Be careful going outside in London, there’s foreigners everywhere
There are millions of undocumented asylum seekers in this country
Maybe you didn’t feel welcome in London because they don’t want more foreigners there?
Once David Cameron’s elected, them blacks’ll get what’s comin’ to ‘em
Your new girlfriend’s not aboriginal is she?
You’re not English, you’re British
What race is your friend?
Enoch Powell was right you know!
These are the kinds of things my family and friends have been saying about immigration and race in the UK for as long as I can remember. By “family” I mean not just my immediate family, but also the extended family – uncles, Aunts, grandparents and cousins – and all of the family friends I have ever met. Most of my family and their friends now vote for the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), but they used to be classic Tory working class. They’re indicative of the political groundswell that is lifting UKIP up in the polls, and are the reason this new and toxic party came first in the European elections a week ago. If ever it occurs to you to naively wonder why it is that so many UKIP candidates get caught out posting terrible things on social media, just have a look at what my family and their friends – almost all UKIP voters – think of race and immigration. Is it any wonder their representatives have some hairy ideas?
My family are pretty much entirely lower working-class or lumpen proles. My father left school at 15, my mother at 13 (I think); my Grandfather was a Spanish refugee (oh the irony!) who left home at 15 to fight fascism; I was the first person in my entire extended family to get a university education, and probably also the first person in my entire extended family to complete a higher school certificate (my brother got O levels rather than A levels, and only just scraped them in). My father was a tradesman, until he lost his job and spent the remaining 10 years of his working age collecting benefits (and fraudulently using them to pay for a mortgage on a trailer park home, against the housing benefit rules, while complaining about foreigners cheating welfare). Most of the rest of my family are unskilled labourers or tradespeople. They should therefore be the natural constituency of Labour, but their unpleasant views on race make them natural victims of parties like UKIP. My father believes everything he reads in the Daily Mail (he lives in terror of gypsies paving his yard in the night and then presenting him with the bill in the morning), and basically my entire extended family have been slowly seduced into voting against their economic interests by appeals to their racial biases. As an example of how they vote against their interests, my father has a lifelong disability brought about by polio, but he sneers at people with disabilities campaigning for their “human rights” (his quote marks, not mine) even though these people are the reason he has special disability benefits and parking rights. He has always refused to join a union because “they don’t do anything for me” but then he was sacked and blackballed by his employer, so he couldn’t work anywhere in the city where he lived – and then he asked the union if they could help him with legal action (they said no, somewhat unsurprisingly). This is the quality of my extended family – always wanting certain socialised benefits, but refusing to share in the responsibilities and costs of those socialised benefits, and as people like them slowly undermine the strength of the shared social systems they rely on, blaming foreigners for the resulting degradation in public services and benefits.
It is my opinion that the modern leaders of both major British political parties are too shallow and too caught in their own little bubble to understand how people like my parents think. As a result they cannot understand why these people are drifting away from the major parties to the lunacy that is UKIP. I think Margaret Thatcher understood these people – it was her understanding of this class of people that enabled her to construct what is now referred to as the “Tory working class vote” in the first place – and her political opponents from before Blair also saw how these people think, but failed to stop the drift away from class-based solidarity to race-based solidarity. The modern Conservative party is dominated by young Bullingdon club economic radicals, who have absolutely no conception of what it is like to even be a grocer’s daughter, let alone to be an unemployed typesetter living in a trailer park. The modern Labour party is dominated by political lifers, who may mean well (a difficult proposition to support when one looks at the 10-year-long mistake that was Tony Blair) but have no idea how the working class they are supposed to support really think. The few remnants of old labour still left in the party – people like John Prescott – are far out of touch with the modern working class after years of snorting cocaine off of babies’ bottoms in Blair’s cabinet, and their response to UKIP’s rise has been to fall back on 50-year-old concepts of economic protectionism.
In the face of this choice – between obviously out of touch Bullingdon toffs and a clique of political apparatchiks to a vampire – is it any wonder that UKIP have been able to make such gains with the Tory working class? With a complete lack of trust in the political system, having been levered away from an class consciousness during Thatcher’s era, but left rudderless with only their racial consciousness to guide them, the class of British people my family are drawn from are natural targets for UKIP. Labour had 10 years to get these people back into the fold, through restoration of the industrial economy, improvements in benefits and efforts to reduce inequality – practical solutions to the living cost and economic challenges consuming this class of people – but instead they focused on being “intensely comfortable about people being incredibly rich” and were too busy sucking up to the banking industry to bother looking at the little people.
So now both political parties are waking up to realise that a sizeable proportion of the votes they thought they could rely on are drifting away, following the lure of Farage’s racist anger. Both parties have lost the knowledge of how these drifting voters think and what they are worried about, and both parties are unwilling to face a central fact: that these voters they are losing are deeply, unpleasantly racist. This is the party whose leader referred to non-white voters as “Nig-nogs” and whose representatives have a disturbing habit of being caught out saying genuinely horrible things on Facebook – but no one in the leadership of either of the mainstream parties seems to have considered that this might be related to the success of the party. Until they do, they aren’t going to be able to craft a strategy to deal with UKIP’s central anti-immigration theme. How can they? So long as they keep fooling themselves into thinking that the average UKIP voter is a non-racist person with genuine but misguided concerns about European workers taking his job, they aren’t going to get anywhere. Because these people are deeply racist, and race is what is driving their vote. They don’t like foreigners, they don’t want them in the UK, and if foreigners are to come here they want clear assurances that their stay will be temporary, they will be treated badly and paid worse and they will never be given the same rights as the “indigenous” population. If David Cameron doubts that, I recommend he spend 10 minutes trying to discuss labour market reform with my Grandmother.
This also means that the debate about whether to call Farage a racist is irrelevant. UKIP voters aren’t offended by being called racist – they revel in it. My father doesn’t start a conversation with “I’m not racist but …” – he is deeply past that kind of self-equivocation. He refers to black people as “niggers” and starts conversations with proud declarations of his own racism. The inferiority of non-whites is a simple and accepted fact in my extended family. Worrying about whether these people will be offended by being called something they proudly claim for themselves is really angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin stuff. The mainstream parties are going to have to do better than that.
And the truth is, I don’t think they can. A large minority of British people don’t want to be part of Europe, and another large portion don’t care either way. A lot of British people want foreigners out. They were willing to vote Tory or Labour despite the incongruence of their aims and the parties’ aims, because they still trusted those parties, and UKIP was not yet a national force. But now that UKIP has begun to be taken seriously, making consistent electoral gains, an in the wash-up of the financial crisis (which destroyed Labour’s credibility) and the expenses scandal (which tainted both parties irrevocably), the stranglehold of the major parties on the neck of the average British racist prole has been broken. I don’t think they’re going to get those people back, and they should be counting their blessings that it’s only UKIP, not BNP that is benefiting from 20 years of mainstream parties’ stupidity.
In the short term I think Labour will be the major beneficiaries of this trend to vote 1 on race. Labour has a natural constituency based on unionism and class issues that the Tories lack, and the Tory vote has been declining for years. Tory success at the polls has relied on some crafty dog-whistling to ensure that some proportion of the working class vote is prized away from Labour, and they have done this through race (see e.g. their broken promise to keep immigration at 100000 a year). These voters they pry loose from Labour on that basis are fair-weather friends, and will easily be drawn away by a credible racist alternative – and now that alternative is here. Even if UKIP don’t win a single seat at the next general election, they’re going to completely screw up the Tories’ electoral strategy, and I don7t think a more openly racist Tory campaign will save them – nobody believes them on European issues anymore, and since they have consistently failed to meet their pledge to reduce immigration, nobody thinks they’re going to do what they say they will. This is going to make Labour’s task much easier at the next election, but if UKIP don’t implode after that then I suspect Labour will face increasing difficulties in the future. The tide has turned. The racist genie is out of its box, and now there isn’t much either of the main parties can do. Unless Labour can find a way to return the political conversation to a genuine, strong position on inequality and complete reform of the British economy to benefit the poorest and the working class – regardless of what happens in Europe – then both mainstream parties are going to be left desperately hoping that UKIP implodes. If it doesn’t, the tories are toast, and unless they can find a visionary to lead them through this challenging new landscape, my guess is that Labour will have to return to 1950s-style anti-European protectionism.
It’s possible that UKIP may win everything they want without ever winning a seat in parliament … simply by dominating the conversation. This is what happens when the working class vote for their racial interests over their class interests. Let’s hope that this madness remains confined to the UK, because it isn’t pretty to watch and let me assure you, you do not want my extended family’s racist imaginings being treated as a serious policy framework …
June 1, 2014 at 9:39 pm
I’d hate to reduce a discussion about politics to “same ol’ same ol’,” but is that not the case here?
Representative democracy: the opinions/interests of ALL the people get represented (in theory, ahem), regardless of what evaluation others members of that society may place on those opinions.
So I think you’re right when you say that there’s nothing the two major parties can do. You say that they’re out of touch to do anything about UKIP, but even if they weren’t, what could they do? Change their policies so that they are more like UKIP’s. Either way, the racists get the policies they want. Ain’t democracy a bitch?
In fact the only possible way out – dominating the conversation so that it’s not about race – runs contrary to democratic ideals. Nobody should be “dominating the conversation” in a democracy: everybody’s voice should be heard.
This problem, where we can’t have our cake and eat it, is as old as modern representative democracy itself (the ancient Greeks restricted suffrage to the educated elite), hence the reference to “same ol’ same ol’.”
PS there is one other solution: raising education levels. But that’s pretty pie in the sky sort of stuff and the correlation between high levels of education and low levels of racism is pretty tenuous at best.
June 1, 2014 at 10:00 pm
I think that there is a solution, but only Labour can do it and it will require Labour basically disavowing the last 20 years of their political progress, as well as a recognition that Britain is essentially a high-debt, high-benefits country (similar to Japan). If Labour puts forward a policy platform based on infrastructure investment (particularly housing, transport, energy and health) and also returns to having an industrial policy (beyond tax breaks for banks) that will encourage the development of new industries and more employment, then they might be able to steal back votes from UKIP. This isn’t because that’s what is best for the country (I think it is, but that’s by the by), but because the people being lost to UKIP are people who see the loss of their benefits and the crowding of infrastructure as the fault of foreigners, when in fact is the fault of 30 years of government decisions to restrict public spending and infrastructure development. i.e. the only way to undermine this racist view amongst British voters is to ensure that the major economic problems facing Britain are solved, so that there are no major problems to blame on foreigners. I don’t think the Tories can do this – their policy prescriptions generally involve more competition at the bottom, and provided that people like my parents think that competition at the bottom of the salary pile will be won by cheap Romanians, such policies will never convince them. Of course, this is UKIP’s secret – their goal is to stop foreigners competing in Britain and then force British people to fight for work in a deregulated environment where the winner is the person willing to undercut everyone else’s salary – but they manage to hide all this by a) not having any policies and b) distracting everyone with racist cant. Labour could try and point that out, but I don’t think Labour has the ability to communicate with the lumpen proletariat (people like my family) anymore. I don’t see any better future for Britain than this, until Labour can pull its finger out and address the issues facing the British poor, properly and in full. Of course, given the nature of the British press, they won’t be able to do this – which is why I don’t see any bright future for British politics. As you say, the racists are going to win anyway, and I think a large part of this victory needs to be slated home to Labour’s failure. Even though in the short term Labour will benefit from UKIP’s resurgence, in the long term the effect on British political culture is going to be toxic and regressive.
I don’t think this solution requires “dominating the conversation” but anyway at the moment in Britain such an issue is a moot point – the conversation is being dominated by Rupert Murdoch’s media machine and by the Daily Mail (famous for having supported Hitler). That is anti-democratic – and until someone reins those people in, UKIP are going to get an easy ride…
June 2, 2014 at 9:53 am
“recognition that Britain is essentially a high-debt, high-benefits country (similar to Japan)”
I’ve said this before, but I fundamentally disagree that Britain can become like Japan. The British culture would not (in my view) be amenable to supporting a Japanese style life. Japan has strong cultural values favouring cohesion, quality and respect. The Brits tossed out cohesion and respect years ago in favour of an individualist culture, and I don’t recall ever hearing they had a quality centered view on life (i.e. no one said “The British Empire produced the best XYZ” unless the XYZ was boots on native necks).
Victorian Britain may have been able to become Japan (they seem to have had a more cohesive and respectful culture based on a strong class system), but the necessary cultural foundations are long gone (and weakening the acceptability of the class system in that way is not a bad thing). In the face of that Britain needs to determine what it wants to become and things like “industrial policy” aren’t going to radically change the playing field. All they can do is smooth the passage to other states (of national mindset/culture) that were already possible.
I’d love to suggest that Britain should become more like Australia (moderate social democracy with moderate individualist streak, much lower class and race based tensions [1] and no focus on quality to speak of) because I’d say that’s a much smaller cultural change and one that could potentially be bridged. But I’d still say 1) they lack prerequisites for the change (i.e. shitloads of iron ore in their backyard and being parked next to China/India) and 2) the long term outlook for Australia ain’t that rosy either.
Because of that I’d give Britain the same prescription I give the EU [2]. Sit down, take a long hard look at themselves and then decide what their vision for the future is. When they work out they can’t reach a consensus on that, they need to accept a vision of constructing a society that can have a civil conversation on the topic and get the required engagement from all it’s citizens. This is mammoth undertaking by itself because it’d need to bring people like UKIP voters into a conversation where they are willing to trade off things (i.e. their world view on black people) and not feel disenfranchised.
[1] The racial tensions in Australia do influence policy but mostly on edge issues (asylum seeker boats) not on the broader versions of the same issue (i.e. immigration in general).
[2] The EU is a proto-nation state in desperate need of a founding myth/vision. All standing on the same continent doesn’t work in the age of modern transport and not igniting World War III is no longer a sufficient driver.
June 4, 2014 at 11:22 pm
An interesting point about Britain being too individualistic. I’m not sure if I agree – many of their solutions to major problems appear to have arisen first from communitarian, often quite authoritarian and centralized systems (see e.g. the NHS), though maybe this arises from the conflict between individualistic culture and the need for cohesion. It seems to me more like Britain has a strong desire to be a socially coherent society, but the individualistic streak and the class tensions require a strong state to hold it all together. But this is also part of the UKIP problem: much of UKIP’s rhetoric centres around conflict over access to benefits, i.e. to shared state-centric social projects, even at the same time as UKIP has a broadly individualistic and neo-liberal economic policy outlook (to the extent that they think about policies). Perhaps Labour’s problem also arose from this conflict, which is why New Labour was trying to grow a big benefits state while also pandering to a highly individualistic and anti-government industrial block (the financial sector).
I don’t think Britain could ever be like Australia. Fundamentally Britain is a conservative society held together by race-consciousness, and it won’t even be able to come up with a vision for its future until it can untangle that race-based way of thinking through a complex conversation about colonialism, class and society. As you say, they need to first become a society capable of a civil conversation on these topics, and the most positive insight I can get into that is that maybe UKIP represents the last spasm of a society coming to terms with a changing world: maybe if UKIP’s success flounders and then dies (as BNP did), then society as a whole can begin to have a conversation, honestly, about how to build a post-colonial, non-heirarchical society based on a stronger set of principles than “I’m alright Jack.”
Unlikely, I think we can both agree.
June 5, 2014 at 12:53 pm
“many of their solutions to major problems appear to have arisen first from communitarian”
I agree that many existing UK solutions and policies are communitarian, but most of these are quite old in their implementation and maintained mostly out of inertia rather than social solidarity. I can’t recall the last policy that required one part of the UK to voluntarily sacrifice anything. Blair/Brown were too focused on being popularists distributing the goods from economic boom and it runs counter to the Tory’s instincts. The current generations (boomers onwards) are the individualist ones.
“the most positive insight I can get into that is that maybe UKIP represents the last spasm of a society coming to terms with a changing world”
You know my sympathies lie with free speech (even when the message being said is nonsense – it’s still better to have it out there). I’m hopeful that opinions suggesting the UKIP success is a push back on political correctness are accurate and that the UKIP success will inspire the major parties to have that conversation. Once the conversation starts then the boil should be lanced and the UKIP support should ebb.
I agree it’s unlikely. I’d also hope we can agree it’d be nice to see them have the conversation – regardless of what the outcome is.
I can handle socialist paradises being formed even though I prefer individualist ones. But I hate watching nations sleep walk into colossal internal cultural divides (i.e. the state of politics in the US and to a vastly smaller extent Australia).
June 7, 2014 at 10:37 pm
Isn’t increased taxes a voluntary sacrifice? And isn’t the UK’s penchant for going to war evidence of an unquestioningly statist approach to the world? If UKIP is a pushback on political correctness it’s a strange sort of pushback against nothing – the Daily Mail, the Sun and the (now-defunct) News of the World say the “unsayable” every day. How can UKIP need to push back against “political correctness” when the UK’s three biggest newspapers are constantly spouting hyper-racist, politically incorrect nonsense – when one of those three papers can brand people it doesn’t like as “traitors” even though it supported hitler, and no one dares to point this hypocrisy out? Britain needs a pushback against political incorrectness, and if UKIP is a pushback against political correctness well, then a large proportion of the British population are pushing back against an imagined problem. This makes me think that there is no boil to lance – UKIP’s supporters are going to continue to think they have no voice, because right now the biggest papers in the UK are giving them a strident voice but they still seem to think they’re excluded. And why would the papers of the richest people in Britain (and the world) be interested in giving a voice to racism? Because it distracts the British population from class struggle.
If you wanted any evidence of how weak the mainstream British establishment’s response to UKIP is, just look at the response to UKIP’s loss in Newark. It’s being treated as an easy victory for the tories even though they had their margin slashed by 10000 votes despite sending David Cameron into the electorate four times, and also dispatching a range of other cabinet ministers, and their coalition partner got so badly shredded they lost their deposit. This, in the Tories’ 44th safest seat in a byelection where UKIP had just 10 days to organize. Is this how they’re going to fend off UKIP in the general election – send all their senior ministers to every seat four times? If Labour is still up in the polls a year from now, they will be needing to defend these seats against Labour in an environment where a radical right party is stealing their votes, and first-time Tory voters are returning to Labour. Yesterday’s result suggests they’re going to be up against it in heartland seats where Labour is not a threat – how are they going to defend those seats and marginal seats that were previously labour, while their coalition partner is being stomped across the country? And will the government that gets elected next year be able to resist UKIP’s calls for more peers (and should they?)? More broadly, if Labour gets reelected, is it going to deliver anything that will assuage the fears of UKIP voters? how will labour reconcile anti-racist politics with the “very real concerns” of UKIP?
To me this is further evidence that the traditional British leadership don’t have a clue. They don’t understand what ordinary British people want or how they think, and they’re in denial about the threat that UKIP poses. I wonder if one of the three parties will break ranks and start being honest about the issues? I doubt it!
June 10, 2014 at 9:32 am
“when one of those three papers can brand people it doesn’t like as “traitors” even though it supported hitler”
You do realise that Godwin’s law exists because of debating tactics like this, right? Do you use the same argument on Germans? “You think that this pizza is no good, BUT YOU SUPPORTED HITLER!?” It’s not like the editor of the Daily Mail who supported Hitler is still running the place. I’d kind of expect he’d have been dead for decades. It’s possible that the Daily Mail even decided they didn’t like Hitler at some point while being bombed during the Blitz (I’m not going to trawl Daily Mail archives for a “Hmm, maybe he’s an asshole after all” article).
I accept that Hitler was bad and supporting him was bad too. Can you please drop this from the discussion?
“Britain needs a pushback against political incorrectness, and if UKIP is a pushback against political correctness well”
The issue isn’t that a bunch of people (i.e. the Daily Mail) say nasty stuff. It’s that another bunch of people (i.e the Guardian) say that saying such things is unacceptable/beyond the pale/unthinkable. The first is being an asshole. The second is denying someone else the right to their own (however nasty) thoughts. To continue to say a political party is unacceptable when they got the highest portion of the vote is disconnected from reality. Democracy dictates that whoever got the largest portion of the vote is the front runner in representing society. You can’t just say “Yeah, congratulations on winning the most seats. Now what your saying is unacceptable so you’re required to say what I want you to say instead.” and expect anyone to go along with it.
“To me this is further evidence that the traditional British leadership don’t have a clue.”
Yeah. I’d tie this back to a lack of vision for what the nation wants. The leadership has worked out that it wants to live at 10 Downing St, therefore they don’t even consider the possibility that a conversation on vision is required.
June 10, 2014 at 2:38 pm
A little context for the statement about “traitors” and the comparison with the Daily Mail’s historical views can be found in this charming article where the Daily Mail claims Ed Milliband is unfit to run the country (and hates it!) because of things his (dead) father wrote and did in 1940. Sauce for the goose, and all that – if they want their nazi-loving past to be put to rest, they should try practising what they preach. You missed my implied argument, too, which is that the Daily Mail can get away with saying these unsayable things because no one is willing to challenge them (“no one dares to point this hypocrisy out”) yet they are the ones claiming to be the victims of racism.
I don’t, either, see any evidence of the Guardian stopping people putting racist views, or denying someone else the right to their own thoughts (which incidentally is quite different to preventing someone voicing them). I certainly don’t see it being effective: if it is such a pervasive form of censorship, how come the Daily Mail is invoking racist crap every day? It (and UKIP) is a past master at claiming victim status while openly bleating its racist and xenophobic pap. All I see from the major parties is an unwillingness to confront this behavior – do they realize that this victim mentality is not based in reality?
Not that I have any better ideas about how to handle that particular problem. In all my interactions with my Kipper family and their friends, I can’t find any way to penetrate their bubble of unreality (see the “undocumented asylum seeker” quote above – my father insists on this fact even though it’s physically impossible). What to do? Hope that the whole movement is just pus flowing from a lanced boil, I guess…
June 10, 2014 at 7:56 pm
The issue on what is acceptable isn’t “the Guardian stopping people putting racist views” any more than it’s UKIP setting fire to mosques to stop the spread is Islam [1]. The issue is whether people feel their opinion is regarded as valid (and it’s therefore a matter for a vote to determine policy) and people feeling their opinion will be disregarded even if they did win the vote (in which case democracy is never going to deliver for you). And it’s not about whether democracy really would deliver [2], it’s purely about how people feel (and the Daily Mail saying they’re being oppressed wouldn’t help that).
But neither do some Independent writers: http://inagist.com/all/458513936292536320/
Some Independent writer is putting up tweets that a political party is beyond the pale doesn’t say “I respectfully disagree” (or even just “I disagree”).
[1] i.e. neither of these things happened, so its unhelpful to suggest the Guardian is “stopping” anything. The issue I’m nominating is a perceived (by UKIP members) unwillingness of the other political parties to accept their view has any validity. Which is part of the problem of “the major parties … unwillingness to confront this behavior”.
[2] The long history of “I’ll move to another country if X wins the election” is an easy demonstration that political language contains lots of hyperbole.
June 10, 2014 at 11:20 pm
That “inagist” link you put up includes a link to this billboard. So basically you think that this “independent writer” is bad for saying that billboard is unacceptable? This is the state of political debate in the new millenium? That UKIP can put up an obviously inflammatory and wrong billboard depicting a British high street as a home to a thousand muslim terrorists, but anyone who says this is “beyond the pale” is disregarding this opinion? Isn’t that a little asymmetrical? UKIP can vent frothing screaming racial hatred on the high street, but anyone who says “that’s unacceptable” is being rude? Isn’t that kind of the wrong order of things? And why should I care about the fee-fees of some dickhead who honestly believes that poster is true? Do you think that dickhead cares about the feelings of any passing muslims? Does my father think about the feelings of black people when he refers to them as niggers? Did my grandmother, when she said “those blacks ‘ll get whats comin’ to ’em”? But it’s me who is in the wrong for telling her she’s racist?
When I lived in England I went to Salisbury with an Asian-Australian friend from kickboxing. We emerged from Salisbury station and the first thing we saw was a huge UKIP billboard saying “Taking UK back” and “We will send ALL foreigners back where they came from”. How do you think he felt? But oh the poor middle-class, middle-aged UKIP people are the real victims of this debate? Because their feelings aren’t being heard – even though in their towns and villages there are billboards reminding them of how a political party exists to represent their views, and the three biggest selling newspapers in the UK all routinely recite this racist crap, and the three main parties consistently refuse to call UKIP racist (for years; though finally one of them may be contemplating changing its views). Where exactly is this terrible oppression that these poor white kippers face? Where is their view being disrespected? Is it not the case that Brown, Milliband and Cameron have all been wandering the country saying they have “valid concerns”? (This is exactly the phrase Milliband used). Do you think that UK high-street billboard is reflective of the average Kippers’ “valid concerns”? Or is it arrant racist tripe? And why are these middle-aged, middle class people so delicate that we have to respect them calling black people niggers, but we mustn’t under any circumstances point out to them that their paranoid fantasies about a 2020 UK high street are ridiculous racist bullshit?
And what on earth can we do when debate is that divided?
June 12, 2014 at 10:52 am
“That UKIP can put up an obviously inflammatory and wrong billboard”
I agree with this part of the sentence. The billboard is purest bullshit. I prefer it when there is a little more reasoning behind it than the pure dismissal I’m using here, but between us can we agree it’s a waste of words to explain why the billboard is crap? [1]
“anyone who says this is “beyond the pale” is disregarding this opinion”
I disagree with “beyond the pale”. It shuts down debate. That makes people feel disenfranchised which leads to festering of racist sentiment. That then leads to UKIP winning the most votes in elections.
It’s not like it’s hard to explain why the billboard is bullshit. It’s not like its even hard to do it a way that can connect with UKIP voters (maybe not 100% of the time, but often enough to influence their votes).
Nobody has ever stopped another person being a racist by calling them a racist. The only way to help people escape the racist mindset they’re trapped in is by talking to them and educating them. So every sactinmounious person who feels they can just dismiss UKIP voters as “little Englanders” forgets that the import word in “UKIP voter” isn’t UKIP it’s voter. You can’t take the vote off them [2] so you have to change the UKIP part. And you have to do that by talking to them which is a shitload easier when you don’t start the conversation with “You cocks are completely wrong. Now sit silently while I fix your opinions”.
I’m not advocating not calling them on the racist stuff they say. I’m advocating calling them on it in a way that has some chance of making a difference. Political plans calling for more welfare or more economic growth to defang the UKIP slogans is a garbage solution because it’s not a solution. And I think we can agree that the last 20 years of UK politics demonstrates that covering over problems with economic growth just leaves those problems still there (till they drive people to vote for UKIP).
“And what on earth can we do when debate is that divided?”
Still have the debate. Still treat your opponents with respect even when they don’t return it. Gandhi, King and Mandela have records for outcomes than Robert Mugabe, Stalin or Joseph McCarthy.
[1] We probably would find some differences of opinion on why it sucks, but they’re not really relevant to the central point we’re discussing.
[2] Without being horrible in a way that shares way too much with their mindset.
June 13, 2014 at 11:31 am
“Beyond the pale” doesn’t shut down debate, it’s a rhetorical phrase, nothing more – the same way that Kippers calling labour “liebor” are using a rhetorical term. And how can you debate racism if you don’t point out when it is racism? And why would people who are openly racist be feeling disenfranchised by being told they are racist? For that matter, how can we convince them that their racism is wrong if we don’t tell them it’s unacceptable? I think you’re arguing on the assumption that racism is a logical process, or that Kippers are racist for logical reasons (e.g. imigration=lost jobs therefore I’m racist) rather than building a political theory on a racist base. If the racism derives from a genuine logical analysis, then engagement will work; but it almost never does. Rather, the “logical” analysis of terror threats, lost jobs etc. is a self-serving justification for pre-existing racism. You can’t reason with that.
RE: your later paragraph (“Political plans calling for more welfare …”), I am inclined to agree and I think a big problem here is that no one in the world believes the ruling class when they tell us that immigration will improve the economy. Their willingness to deploy economic “Logic” in defense of whatever makes them wealthier is now so well-established and so open that no one believes these tales anymore. I think this is particularly a problem in the US and the UK because the ruling elite (on both sides of politics) are so much more obviously corrupt and self-interested there than elsewhere. Until they restore trust in the political system no one will trust their pronouncements on immigration – and this combination feeds perfectly into UKIP logic (and is part of the reason my father can believe contradictory notions like “undocumented asylum seekers” – because he doesn’t trust anything the govt tells him).
Restoring trust in a political system is very hard to do, and in the short term will involve moves like giving UKIP more seats in teh House of Lords – things that will actually strengthen rather than weaken the party. But I think, as you say, they represent a sizable portion of the public. If they’re to be dealt with fairly within the political system, then first they need to get fair representation consistent with their votes (a problem that also afflicts teh Greens in teh UK and Australia). But beyond that, the UK needs to find ways to distance the political class from business and make them more responsive to the ordinary public, as well as reduce corruption in police and civil service. Before that happens, no one is going to trust members of the two main parties when they claim to be trying to improve the lot of ordinary Kippers (or anyone else…)
I can’t see that happening any time soon…
June 14, 2014 at 1:05 pm
“Nobody has ever stopped another person being a racist by calling them a racist. The only way to help people escape the racist mindset they’re trapped in is by talking to them and educating them.”
Actually, talking to them doesn’t have much of a record. What does have is enforced public tolerance (or intolerance of open racism) plus the slow erosion as people do what people do and partner off.
When some oaf shoulders aside the pregnant woman to take the last seat on the bus, we don’t educate them – we make it plain that this is not acceptable around here. And we don’t care if they whinge about oppression.
June 14, 2014 at 1:17 pm
“we make it plain that this is not acceptable around here”
The key question on “making it plain” is how? Do you break his knees while screaming threats against his loved ones should he do it again? That’d be pretty clear after all…
But of course you don’t. You use words because their the best means of communication for the problem. And you back them with social stigma because there has to be a downside or the asshole will just ignore them. But if your social stigma goes to far (lets say it throws people in an indefinite detention on Nauru) then that is also likely to fail.
So, and I’m assuming here, you apply a sense of moderation that gives the best possibility of getting the oaf to behave without impacting other limitations you set for yourself. Am I right? It’s also possible for people of good will to disagree on what the outcome of that assessment is.
June 15, 2014 at 1:26 pm
Paul
Sure – the crowd mutters and someone speaks up. So who is kneecapping the Daily Mail or the guys yelling “niggers go home”? What they complain about as political correctness is the crowd muttering and someone speaking up.
June 15, 2014 at 10:34 pm
Paul, nobody said anything about breaking knees and threatening loved ones. What’s with the hyperbole? The twitter feed you linked to doesn’t seem to contain those kinds of threats – mostly it seems to involve photoshopping UKIP posters to make them insulting to Kippers. Isn’t this exactly the kind of social stigma that you’re talking about? And isn’t “Beyond the pale” the very definition of social stigma?
I think you’re working too much on the assumption that the anti-immigration stance of the average Kipper is based on a reasoned and logical conclusion about what is good economically and socially for the country, and has little to do with visceral dislike of foreigners. In my experience of Kippers this is unlikely to be a very successful assumption. Their hatred of foreigners is visceral and they are unwilling to go to any lengths to change their understanding of what is actually happening in immigration policy – they are the very opposite of the person who reasons their way to an anti-immigration position. They’re immigration policy’s version of Watts Up With That – no amount of careful guidance will get them to change their mind, because they don’t want to.
Which isn’t to say that social stigma and exclusionism will work any better, but it’s worth noting that these tactics have not been tried by the mainstream parties, whose main tactic has been to ignore UKIP as it goes from strength to strength. Engaging in the immigration debate may change some peoples’ minds but that core of UKIP voters – they are lost, I think. I think it’s possible Labour could win some back by completely reversing the last 15 years of their policy and focusing on a high-taxing, deficit-driven rebuilding of British public life from the ground up (which I think still appeals to a lot of British people) – but this isn’t going to work until they can convince people that they are honestly interested in helping anyone but themselves, and given that just today Tony Blair arrived right on cue to deny that he ever did anything wrong in Iraq (which is hugely unpopular with voters of all parties), I think it’s unlikely that modern Labour is going to manage that task. The conservatives won’t convince anyone that they care or that they’re going to reverse the European project until they can find a way to show people that they’re the party of everyone rather than their Bullingdon Club mates. And until the parties can claw their way back to some semblance of public trust, I can’t see anyone responding well to accusations of racism and attempts to deploy social stigma …
… what a policy wasteland!
June 16, 2014 at 10:05 am
The problem we have here is you’re assuming I’m defending the Daily Mail.
The crux of the issue at hand is how “we make it plain that this is not acceptable around here”. I’m identifying that there are sub-optimal ways of doing this (such as death threats) [1]. Once we’ve eliminated the extremes of ignoring it all together or killing people we’re left to decide where in the middle is the best spot to be.
I’m saying that speaking respectfully to people (even when they haven’t earned that) is better than telling them they’re a tosser because it increases the chance of influencing them. You’re saying that paying respect to people who haven’t earned it is a poor choice because [reasons you haven’t explained but appear to be that you don’t want to pay any respect to them as it validates their viewpoints] [2].
The challenge here isn’t for me to explain why acting respectfully to others and understanding their points is the best way to influence them. It’s for you to explain why trolling, name-calling and bullying is efficient. While you do this it may help to remember that the standard behaviour that qualifies as trolling, name-calling and bullying is (largely) defined by the person on the receiving end (much like racism and sexism).
“I think you’re working too much on the assumption that the anti-immigration stance of the average Kipper is based on a reasoned and logical conclusion about what is good economically and socially for the country”
No. Why someone disagrees with me is only relevant to the extent that I need to understand it to craft an argument back to influence them [3]. If people are racist shits because of jobs, then the arguments should centre on jobs, if their racist shits because their family tells a story about how a black guy once looked at their auntie funny as she over charged him for a burger then the argument needs to expand their view past the one burger patron. If their just viscerally racist against everyone then you need to create some sort of connection to other races that they can imagine based on the stuff they do like (i.e. sport, shared hatred of posh people, RPGs, whatever).
And this isn’t to argue that viscerally racist people can easily be changed. But if your alternative is they can’t be, then I have to reject your argument as a counsel of despair. Accepting such an argument ends the discussion and abandons hope. Screw that. There’s always hope [4].
[1] Which is why I even said you wouldn’t do it that way.
[2] Or you just like being an asshole back to assholes. I’m not a mind reader.
[3] And check whether their reasoning is sufficiently sound that I should change my own mind.
[4] Admittedly it may not be the hope you’d really want, i.e. for most people there’s no hope of “I’ll sleep with Miranda Kerr” but the hope that “Someone will be desperate enough to sleep with me” is alive and kicking.
June 16, 2014 at 11:29 pm
Telling someone they’re being racist when they say “Them blacks ‘ll get what’s comin’ to ’em” isn’t trolling or bullying. Yelling “Niggers go home,” stabbing people to death in the streets because they’re black, telling Romanians you wouldn’t want them living next door to you – that’s bullying and name-calling. UKIP is a massive, ongoing act of trolling, but the British body politic is so corrupted by trolling (I’m looking at you, Tony Blair[1]) that people see it as a serious political phenomenon.
What you’re basically doing is another episode in the ongoing “But the anti-racists are the real racists” form of dialogue much beloved of the modern right. The kind of illogical rhetorical focus that thinks it’s worse to tell someone that they’re being racist than it is to say blacks are sub-human. There’s no winning this argument – it’s a political spin death-spiral. Sometimes you have to call a spade a spade. But currently the only people who can get away with calling anyone a spade are the racists. Why is that?
—
fn1: well actually I’m not, because I’m aware that Vampires have hypnotic powers and it is unwise to look directly at them
June 17, 2014 at 6:57 pm
“stabbing people to death in the streets because they’re black”
Who’s stabbing people because they’re black? The Daily Mail editor? Did I miss this in the Guardian? (I’ll presume the Daily Mail covered it up). Or is someone (other than apparently me) engaging in hyperbole?
“What you’re basically doing is another episode in the ongoing “But the anti-racists are the real racists” form of dialogue much beloved of the modern right.”
No. The people who bother making that argument generally carry it further than I’d be comfortable with. I’m content with “If you said this about another race it’d be racism. But having pointed that out we can let it slide a little so long as you stop calling me a racist simply for having white skin. [1]”
There is a middle ground between saying “Shut up because I say so” and the other guy saying “shut up because I say so”. My basic issue is seeing two sides saying this to each other and (apparently) thinking that talking past each other will win them the debate.
I can give you hint. If you think that not engaging the other side will win you the argument and that you can just raise your kids to follow your path then, over time, the quality of arguments is going to be irrelevant. Because its going to be a mouth breather versus BBC World News watcher breeding concept. And the BBC World News watchers are going to lose massively. [3]
[1] I’m more comfortable with you calling me a racist when I’m accidentally (or even deliberately) an asshole. [2]
[2] I saw some “comedy” skit recently on “reverse racism”. The only (unintentionally) funny thing I found in it was the concept that you could “reverse” racism by using it against whites as I’d assumed that was simply called racism too.
[3] Clearly taking time out from sex to watch the news is a sub-optimal long term demographic stategy. But I try explaining that to my wife and she just thinks I’m trying to get into her pants 😦
June 17, 2014 at 10:24 pm
The Brits have some very good reasons for being mindful of prospective immigrants- https://www.mi5.gov.uk/home/the-threats/terrorism/international-terrorism/international-terrorist-plots/arrests-and-convictions.html
Sometimes so-called racism is simply Darwinism in action. I recall reading how some of the Jews who saw the writing on the wall and fled Austria and Germany in the early 1930s were branded racists by the brain-dead Left of their time because, after all, the Germans, were such civilised people who would never hurt anyone.
Race trumps class.
June 18, 2014 at 3:41 pm
Everyone please refrain from engaging with Captain Moonlight, he is a troll with limited reading comprehension who just wants to derail every thread to talking about his own pet issues. Captain Moonlight, I told you not to bother around here. Please don’t make me break my no-censorship rule, and throw you in the spam bin where you belong. Go find someone else’s blog to polish your poor reading comprehension skills on.
June 18, 2014 at 4:59 pm
I’m a troll. On what basis do you say that? I have demolished some of your poorly researched arguments. That makes me right, not a troll. Maturity please.
June 18, 2014 at 7:36 pm
I say it on the basis that you aren’t reading what was written, and are arguing with imaginary posts. We’ve been having an interesting discussion here about when and how race might trump class, and how best to handle the rise of UKIP politically, and you’ve rocked up in the middle of it all with some irrelevant and historically completely ignorant crap about Darwinism, then make the statement “Race trumps Class” as if it were this amazing fact that no one else in this thread or the OP had ever thought about. And using phrases like “the brain-dead Left” isn’t going to get you very far around here either – this is drive-by trolling at its very finest.
You’re obviously not interested in what’s actually being talked about here – rather, you want to turn every thread into an opportunity to bludgeon people with your personal prejudices, and fight Tony Abbott’s battles for him. If your arguments actually addressed what was written I might have some sympathy for you, but instead you are not even reading the posts. So, once again, go away and don’t come back. Your next comment is going in the spam bin. You can save me the effort of a single click, and save yourself several paragraphs of whatever passes for thought, by not bothering to write it.
June 18, 2014 at 7:52 pm
Paul, the reference to the stabbing to death is the notorious Stephen Lawrence murder, which was not properly investigated at the time it occurred, and after which activists for the family were spied on by the police and the News of the World. UKIP councillors and candidates seem to have a bit of an issue with the ongoing attempts to get Lawrence’s killers brought to justice, even thinking that his mother is boring us all to tears. In the context of such comments, it’s hardly surprising that another UKIP candidate thinks Lenny Henry should emigrate to “a black country”. Do you think Lenny Henry should engage respectfully with people who think he is a monkey who should emigrate, and that the racist murder of people with his skin colour is boring and only important because of political correctness gone mad?
Today I was refused a certain service because I’m a foreigner. You may be unsurprised to know that this makes one quite … angry … and unwilling to engage in respectful debate with the person doing the refusal. How is Lenny Henry (or Doreen Lawrence, mother of the dead boy) supposed to provide a respectful foil to the political beliefs of people who call him a monkey, and make quite clear that they think racist murder is not important? People who tell him openly that he should consider himself a stranger in his own country.
Also, telling people they’re being racist for comparing Lenny Henry to a monkey and telling him to emigrate to somewhere black is engagement. I would argue it is simply confirming for the speaker what they already knew, but it certainly isn’t saying “shut up because I say so.”
I guess I would like to know, how would you argue constructively with the people in the linked articles, and do you think that you’re going to be successful? I have tried presenting facts with my family for years, but my father still believes gypsies are going to pave his garden at midnight, that asylum seekers can be undocumented, and that all crime is due to foreigners (and I’m sure he still thinks that south Asians are the worst sexual predators even after reading about Jimmy Saville). Last time I had this argument with an uncle, within a few minutes he was calling me “sunshine” and threatening me. So I’m all ears as to how to make these conversations go better, but exactly how I can convince people who get threatening when you point out there numbers are wrong … well, I guess I’m not the rhetorical genius you think I am.
June 18, 2014 at 10:26 pm
After another moment of classic trolling, Moonlight has been spam-binned.
June 19, 2014 at 9:27 am
“Also, telling people they’re being racist for comparing Lenny Henry to a monkey and telling him to emigrate to somewhere black is engagement.”
Yes it is. Explaining to them that he was born in the UK and that suggesting he “go back where he came from” is stupid [1]. But here is the crux of the issue. Telling them that in a way that they can listen to is a good thing. It won’t work most of the time but we have to keep trying. Telling them in a way that is guaranteed to not be heard is a waste of time (similar to conversations between you and Moonlight).
Moonlight is not advancing arguments that you can engage with. Even assuming he has points worth making [3] he is ensuring that he can’t change your mind because he’s being an asshole about them.
As for how to change hardcore nutcases minds I’d suggest:
1. Target the people around the edges first. If your family are really going to keep being assholes, then the first step is reducing UKIP support generally by convincing the people who are only a little bit of assholes. Stripped of that group mentality it’d be easier to convince your family later once the other people in the pub stop reinforcing their prejudices.
2. Find common points and emphasize those. During the World Cup is a great time to point of black gypsys playing for the the UK and doing better than the white guy. Highlight how the black guy just stuffed over the German defence. [4]
3. Highlight the ones that they have personal contact with. “OK, I can understand you don’t like blacks in general, but the one down the fish and chippery does a great fried haggis doesn’t he?”
4. (In moderation) Identify common enemies. This is similar to your focus on class but also works for things like sports. Tories, people who drink cold beer, the Australian cricket team and that neighbour who smells are all OK targets. Try to avoid picking Jews (because obvious reasons). As I say do it in moderation. Smells is OK. Steals is bad. Is a kiddy fiddler is right out. If in doubt, stick to sports.
5. Use humor. I’m personally convinced that it’s hard to chance people’s minds. But if you can get them to laugh at a point of view then their less likely to respect it afterward [5].
The reason to be respectful during all of this and avoid ruling anything beyond the pale is it’s critical to not make this a tribal thing. If you say your family are irremediable assholes because their typical UKIP voters then try to convince the swing voter next to them you’re at a disadvantage. You’ve said voting UKIP is unacceptable, making it a tribal thing, and now you’re trying to convince someone else to change their mind after you’ve (indirectly) insulted them. Why push shit uphill like that?
As for Stephen Lawrence/Lenny Henry and the idea they’d have to be endlessly ground down by assholes. I’m not saying respectfulness/engagement has to be a 24/7 thing for everyone. Just that saying “People who think Lawrence’s murder is OK should be killed and wash on shore” is not going to change their mind. Better to calmly (but passionately if you want) discuss it and try to get them to change. We’re not after road to Damascus moments, we’re after water wearing away at mountains.
[1] I’d suggest that when doing so you should also mention all the white Australians who that policy would insist must move back to the UK. To say nothing of the Americans. In the end analysis even a UKIP supporter is likely to be able to accept Lenny Henry is better than Hilary Clinton coming to live with him. [2]
[2] Not to imply anything bad about Hilary Clinton, but she’s the sort of person a UKIP supporter is likely to recognise and probably object to on a political basis (assuming they’re right wing politically which isn’t really guaranteed).
[3] I don’t want to get involved in a discussion on whether Moonlight has points worth making or not. I hope you can agree that it is possible for assholes in general to have good points and fail to make them due to poor communication (i.e. being an asshole).
[4] I’m not a sports guy so I’m terrible at this type of bridge building.
[5] I’ll bet the ALP loves “Canadia” almost as much as harsh budget measures. The budget is hard to explain but a person looking like an idiot is endlessly re-playable and always erodes respect.
June 21, 2014 at 1:21 pm
I’m fully supportive of this tactical approach, but I think it needs to be pointed out that the kinds of swing-voters you’re talking about are likely to be very amenable to arguments about racism. Consider for example a classic lower-middle class Tory who switched to UKIP. This person is not racist or homophobic, believes in hard work and rewarding effort, supports the welfare state but wants limits on its generosity and generally supports deficit reduction. They’re likely uncomfortable with some more extreme aspects of the gay movement but generally in favour of everyone living together, and staunchly anti-fascist. I think this kind of backbone Tory voter has been voting Tory under sufferance for a long time (since the end of Thatcher, probably) because they’re opposed to further integration with Europe on (non-racist) employment/economic grounds (and they’ve been proven very right about the Euro!), they oppose any further dissolution of the UK, and they oppose gay marriage on (non-homophobic) “traditional family” grounds. They’re the sort of person who gets derided by student leftists as a fascist, but everyone knows they’re just a perfectly decent little-Englander, happy to vote for an imperfect party provided it sticks to core conservative principles even though they will accept some free-market tinkering at the edges, some concessions to “fashionable” inner-city “elites” on some issues, etc. For example they might not like Cameron’s decision not to revoke the fox-hunting ban, but they will continue to vote Tory so long as this stuff doesn’t go too far. And what have they got from the modern Tories? Gay marriage, reform of the House of Lords, continuing failure to make distance from Europe, and a referendum on Scottish independence. Such a voter is likely to give up at this point and switch to UKIP, who will better represent their views on Europe and gay marriage. But such a voter will also be very uncomfortable with UKIP’s racism and homophobia, and every such a voter will recognize some line they aren’t willing to vote beyond. They may think that the facebook “mistakes” that UKIP candidates keep making are aberrations (perhaps representative of the downside of an “everyman” party) rather than representative of the structure of the party’s thinking. By trying to point out just how deep and widespread UKIP’s racism is, we give such voters a better idea of how far UKIP may go with racist policies if it gets into office. By pointing out that they side with fascists in Europe, we can show the possibility that they would go too far with repressive policies in the UK.
UKIP is very good at telling different stories to different voters, and at dog-whistling to the converted. By showing swinging voters that UKIP is telling a different story entirely to (e.g.) my family, we can begin to show that the party may actually go too far when it wins office.
[My example above is a Tory but there is an analogous classic Labour-voting profile who held their nose and voted Labour during the Blair years, but is uncomfortable with losing jobs to foreigners and has given up on any belief that Labour will represent workers – they will switch and hold their nose voting UKIP because at least it will “protect jobs”].
The problem with this tactic (and your suggested tactic too) – and a problem that can’t be fixed until the major parties get their act together – is that these swing voters are going to find it very hard to trust the major parties, and won’t go back to them. You might be able to convince the swinging Tory to switch to e.g. a Catholic conservative party, or get the Labour swinger to vote Green, but they won’t go back to the mainstream parties. Until those two parties can show that they’re actually serious about more than getting into Number 10, and handing huge benefits to their rich mates[1], they just aren’t going to regain those voters no matter how much debate goes on at the grassroots. As a simple example of this: how is Ed Milliband going to win back young Labour voters who have switched to UKIP by promising to further restrict benefits to young people? A lot of these young voters are probably thinking they can’t get a job because of all the Polish labourers. If you think the jobs aren’t available because of foreign competition that was abetted by the major parties, how are those major parties going to convince you to vote for them by cutting back on unemployment benefits? You or I may think this makes good economic sense, but from the perspective of a young, under-skilled and vulnerable 20 year old who thinks that their jobs are being poached by Poles, this kind of policy pronouncement is a disaster. It’s also a type of signalling: it tells the 20 year old White Van Man that Ed Milliband has given up on protecting White Van Man, and is more interested in proving that he is economically “sensible” to some suited economists somewhere.
I don’t think there’s much anyone can do to halt the march of UKIP while this kind of stupidity is being practised by both major parties. And because they refuse to openly make the racism case, they also don’t have a coherent argument for those swing voters who might be convinced to swing back if they realized just how bad UKIP is. So the UK just has to wait and see whether the UKIP phenomenon will fizzle out under its own incompetence, destroy the Tories at the next election, or become a power in its own right. Only one of those three outcomes is going to be good for the country …
—
fn1: In this respect I am referring to both parties