Ukip - why are they gaining support?

[butchersapron]

You've got to play the ball not the man. Farage must be delighted with these personal attacks because then he can wheel out all his minority chums and say, 'look, I'm not racist'. If people took him to task on the actual content of his policies, and demonstrated that they are fundamentally racist, then that cannot so easily be countered by simply shaking hands with a few black people.

The key thing in my opinion is to discredit the idea of a difference between being 'anti-immigration' and being racist. This would not only undermine UKIP but any other party who tries to score points by claiming to be 'tough on immigration'. Sadly it's not something we can achieve by throwing eggs or waving signs.

So the key thing is to call them and their supporters racist. Righto. Are you working for UKIP pr?

 

[SpookyFrank]

So the key thing is to call them and their supporters racist. Righto.

No, the key thing is to demonstrate that their policies are racist.

 

[butchersapron]

No, the key thing is to demonstrate that their policies are racist.

So that you can call them racist. Working a treat. Crack on then and do this demonstration.

 

[SpookyFrank]

So that you can call them racist. Working a treat. Crack on then and do this demonstration.

I forgot that racism doesn't bother you that much.

 

[killer b]

All that demonstrating anti-immigration policies are racist does is move a whole load of people from being anti-immigration to being racists, nothing else. What do you think is going to happen?

 

[butchersapron]

I forgot that racism doesn't bother you that much.

Oh lordy. Are we going to get a tantrum on this thread too?

 

[SpookyFrank]

All that demonstrating anti-immigration policies are racist does is move a whole load of people from being anti-immigration to being racists, nothing else. What do you think is going to happen?

Once upon a time certain racist ideas were socially acceptable, the inherent superiority of white people over other races etc. These ideas were challenged, questioned, discredited. They're now well on their way to extinction. I would hope that we might start to do something simillar with the racist idea that it's OK for a state to decide who is and isn't allowed to live on a particular piece of land.

I'm not thinking this is something that can be done on a time scale of the next election or anything like that, but I don't want to live another fifty years and still see billboards put up by mainstream political parties reading, 'it's not racist to impose controls on immigration'.

 

[J Ed]

I'm not thinking this is something that can be done on a time scale of the next election or anything like that, but I don't want to live another fifty years and still see billboards put up by mainstream political parties reading, 'it's not racist to impose controls on immigration'.

This puts UKIP on par with all the other parties (and I suspect 99%+ of voters) though, doesn't it?

 

[youngian]

How do you know that a lot of those comments are from UKIP supporters? Are you suggesting that no one but a UKIP supporter could hold such opinions?

I was referring to the comments that contained the words 'vote UKIP'

Are you saying that UKIP are unique in using dog whistle statements to appeal to the fearful, and even the "xenophobic, bigoted and reactionary"?

Even the Tories are careful about playing the Powellite xenophobia card (although Lynton Crosby will have a punt if May elections go badly) and all other parties are in favour of honouring our treaty obligations to freedom of movement of labour across the EU.

And given that the "Commonwealth immigrant" vote is likely to grow significantly, isn't it good politics for UKIP to seek to capture at least some of it?

Telling black or Asian British citizens to vote UKIP to stop thieving Romanian gyppos stealing your jobs is not really social progress in my book. UKIP's whole raison d'etre is about fear of the 'other'. UKIP put up a Jamaican candidate in racially mixed Croydon North by-election and he was just as prone as the rest of them as coming out with swivel eyed loon twattery. As a consequence he bombed at the polls. Probably because a middle aged Asian or Afro-Carribean voter is all too familiar with the rhetoric that UKIP now heaps on East Europeans.The way UKIP wheels out its Asian and black candidates is toe curling. Like some 70s Richard LIttlejohn pub bore who likes to tell you his mate Chalky doesn't mind golliwogs so what's the problem.

UKIP's sentimetality about the Commonwealth is a rehash of post war League of Empire Loyalist fantasies about reforming an imperial trade bloc where greatful Johnny Native is queuing up to buy Land Rovers. The Commonwealth is a networking club and doesn't remotely resemble a trade bloc. And there is no quid pro quo to justify why few of these countries should have UK labour market access over the EU.

 

[treelover]

Kippers are using the Express comments boards as notice boards, even mentioning membership fees.

 

[Dogsauce]

The anti-ukip people?

Nope - Read J Ed's post wrong I think - sure it said 'UKIP' rather than anti-UKIP originally.

Although not the case here, haven't the BNP been heckling UKIP on some occasions? They certainly aren't fond of them.

 

[J Ed]

Nope - Read J Ed's post wrong I think - sure it said 'UKIP' rather than anti-UKIP originally.

Yeah, I wrote UKIP rather than anti-UKIP originally by mistake. My fault

 

[butchersapron]

Nope - Read J Ed's post wrong I think - sure it said 'UKIP' rather than anti-UKIP originally.

Although not the case here, haven't the BNP been heckling UKIP on some occasions? They certainly aren't fond of them.

It did, thought that was what you meant.

 

[butchersapron]

Kippers are using the Express comments boards as notice boards, even mentioning membership fees.

Bastards. Is there nothing they will not do?

 

[killer b]

Once upon a time certain racist ideas were socially acceptable, the inherent superiority of white people over other races etc. These ideas were challenged, questioned, discredited. They're now well on their way to extinction. I would hope that we might start to do something simillar with the racist idea that it's OK for a state to decide who is and isn't allowed to live on a particular piece of land.

I'm not thinking this is something that can be done on a time scale of the next election or anything like that, but I don't want to live another fifty years and still see billboards put up by mainstream political parties reading, 'it's not racist to impose controls on immigration'.

It's a rather more complex question though isn't it? You can tell people 'til you're blue in the face that it's racist to want a limit on immigration - all that's going to do is get their backs up.

Given the current economic framework we exist in - which most people don't see any alternative to - there are many totally non-racist reasons for wanting to restrict economic migration. Calling people who hold those views racists isn't going to make those reasons go away.

 

[Dogsauce]

Kippers are using the Express comments boards as notice boards, even mentioning membership fees.

The 'bottom half of the internet' has very strong UKIP representation - particularly local paper sites. The BNP used to be strong on this too. I've no idea if this is orchestrated in the same way that the mainstream parties used to circulate talking points so that you'd see the same phrases used by multiple posters (most commonly on the BBC or national paper sites), but you do see the same wording popping up here and there. Nothing sinister - just hints at some degree of organisation, or perhaps very motivated supporters, many of whom will be retired with time on their hands. I think it's seen as a battleground, and to some extent they're winning as they're seldom challenged, or if they are, not with anything substantial (shallow name calling and stuff like that).

 

[treelover]

I forgot that racism doesn't bother you that much.

disgusting comment

 

[urbanspaceman]

My neighbour and I had a bizarre interaction with the UKIP Coldharbour councillor candidate last week, when he came a'canvassing. He seems to know nothing about retail politics: he didn't announce himself clearly, and his companion lurked silently behind him. I told him that local politics is about unglamorous quality-of-life stuff, not a glorious crusade against Brussels, and asked him how, without a party machine to back him, he could be as effective as say Rachel Heywood.

I mentioned anti-social behaviour, and tellingly, he excitedly interpreted and repeated this back to me as "law'n'order". Then he confidently stated that the police would be more sympathetic to UKIP than to other parties. I pointed out that the Met is an enormously complex and diverse bureaucracy, and that his analysis was startlingly simplistic. I mentioned what I thought might be a couple of useful points that I have learned as a civilian, about dealing with the Council and Police, and his eyes glazed over.

My neighbour asked him out of interest how he got her name (obviously the electoral roll, but she didn't know that), and he said: "why should I tell you since you're not voting for me ?" and stomped off. She was rattled by this and took a picture of him, at which he called her "mad".

 

[Teaboy]

My neighbour and I had a bizarre interaction with the UKIP Coldharbour councillor candidate last week, when he came a'canvassing. He seems to know nothing about retail politics: he didn't announce himself clearly, and his companion lurked silently behind him. I told him that local politics is about unglamorous quality-of-life stuff, not a glorious crusade against Brussels, and asked him how, without a party machine to back him, he could be as effective as say Rachel Heywood.

I mentioned anti-social behaviour, and tellingly, he excitedly interpreted and repeated this back to me as "law'n'order". Then he confidently stated that the police would be more sympathetic to UKIP than to other parties. I pointed out that the Met is an enormously complex and diverse bureaucracy, and that his analysis was startlingly simplistic. I mentioned what I thought might be a couple of useful points that I have learned as a civilian, about dealing with the Council and Police, and his eyes glazed over.

My neighbour asked him out of interest how he got her name (obviously the electoral roll, but she didn't know that), and he said: "why should I tell you since you're not voting for me ?" and stomped off. She was rattled by this and took a picture of him, at which he called her "mad".

So, did he win your vote?

 

[SpookyFrank]

Given the current economic framework we exist in - which most people don't see any alternative to - there are many totally non-racist reasons for wanting to restrict economic migration. Calling people who hold those views racists isn't going to make those reasons go away.

There's a difference between people who listen to the arguments that immigration is picking their pocket and the people who make those arguments in the first place. If we're not going to challenge those arguments, which are usually fallacious and/or based on inaccuracies or outright lies, what are we going to do? Ask the BBC to stop putting Farage on telly and hope he goes away?

Of course you're right about immigration controls going hand in hand with the economic and politcial structure of society, and I don't think you can keep one of those things while getting rid of the other. I just think it's easier to use the principle freedom of movement to argue against capitalism than to use an anti-capitalist perspective to argue for freedom of movement, if that makes any sense.

 

[youngian]

My neighbour and I had a bizarre interaction with the UKIP Coldharbour councillor candidate last week, when he came a'canvassing. He seems to know nothing about retail politics: he didn't announce himself clearly, and his companion lurked silently behind him. I told him that local politics is about unglamorous quality-of-life stuff, not a glorious crusade against Brussels, and asked him how, without a party machine to back him, he could be as effective as say Rachel Heywood.

I mentioned anti-social behaviour, and tellingly, he excitedly interpreted and repeated this back to me as "law'n'order". Then he confidently stated that the police would be more sympathetic to UKIP than to other parties. I pointed out that the Met is an enormously complex and diverse bureaucracy, and that his analysis was startlingly simplistic. I mentioned what I thought might be a couple of useful points that I have learned as a civilian, about dealing with the Council and Police, and his eyes glazed over.

My neighbour asked him out of interest how he got her name (obviously the electoral roll, but she didn't know that), and he said: "why should I tell you since you're not voting for me ?" and stomped off. She was rattled by this and took a picture of him, at which he called her "mad".

He'll just think you're a member of the out-of-touch Metropolitan liberal elite trying to trip him up with your fancy answers and questions.

I'm surprised they're even trying their luck in Coldharbour Lane.

 

[Lo Siento.]

There's a difference between people who listen to the arguments that immigration is picking their pocket and the people who make those arguments in the first place. If we're not going to challenge those arguments, which are usually fallacious and/or based on inaccuracies or outright lies, what are we going to do? Ask the BBC to stop putting Farage on telly and hope he goes away?

There's a difference between challenging racist arguments and simply stating "UKIP are racist and therefore bad" and hoping that'll automatically make them implode.

 

[butchersapron]

There's a difference between challenging racist arguments and simply stating "UKIP are racist and therefore bad" and hoping that'll automatically make them implode.

It will though. After he has demonstrated it. They'll all fall:

The key thing in my opinion is to discredit the idea of a difference between being 'anti-immigration' and being racist. This would not only undermine UKIP but any other party who tries to score points by claiming to be 'tough on immigration'. Sadly it's not something we can achieve by throwing eggs or waving signs.

This is the key thing. the key thing. To tell people that they are - despite what they think, how they live their lifes, despite who they are - racists. That's the key thing.

 

[SpookyFrank]

There's a difference between challenging racist arguments and simply stating "UKIP are racist and therefore bad" and hoping that'll automatically make them implode.

That's more or less what I've been saying, although someone will be along momentarily to tell me that I haven't.

 

[Lo Siento.]

That's more or less what I've been saying, although someone will be along momentarily to tell me that I haven't.

This:

No, the key thing is to demonstrate that their policies are racist.

Certainly implies as much.

Pointing out that policies are racist isn't the same as challenging them.

 

[SpookyFrank]

This:



Certainly implies as much.

Pointing out that policies are racist isn't the same as challenging them.

Perhaps I should have said, 'point out why their policies are racist'.

 

[butchersapron]

In order to shout racist. Genius.

 

[Lo Siento.]

Perhaps I should have said, 'point out why their policies are racist'.

But the point here is that attributing racism to UKIP isn't a magic bullet. You can call UKIP racist over and over again, but how much of a dent is going to make on people who think that the media etc. call UKIP racist just to discredit them?

 

[butchersapron]

But the point here is that attributing racism to UKIP isn't a magic bullet. You can call UKIP racist over and over again, but how much of a dent is going to make on people who think that the media etc. call UKIP racist just to discredit them?

You end up calling black blokes fakes. Not real black people.

 

[SpookyFrank]

But the point here is that attributing racism to UKIP isn't a magic bullet. You can call UKIP racist over and over again, but how much of a dent is going to make on people who think that the media etc. call UKIP racist just to discredit them?

There's a difference between calling someone a racist and presenting an argument that a policy they support is racist.