EU 'reforms', it will be on incredibly right-wing, reactionary terms; stop migration from poor to rich countries, stop regional development funding.

I think this is what I find most puzzling about the notion that something good lies within the rise of UKIP - even the possible good they could do, i.e. help getting us out of the EU, would be done on death-to-EU-socialism/multiculturalism terms that would help determine the future course of economic and social policy within an EU-less Britain. And not in a good way. It's like hoping we'll withdraw from the WTO if people were wanting to do it on the grounds that it has the 'communist' country China in it. Sure, we'd be out of the WTO, but at the cost of demonising the left and with it many possible solutions to our own economic problems. It's paddling up shit creek knowing the crocodiles are going to nick your paddle when you're halfway up.

 

[andysays]

All this nonsense because andy made a mistake the other week...

I don't really give a fuck that you think I made a mistake the other week, or that I've made an arse of myself. Why should I care?

But I am glad that this has prompted you to finally set out coherently why you want UKIP to do well. It's a shame you couldn't have done so much earlier, but as you still appear to be motivated much more by indulging in aggressive one upmanship than furthering anyone's genuine understanding, it's not surprising that it's taken you so long.

I'm not interested in your attempts to categorise my position (moralising, hand wringing, vanguardist, whatever...), your reduction of discussion to crude personal attacks is tedious and, more importantly, simply obscures and distracts from the actual point.

So you argue a good showing by UKIP may see off the Conservatives and allow Labour to form a majority government? And this will advance the interests of pro-working class politics in what way exactly?

The support for UKIP suggests to me that they have been able to harness a significant portion of the anger and fear people are feeling, and focus it as hate and resentment from whatever "other" people see as to blame for their troubles. In the end it doesn't matter if the "other" is immigrants, or benefit claimants or eurocrats or trendy lefties, there's plenty of hate to go round. UKIP haven't created this hate, far less the conditions which created it, but they are an indicator of how much people, including a significant sector of the working class are gripped by it, as knee jerk response which leads even some people here to say that they feel like supporting UKIP.

And my objection to this is not a moral one, it's the absolutely practical one that hate is no basis on which to build any sort of progressive inclusive pro-working class movement, and this is why while you see some positive, I see only negative, the legacy of the failure of the left and the dominance of anti-working class neo liberalism to such an extent that even professed critical leftists see this "turmoil" (ooh, maybe no one will be able to form a government. won't that be exciting!) as the best that can currently be imagined.

 

[SpookyFrank]

From the Tele...I'm not sure of their methodology, but it looks like a useful map of UKIP success...

Provincial would seem to be a fair descriptor.

I can see a few tory/lib-dem battlegrounds there, particularly in the south west. If UKIP take a big chunk of the vote in these places it might actually help the tories win those seats.

 

[killer b]

There arent any tory/lib dem battlegrounds anymore.

 

[butchersapron]

I can see a few tory/lib-dem battlegrounds there, particularly in the south west. If UKIP take a big chunk of the vote in these places it might actually help the tories win those seats.

In those seats they'll be taking votes off the Tories and even more off the lib dems as well as gaining almost all of the labour tactical vote. They lower the chances of a tory win. Either way, they're not going to not stand.

 

[SpookyFrank]

In those seats they'll be taking votes off the Tories and even more off the lib dems as well as gaining almost all of the labour tactical vote. They lower the chances of a tory win. Either way, they're not going to not stand.

If they're taking more votes from the lib dems than from the tories in a tory/lib dem marginal than that will help the tories win no?

 

[SpookyFrank]

There arent any tory/lib dem battlegrounds anymore.

My mum lives in one but whatever.

 

[butchersapron]

Fair enough, this is a coherent position, even if I don't agree that voting for UKIP really is a genuine expression of disaffection with the status quo

Note here, Andy gets to decide which is a genuine expression of disaffection with the status quo and what isn't. Not what's useful in getting beyond that status quo, but in what is a genuine expression of disaffection. And if it's not pure, if it's not clean, if it's messy, well no then it doesn't count as genuine disaffection. Never mind the cultural traditions of political expression weighing heavily on immediate activity and thus effecting the dynamic of how people move through different positions and relationships to politics. No, only immediate purity will do. Purity of course meaning fully agree with the party, sorry, Andy's, line. No movement, no messy, no dialectic.

edit: here's a quote from the late great Marty Glaberman that goes near this static nonsense understanding of people and their relationship to politics:

It's essential to reject the idea that nothing can happen until white workers are no longer racist. I don't know what anybody thinks the Russian workers in 1917 were. They were sexist. They were nationalist. A lot of them were under the thumb of the church. But they made a goddamn revolution that began to change them. Whether there's a social explosion or not doesn't depend on any formal attitudes or supporting this particular organisation or that particular organisation.

Watch the spluttering outrage - are you really comparing UKIP voters with *** (no, i'm not) - drown out the wider point.

 

[Dogsauce]

The tories are probably sat back chuckling while the fallout from the UKIP 'success' lands on Clegg and to a lesser extent Miliband, despite the fact they should be the ones needing a nappy change. Have they had any hand in creating the narrative of 'Turmoil' in the other parties? It'll conceivably benefit them, although a weak LD party probably helps Labour.

 

[butchersapron]

I don't really give a fuck that you think I made a mistake the other week, or that I've made an arse of myself. Why should I care?

But I am glad that this has prompted you to finally set out coherently why you want UKIP to do well. It's a shame you couldn't have done so much earlier, but as you still appear to be motivated much more by indulging in aggressive one upmanship than furthering anyone's genuine understanding, it's not surprising that it's taken you so long.

I'm not interested in your attempts to categorise my position (moralising, hand wringing, vanguardist, whatever...), your reduction of discussion to crude personal attacks is tedious and, more importantly, simply obscures and distracts from the actual point.

So you argue a good showing by UKIP may see off the Conservatives and allow Labour to form a majority government? And this will advance the interests of pro-working class politics in what way exactly?

The support for UKIP suggests to me that they have been able to harness a significant portion of the anger and fear people are feeling, and focus it as hate and resentment from whatever "other" people see as to blame for their troubles. In the end it doesn't matter if the "other" is immigrants, or benefit claimants or eurocrats or trendy lefties, there's plenty of hate to go round. UKIP haven't created this hate, far less the conditions which created it, but they are an indicator of how much people, including a significant sector of the working class are gripped by it, as knee jerk response which leads even some people here to say that they feel like supporting UKIP.

And my objection to this is not a moral one, it's the absolutely practical one that hate is no basis on which to build any sort of progressive inclusive pro-working class movement, and this is why while you see some positive, I see only negative, the legacy of the failure of the left and the dominance of anti-working class neo liberalism to such an extent that even professed critical leftists see this "turmoil" (ooh, maybe no one will be able to form a government. won't that be exciting!) as the best that can currently be imagined.

And here he demonstrates the truth that he simply does not know how to digest my position. Yes Andy, I'm arguing people should vote ukip to help form a labour majority govt. That's what I've always argued for on here and elsewhere. A majority labour govt.

 

[brogdale]

If they're taking more votes from the lib dems than from the tories in a tory/lib dem marginal than that will help the tories win no?

There's about 8 LD seats in the SW that the tories 'could' take with a LD -> Con swing of under 7%, but whether or not the incumbent party could achieve such swings in the (new) era of 3.1 party politics is questionable. We've yet to see Farage's list of targets.

 

[butchersapron]

No, it can be mediated or operate in other ways too, but we've heard nothing on this subject.

On one or other of these UKIP threads, I've asked butchers and others in what way they see the increase in support as providing a positive opportunity for working class politics, either electorally or otherwise, and no one seems to have anything coherent to offer.

I guess it's easier to slag people off for the wrong sort of criticism of UKIP than say anything constructive or truely insightful.

Can we see the list of your constructive and truly insightful offerings whilst we're at it please?

 

[butchersapron]

***

 

[butchersapron]

If they're taking more votes from the lib dems than from the tories in a tory/lib dem marginal than that will help the tories win no?

They will be taking the lib-dem vote almost entire plus labour plus new non-voters, plus off the tories as well. This will not help the tories - the tories know this. this is the UKIP threat to them that they are planning for - i think they'd be a bit more relaxed about it than they actually are if they if they thought it would be helping them. That said, it is a possibility, but then as i said, they're not going to not stand. And the damage they can do to the tories nationally should far outweigh any potential gains this way.

 

[butchersapron]

Anyway, the tories were going to take all those sw lib-tory marginals anyway - UKIP is probably the only people who could stop them outside of wholesale shifts to labour (which i think could have happened over a few elections, but which UKIP may have put the kybosh on now)

 

[killer b]

Anyway, the tories were going to take all those sw lib-tory marginals anyway

this. What else could the collapse of the lib dem vote mean in these areas?

 

[butchersapron]

this. What else could the collapse of the lib dem vote mean in these areas?

Btw, ashcroft's next poll is of precisely these lib-dem/tory marginals.

 

[killer b]

when's that out?

 

[butchersapron]

when's that out?

Not for quite a while i expect - got to wait till after newark on thursday for starters.

 

[andysays]

Note here, Andy gets to decide which is a genuine expression of disaffection with the status quo and what isn't. Not what's useful in getting beyond that status quo, but in what is a genuine expression of disaffection. And if it's not pure, if it's not clean, if it's messy, well no then it doesn't count as genuine disaffection. Never mind the cultural traditions of political expression weighing heavily on immediate activity and thus effecting the dynamic of how people move through different positions and relationships to politics. No, only immediate purity will do. Purity of course meaning fully agree with the party, sorry, Andy's, line. No movement, no messy, no dialectic.

edit: here's a quote from the late great Marty Glaberman that goes near this static nonsense understanding of people and their relationship to politics:

It's essential to reject the idea that nothing can happen until white workers are no longer racist. I don't know what anybody thinks the Russian workers in 1917 were. They were sexist. They were nationalist. A lot of them were under the thumb of the church. But they made a goddamn revolution that began to change them. Whether there's a social explosion or not doesn't depend on any formal attitudes or supporting this particular organisation or that particular organisation.

Watch the spluttering outrage - are you really comparing UKIP voters with *** (no, i'm not) - drown out the wider point.

This here is perhaps the perfect example of why any discussion with you is apparently doomed to failure.

When I say I don't agree with something someone else has written, it's pointing out the place in their argument where we diverge, it's saying I agree with what goes before this, but not with this bit specifically. It's an invitation for chilango (or anyone one else) to expand on why, specifically, they think voting for UKIP is a coherent expression of anti-establishment/pro-working class politics, rather than, as I see it, simply a vote for another anti-working class, neo-liberal party which claims to be anti-establishment but beneath the surface actually stands for broadly similar interests, and has simply hijacked people's anger and fear at the establishment in a populist way.

I'm saying I don't agree with this particular part of his analysis, and asking him to expand on it if he wishes, with a view to convincing me and others of his point of view.

You, on the other hand, seem to interpret my disagreement (and by extension any disagreement) as saying I disagree totally with everything he's saying and that I demand that he and everyone else accept my point of view, as me seeking to shut down discussion. That's my reading of your nonsense about me getting to decide what's right, and your previous references to vanguardism. Maybe you mean something else, but your post is, as usual, so incoherent, so full of bile and empty of genuine clarity as to what exactly you mean, that I'm left having to guess.

I would be interested to hear how chilango and anyone else willing to state an opinion interprets my saying I don't agree with him on this point, BTW. I suspect that most people will see it as an invitation to expand the discussion rather than shut it down, but if I'm wrong, then so be it.

But it's no real surprise that you interpret my disagreement this way, because it's utterly typical of your behaviour here - most people seem to see these boards as an opportunity to exchange ideas and opinions, and perhaps even to persuade or be persuaded. But you clearly have no interest in any of that, you're not even genuinely interested in persuading others of your opinion - if you were you would make some attempt at clarity, and stop expecting everyone else to guess what the fuck you're on about, but then attack them for not grasping it.

If I was interested in online psychiatric diagnosis, I would develop the idea that this is the behaviour of a sociopath unable to see that others have an opinion which might differ from your own, but that doesn't automatically constitute what you interpret as an attack on your sense of self, but I'm not, so I'll just leave that line of thought there...

Instead I'll simply say that I've come to see you (and a few others who follow your lead) as an entirely destructive and corrosive influence on discussion here, constantly dragging it into point scoring attacks which are ultimately utterly counter-productive to any genuine pro working class politics. And if you behave in the same way in your exchanges in the real world, and if you have any real influence there (which I seriously doubt), then your influence there can ultimately only be utterly counter-productive to any genuine pro working class politics as well.

This is not a moral point, BTW, it is entirely a practical and political one, but I'm sure it's one which you are too wrapped up in your own ego and self importance to grasp.

 

[ffsear]

 

[treelover]

I'd caution about seeing a rise in UKIP vote in labour areas as being 'UKIP taking w/c votes' - places like Rotherham are not some conglomerate of former pit villages and nothing else, there's still a fairly large chunk of rural an relatively well-off areas that have traditionally voted Tory. Taking 30% in these areas doesn't necessarily indicate a direct transition from labour voting block, rather that the anti-labour opposition had a new flag to rally under and some motivation to go out and vote (I haven't looked at the figures, but I'd expect that the Tory vote has dropped in these seats). Trad labour voters may simply have stayed at home, as the party has moved away from their interests, and Miliband trying to respond to UKIP's themes may move them even further away.

On the local phone ins, most of the UKIP supporters who called in were W/C ex labour, and don't forget BNP had a considerable showing in the previous election

 

[Mr Moose]

And here he demonstrates the truth that he simply does not know how to digest my position. Yes Andy, I'm arguing people should vote ukip to help form a labour majority govt. That's what I've always argued for on here and elsewhere. A majority labour govt.

It's a crude strategy because you have no hope of foreseeing where it leads.

To me it takes Labour votes and makes a coalition of the right by far the most likely outcome if a Tory majority isn't achieved.

And whilst UKIP may have supporters who drift their way because they are shafted by the political establishment UKIP is also a coalition of a broad sweep of reactionaries who wish to roll back what they perceive is a progressive, permissive 'socialist' orthodoxy.

That's a tiger by the tail and whilst it would likely fall apart at some point because of it's contradictions I don't want it to see it have power in a right wing coalition.

 

[SpineyNorman]

I'd caution about seeing a rise in UKIP vote in labour areas as being 'UKIP taking w/c votes' - places like Rotherham are not some conglomerate of former pit villages and nothing else, there's still a fairly large chunk of rural an relatively well-off areas that have traditionally voted Tory. Taking 30% in these areas doesn't necessarily indicate a direct transition from labour voting block, rather that the anti-labour opposition had a new flag to rally under and some motivation to go out and vote (I haven't looked at the figures, but I'd expect that the Tory vote has dropped in these seats). Trad labour voters may simply have stayed at home, as the party has moved away from their interests, and Miliband trying to respond to UKIP's themes may move them even further away.

If what mates from Rotherham have told be about their experiences canvassing they definitely are taking traditional labour votes in working class estates in Rotherham.

 

[butchersapron]

It's a crude strategy because you have no hope of foreseeing where it leads.

To me it takes Labour votes and makes a coalition of the right by far the most likely outcome if a Tory majority isn't achieved.

And whilst UKIP may have supporters who drift their way because they are shafted by the political establishment UKIP is also a coalition of a broad sweep of reactionaries who wish to roll back what they perceive is a progressive, permissive 'socialist' orthodoxy.

That's a tiger by the tail and whilst it would likely fall apart at some point because of it's contradictions I don't want it to see it have power in a right wing coalition.

The point though, is that it's not something i've ever endorsed or suggested! It's total fantasy from andys massive brain. I've argued the exact opposite in great detail over many many years. This is why this stuff is laughable and not worth the time to respond to if he gets basic positions totally back to front.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

If we're talking about disaffection with the status quo and making comparisons with history, 1933 Germany is the most pertinent, no? The fact that many workers in 1917 Russia were religious, reactionary and bigotted is irrelevant. They did not mass themselves behind a movement that made a direct appeal to those feelings.

There are points of difference, of course - the Nazis found support among the wealthy in a way that UKIP have not. But there are also points of similarity, primarily in the way that the Nazis first built their support in small rural towns, not in the cities. This article outlines the demographic of Nazi support.

I am not suggesting that we should be worried about a UKIP takeover of the system. However, it is simplistic in the extreme to simply say: 'These people are rejecting the status quo. I reject the status quo, therefore I am glad these people reject the status quo, too.' If that which they choose over the status quo is right-wing, reactionary and xenophobic, this does not help your cause if you are none of these things. It just makes matters even worse.

 

[SpineyNorman]

Note here, Andy gets to decide which is a genuine expression of disaffection with the status quo and what isn't. Not what's useful in getting beyond that status quo, but in what is a genuine expression of disaffection. And if it's not pure, if it's not clean, if it's messy, well no then it doesn't count as genuine disaffection. Never mind the cultural traditions of political expression weighing heavily on immediate activity and thus effecting the dynamic of how people move through different positions and relationships to politics. No, only immediate purity will do. Purity of course meaning fully agree with the party, sorry, Andy's, line. No movement, no messy, no dialectic.

edit: here's a quote from the late great Marty Glaberman that goes near this static nonsense understanding of people and their relationship to politics:

It's essential to reject the idea that nothing can happen until white workers are no longer racist. I don't know what anybody thinks the Russian workers in 1917 were. They were sexist. They were nationalist. A lot of them were under the thumb of the church. But they made a goddamn revolution that began to change them. Whether there's a social explosion or not doesn't depend on any formal attitudes or supporting this particular organisation or that particular organisation.

Watch the spluttering outrage - are you really comparing UKIP voters with *** (no, i'm not) - drown out the wider point.

I wonder what Andy would have said about the Paris Commune. A nationalist movement centred around anti-German chauvinism maybe?

 

[SpineyNorman]

If we're talking about disaffection with the status quo and making comparisons with history, 1933 Germany is the most pertinent, no? The fact that many workers in 1917 Russia were religious, reactionary and bigotted is irrelevant. They did not mass themselves behind a movement that made a direct appeal to those feelings.

I'd ask you the same then - what about the Paris Commune?