Ukip - why are they gaining support?

[J Ed]

Taffboy is a green party member? Makes sense, bet his schtick goes down a treat with the average membership.

 

[chilango]

Taffboy is a green party member? Makes sense, bet his schtick goes down a treat with the average membership.

Some Green Party members are sound enough.

 

[belboid]

Then, following on from your (justified) highlighting of UKIPs despicable bedfellows, can I ask you to pursue with equal vigor some of your own Party's equally despicable bedfellows - the PVEM (Mexican Greens) whose list of crimes is long but the latest includes being involved in the paramilitary attacks and murders of Zapatistas in Chiapas recently? Afaik they are still a member of your "International".

Ta.

kicked out four years ago, when they started campaigning for the return of the death penalty

 

[chilango]

kicked out four years ago, when they started campaigning for the return of the death penalty

I think the European greens did something, wiki has them as still part if the international though.

In fairness that could be wrong, but needs clarifying.

 

[andysays]

Just so we get this 100% clear - that's yes, you did make this?

And you're claiming that despite you posting it on a UKIP thread and the words and logic being yours regarding UKIP, that it's not about UKIP. Is that right?

In fact, it was on the Clacton by-election thread, after the result was known.

The clear implication was not that UKIP the party are fascists, but that everyone in Clacton who voted for them is, which to my mind is actually worse.

 

[belboid]

I think the European greens did something, wiki has them as still part if the international though.

In fairness that could be wrong, but needs clarifying.

actually, yes - they are still included on the Global Greens page of affiliates - http://www.globalgreens.org/parties

 

[chilango]

actually, yes - they are still included on the Global Greens page of affiliates - http://www.globalgreens.org/parties

In any case my point is less to criticise the Greens and more to highlight the limits of using "dodgy bedfellows" as a method of attack.

 

[chilango]

In fact, it was on the Clacton by-election thread, after the result was known.

The clear implication was not that UKIP the party are fascists, but that everyone in Clacton who voted for them is, which to my mind is actually worse.

Yup.

Some posters have been far too casual in conflating the various groups of UKIP voters, UKIP members and UKIP associates into a undifferentiated mass of "racists".

Easy to do from the moral high ground, but politically useless.

 

[brogdale]

Taffboy is a green party member? Makes sense, bet his schtick goes down a treat with the average membership.

True enough, but on the singular point of highlighting UKIP's cynical error of associating with Robert Iwaszkiewicz, Taffy is right. I know about broken clocks and all that....but he is correct to identify this association as extremely poor politics from UKIP.

 

[butchersapron]

In fact, it was on the Clacton by-election thread, after the result was known.

The clear implication was not that UKIP the party are fascists, but that everyone in Clacton who voted for them is, which to my mind is actually worse.

It's even worse than that. Leaving aside his ridiculous characterisation of UKIP and it's members and supporters, it's actually aimed at other posters here - and it's saying that they are, at best, appeasers of fascism and at worst actively responsible for it's growth. It's aimed at people with long records of anti-fascism and so on, at posters who were pointing out the potential for a far-right party such as UKIP to gain some traction across the classes, whilst he was actually suggesting people vote for them (the fascist UKIP) as part of an anti-fascist front.

Its shitness i have come to expect from taffboy, but i didn't know he viewed so many of us in this way.

 

[phildwyer]

Yup.

Some posters have been far too casual in conflating the various groups of UKIP voters, UKIP members and UKIP associates into a undifferentiated mass of "racists".

Easy to do from the moral high ground, but politically useless.

Is it really though?

Seems to me that an awful lot of UKIP supporters are racist without knowing it, and that they'd benefit from having it pointed out to them.

There are two main types of argument against large-scale immigration. One is economic ("they take our jobs" etc). That is certainly erroneous, but it is not racist.

The other is cultural ("I feel swamped" etc). That's often used by people who don't consider themselves racist. But it is a racist argument, because it presumes that cultural diversity is threatening. If people who make this argument can be made to understand that it is racist, many of them will stop making it.

 

[andysays]

It's even worse than that. Leaving aside his ridiculous characterisation of UKIP and it's members and supporters, it's actually aimed at other posters here - and it's saying that they are, at best, appeasers of fascism and at worst actively responsible for it's growth. It's aimed at people with long records of anti-fascism and so on, at posters who were pointing out the potential for a far-right party such as UKIP to gain some traction across the classes, whilst he was actually suggesting people vote for them (the fascist UKIP) as part of an anti-fascist front.

Its shitness i have come to expect from taffboy, but i didn't know he viewed so many of us in this way.

I wasn't aware of the highlighted bit, maybe it pre-dates my time here, but if so it's certainly an "interesting" change of position.

 

[phildwyer]

Theres plenty of moralistic posturing here against tje idea that we should even discuss the disgusting reactionary elements of what is going on.

A lot of it just boils down to class prejudice.

There's always been an element of the Left that assumes the proletariat can never be reactionary. Or if it sometimes might be, it's best not to say so. In my experience this position is often adopted by ex-public schoolboys in revolt against their parents.

 

[phildwyer]

It was alright for oxbridge and other posh universities right up until relatively recently.

Belfast held on to its until 1968.

There are still university constituencies in Ireland.

 

[andysays]

Is it really though?

Seems to me that an awful lot of UKIP supporters are racist without knowing it, and that they'd benefit from having it pointed out to them.

There are two main types of argument against large-scale immigration. One is economic ("they take our jobs" etc). That is certainly erroneous, but it is not racist.

The other is cultural ("I feel swamped" etc). That's often used by people who don't consider themselves racist. But it is a racist argument, because it presumes that cultural diversity is threatening. If people who make this argument can be made to understand that it is racist, many of them will stop making it.

I suspect I will regret engaging with you almost immediately, but I think you're wrong to assert that for many people the economic and cultural downsides of large scale immigration are not all too genuine.

We're not talking about immigration as an abstract, we're talking about the actual experience of real people, experience which, on the basis of what little I know of you, I suspect is rather remote from your personal experience.

Go on dismissing other people's concerns as erroneous if it makes you feel good about yourself, but don't fool yourself into thinking it will persuade a single person not to vote UKIP.

ETA: missing"not" added

 

[chilango]

A lot of it just boils down to class prejudice.

There's always been an element of the Left that assumes the proletariat can never be reactionary. Or if it sometimes might be, it's best not to say so. In my experience this position is often adopted by ex-public schoolboys in revolt against their parents.

Whilst that may have an element of truth, I brought class into it for different reasons.

 

[phildwyer]

I suspect I will regret engaging with you almost immediately, but I think you're wrong to assert that for many people the economic and cultural downsides of large scale immigration are all too genuine.

I've discussed the economic issue above. I think economic concerns about immigration are wrong, and foolish, but not necessarily racist. I do insist however that...

There is no cultural "downside" to immigration.

And furthermore, it is racist to claim that there is.

We're not talking about immigration as an abstract, we're talking about the actual experience of real people, experience which, on the basis of what little I know of you, I suspect is rather remote from your personal experience.

Well you're wrong there. I actually am an immigrant. Unlike you I suspect. Not that we need to drag this discussion down to the personal level.

 

[andysays]

I've discussed the economic issue above. I think economic concerns about immigration are wrong, and foolish, but not racist. I do insist however that...

There is no cultural "downside" to immigration.

And furthermore, it is racist to claim that there is.

Well you're wrong there. I actually am an immigrant. Unlike you I suspect. Not that we need to drag this discussion down to the personal level.

Exactly, you are an immigrant - that is part of what I meant by what I know about you. And not a typical economic immigrant struggling to find and exist on minimum wage work, so not really living the typical immigrant experience. You're also not familiar with the experience of those who are suffering economically or feeling "cultural threatened" for want of a better expression by the significant influx of people "not like them" into areas which are already relatively deprived, and where services are now even more over stretched, first because of sheer numbers but also in many cases because of issues around perceived cultural antagonism (which might be something as simple as large numbers of people unable to speak english fluently).

For people in that situation, what you glibly call cultural diversity can be experienced as threatening, but it's not your experience, and so you appear not only to not understand it, but to actually dismiss it as "erroneous".

I'm not bringing personal experience into this to have a pop at you, I'm not trying to "drag it down" as you suggest, I'm pointing out that you don't understand this experience and these feelings because it's not your experience. Rather than dismissing it, maybe you should attempt to imagine yourself in that position and think about what your thoughts and feelings might be.

 

[phildwyer]

Exactly, you are an immigrant - that is part of what I meant by what I know about you. And not a typical economic immigrant struggling to find and exist on minimum wage work, so not really living the typical immigrant experience.

Well you're wrong again. Quite spectacularly wrong in fact. And you know nothing of any immigrant experience, typical or otherwise. So maybe it's best to keep personalities out of this and just stick to the issues?

cultural diversity can be experienced as threatening

I know it can be experienced as threatening. My point is that to experience it as threatening is racist. It is the result of profound, often unconscious, racist assumptions. If this is pointed out to those who hold those assumptions, many of them will stop holding them.

And now a question for you. Just what exactly do you consider the cultural "downside" of immigration?

 

[phildwyer]

feeling "cultural threatened" for want of a better expression by the significant influx of people "not like them" into areas which are already relatively deprived, and where services are now even more over stretched, first because of sheer numbers but also in many cases because of issues around perceived cultural antagonism (which might be something as simple as large numbers of people unable to speak english fluently).

To be fair, maybe you already answered my question here.

I think that people who feel culturally threatened by the presence of people "not like them" are racist. Many of them might not be aware of this fact, and many of them will stop feeling threatened when they understand the racist roots of their feeling.

And I think anyone who perceives the inability to speak English as "cultural antagonism" is a fully-conscious racist who can be labelled as such without compunction.

 

[andysays]

Well you're wrong again. Quite spectacularly wrong in fact. And you know nothing of any immigrant experience, typical or otherwise. So maybe it's best to keep personalities out of this and just stick to the issues?...

I was under the impression that you were a university academic or similar originally from Britain, sometimes living/working in Turkey, sometimes in USA, and probably other places which I've forgotten. This is not, by any stretch of the imagination, a typical immigrant experience. Again, I'm saying this not to attack you as an individual, but to question the experiential basis of your argument.

If I'm wrong then please accept my apologies for inadvertantly misrepresenting your experience.

And you don't actually know anything of my immigrant experiences, but my experience as it relates to this issue is not based on being an immigrant, but on living in a deprived area of inner London which has traditionally been popular with immigrants from many different countries and cultures.

 

[andysays]

To be fair, maybe you already answered my question here.

I think that people who feel culturally threatened by the presence of people "not like them" are racist. Many of them might not be aware of this fact, and many of them will stop feeling threatened when they understand the racist roots of their feeling.

And I think anyone who perceives the inability to speak English as "cultural antagonism" is a fully-conscious racist who can be labelled as such without compunction.

Label away, by all means.

 

[phildwyer]

If I'm wrong then please accept my apologies for inadvertantly misrepresenting your experience.

Apology accepted. Please don't do it again.

And you don't actually know anything of my immigrant experiences, but my experience as it relates to this issue is not based on being an immigrant, but on living in a deprived area of inner London which has traditionally been popular with immigrants from many different countries and cultures.

OK. And did you ever feel remotely threatened by the immigrants in your neighborhood? Did you experience the fact that many of them didn't speak English as "cultural antagonism?" Did you ever ache with nostalgia for the mythical monocultural England of yesteryear?

No, no and no. Am I right?

And why not? Because (despite your many other faults) you are NOT A RACIST.

However, those--and they are many--who do find cultural diversity unpleasant are indeed racist, though not necessarily consciously so. In fact I would say that unease in the face of cultural diversity is a pretty good definition of unconscious racism.

 

[chilango]

Does immigration always result in cultural diversity though?

 

[phildwyer]

Does immigration always result in cultural diversity though?

Ideally yes.

In practice no, because of racist immigration policies. Personally I'd support a policy favoring immigrants from the world's poorest nations above those from rich ones.

 

[chilango]

...for example.

I'd venture that instances of immigration where one population is displaced by another (especially where the immigrant population is older, wealthier and culturally homogenous) doesn't increase cultural diversity.

 

[andysays]

Apology accepted. Please don't do it again.

OK. And did you ever feel remotely threatened by the immigrants in your neighborhood? Did you experience the fact that many of them didn't speak English as "cultural antagonism?" Did you ever ache with nostalgia for the mythical monocultural England of yesteryear?

No, no and no. Am I right?

And why not? Because (despite your many other faults) you are NOT A RACIST.

However, those--and they are many--who do find cultural diversity unpleasant are indeed racist, though not necessarily consciously so. In fact I would say that unease in the face of cultural diversity is a pretty good definition of unconscious racism.

So are you saying that you are not a nomadic academic, touring the universities of the world? Another Urban myth shattered

More seriously, I don't feel threatened by the immigrants in my neighbourhood.

I do, however, recognise that my neighbourhood is disproportionately affected by some of the negative consequences of immigration, in that people's wages are lower, unemployment levels are higher and various services are more overstretched (both numerically and by the problems that language differences can bring in schools or doctors' surgeries), than they would be if large scale immigration, focussed in particular geographical areas and sectors of the economy, did not exist.

It's not that cultural diversity is "unpleasant" in some abstract sense (though there may be some who look at it that way) but that there are real and genuine issues with the way that immigration disproportionately affects people in already deprived areas.

Does recognising that make me racist? And if not, why should it make other people feeling the same thing, but not articulating it to you on a message board be regarded as racist?

And by the way, I don't regard myself as English, just so you know for future reference

 

[treelover]

What passes for the modern left tends to be far too blase about all this. Perhaps those who reduce people’s worries and fears to mere bigotry should go back to first principles, and consider whether, in such laissez-faire conditions, free movement has been of most benefit to capital or labour. They might also think about the dread spectacle of people from upscale London postcodes passing judgment on people who experience large-scale migration as something real.

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ration-politicians-david-cameron-ukip-eu-exit

Guardian writer(John Harris) breaks ranks?

 

[phildwyer]

More seriously, I don't feel threatened by the immigrants in my neighbourhood.

I do, however, recognise that my neighbourhood is disproportionately affected by some of the negative consequences of immigration, in that people's wages are lower, unemployment levels are higher and various services are more overstretched (both numerically and by the problems that language differences can bring in schools or doctors' surgeries), than they would be if large scale immigration, focussed in particular geographical areas and sectors of the economy, did not exist. It's not that cultural diversity is "unpleasant" in some abstract sense (though there may be some who look at it that way) but that there are real and genuine issues with the way that immigration disproportionately affects people in already deprived areas.

But none of those economic problems are caused by immigration. Immigrants are the solution to economic problems, not the cause of them.

It's not that cultural diversity is "unpleasant" in some abstract sense (though there may be some who look at it that way) but that there are real and genuine issues with the way that immigration disproportionately affects people in already deprived areas.

The only reason to object to cultural diversity is racism. Can you think of another?

 

[brogdale]

But none of those economic problems are caused by immigration. Immigrants are the solution to economic problems, not the cause of them.

If globalised capital is the cause of those economic problems how can capital's desire for the free movement of labour be the "solution"?