To actually be worried about UKIP/Britain First?

[Sahkoora]

I'm so surprised to see so many "friends" posting anti-Muslim Facebook posts, mostly things from Britain First. I have a firm deletion policy on this, but it's getting to the stage where it's family members and people I would consider close friends.

Last night DSis and BIL came over and conversation wended around to the fact they were both planning to vote UKIP. To be fair, DSis is shockingly ignorant, has never read a newspaper in her life and seriously couldn't name a single person in the government beyond David Cameron.

Their argument is that they used to live in Barking and it's "spot the white man", and the Muslims are rude and stare at you all the time. Apparently if we'd lived there, we'd understand. I am shocked by this!

On the news I see Nigel Farage interviewed as if he's a serious contender with a chance of getting some real power. Is this so?

Do lots of people really feel this way, and will it likely make a real difference in future elections? I am a bit terrified to think that people I love really feel this way about other human beings, and are attributing it to race and religion.

TempsPerdu Have you come across Theodore Dalrymple? He has a very interesting (if sometimes a bit harrumphy) take on how a lot of the state-funded social systems that are meant to alleviate deprivation actually exacerbate and entrench it. His essays make great background reading IMO on the rise of UKIP.

Absolutely, LurkingHusband - I'm all for a fair living wage, and I think unscrupulous employers have a lot to answer for in that respect. They just want the cheapest labour possible. Plenty of people dismiss all those builders who claim they're being outcompeted by immigrants on less than minimum wage as lazy and money-grabbing, but they have my sympathy - some of them are the parents of children I've taught, so I've seen first-hand how tough it can be.

It's an incredibly difficult situation, because the issues involved are so sensitive. Increasing population is undeniably a huge issue - not just here in the UK but worldwide (there was a Guardian article the other week reporting a 70% chance of world population rising continuously, where previously it had been predicted to level off soon). With continuing unrest across the world, it looks as though immigration levels to the West are only going to rise, and Western governments need to develop a coherent plan for this.

At the moment, it seems that there is not only no long-term plan, but there's also a general sense of denial about the need to massively invest in infrastructure to support a growing population. There's a huge school places shortfall in my area, which the local council managed to entirely overlook. For the past few years they have been tacking extra 'bulge' classes on to already large schools because its cheaper than building new schools. As a result my nearest primary school now takes nearly 900 children, who have to have staggered assembly, lunch and play times because the site is too cramped to accommodate them all.

We're simply dividing the same scarce resources up among more and more people, and it's vulnerable groups (immigrants AND the poor indigenous population alike) who are losing out.

Thanks OTheHugeManatee - had heard of him (doesn't he contribute to the Torygraph?) but not read any of his stuff - will have a read.

So please don't feel motivated to speak on behalf of all white Londoners. We don't all agree with you.

I agree with this. My children go to diverse inner London schools, are doing well and are very happy and well-adjusted. Their schools are creative, loving and tolerant places hopefully teaching them the same values.

TempsPerdu (I know the feeling ). The only reason the issues are "sensitive" is because we have made them that way. Or rather the mainstream media have made them that way. Somebody has to buy the Daily Mail, after all.

I've learned over 30 years, that wherever I live, it seems whoever I vote for doesn't get in. On that basis, my vote goes Green, since they are the least right wing of the general parties (I have no truck with most of their policies). That said, I quite like UKIP inasmuch as they have set the debate that it's obvious none of the big 3 parties was ever going to have. They've also made a few interesting points - one of which was Farage asking, quite reasonably, why we need to chase "growth" all the time (since that's a driver for immigration). However, at the risk of invoking Godwin, I'm sure national socialism sounded quite appealing too. Besides, having a non-English European parent means I am actually quite pro-Europe (not so much pro-EU though).

People are not "illegals" (and the origin of using that term for people is rooted in racism and anti-Semitism). We don't say people who murder are illegals, we don't say people who steal are illegals, we don't say that people who speed are illegals

It's an abbreviated form of 'illegal immigrant', which is a common phrase.

Of course we don't call murderers 'illegals' becuase we have no concept of 'illegal (or legal) killers', we don't use that phrase. Ditto 'illegal takers' for thieves etc.

'Illegals' is not a courteous term. It is slightly disparaging, dismissive, dehumanizing. I wouldn't use it myself.

But nonsense such as above , plays straight into the hands of UKIP, Britain First etc.

Every time we go to far and make hysterical claims or deny real phenomena which people are finding challenging (the strain to public services partly caused by the sheer scale of recent immigration in cities, for e.g.), it plays into their hands.

We have to stop it.

You can't combat lies and hyperbole with more lies and hyperbole.

^too far...

Rainbowfeet my area is over populated because it is an affordable commuter town with good local ammenities and a thriving community. Due to this the ammenities are very busy, and we also have to wait up to 3 weeks for a routine appointment and some of the schools have very large class sizes.

None of this has anything to do with the ethnicity of the community, but the population size. You can't stop people moving to an area be they "furriners" or not, citizens in this country have every right to live where they like and access whatever amenities the community has to offer.

I personally would like to think that immigrants who come here for a better life where they have access to education, healthcare and decent housing can find that as well as friendship and acceptance in their chosen community.

Without wanting to sound all happy clappy, surely in this day and age where we are all reasonably educated about other cultures, the horror and poverty that some people are born into and the ease of global communication and travel, we should not begrudge anyone a better life.

Perhaps the BNP et al would like the Brits who moved in droves to France and Spain to be shipped back to where they came from as well? Or is that different because they are (usually) middle class, well off and white?!

Sorry, that was a bit of an essay, not all aimed at you Rainbowfeet.

While I disagree with many of rainbowfeet's sentiments, she is right in saying that parts of London (notably those suburbs that are traditionally inhabited by working-class voters) have undergone a demographic shift that makes them almost unrecognisable to people who have lived there for years. Either they have been gentrified and 'hipsterfied' so that ordinary people can no longer afford to live there (Hackney/Peckham/Brixton) or they've experienced a large influx of immigrants who are either new to the country or who can't be housed in more central areas (Croydon/Enfield/Havering). This has left many white working-class voters feeling disenfranchised. It's difficult to deny that the presence of many new immigrants puts pressure on services

Exactly Temps. Sneering at these people will not change their experience or their interpretation of their experience (and hence their voting intention). Addressing the issue honestly might.

Theodore Dalrymple is a fantastic writer; On one level he sounds like a grumpy right wing polemicist at least a generation older than he is, but he is very incisive and clear-sighted and, as a doctor, has worked extensively in prisons and in deprived communities. He knows his subject and his 'take' is interesting.

A fellow Dalrymple fan!

My favourite Dalrymple-ism today: "Generosity at the expense of others, whether it be financial or moral, is not generosity, it is moral exhibitionism. Where sentimentality pervades, we cannot make the proper distinctions."

Try saying that after three large gins

LurkingHusband I'll be voting Green too - so at least that makes two of us!

I agree ArsenicFacecream (great name, by the way!) - I dislike the way the immigration debate is often framed - it generally boils down to 'Britain's full' vs. 'Immigration's great, and anyone who says otherwise is racist'. But a debate urgently needs to be had, and at least UKIP is forcing us to have it. If we're going to have (relatively) uncontrolled immigration, we will need considerably more investment in schools, hospitals, roads and, most pressingly, housing - all of which will inevitably be expensive.

I think that UKIP supporters are often their own worst enemy. I'm sure some of them are out and out racists, but I think far more of them are probably deluded and desperate, yet unable to articulate their concerns in a way that doesn't come across as offensive to us right-on Mumsnetters. The irony is that by coming out with dubious statements like 'No more immigrants' and 'Down with the EU' they make the rest of us want to dismiss them as xenophobic loons, rather than engaging with their concerns.

But a debate urgently needs to be had, and at least UKIP is forcing us to have it.

I wish we could have it on MN a bit more TBH.

As you say, the whole thing gets framed in a very polarised way.

A lot of the posts I read here seem to boil down to "Immigration is great . Furriners are great . If you don't agree unreservedly, you are a norty, racist, UKIP supporter "

Completely missing the point.

It was tedious. Now it is starting to scare me. We desperately need a more sophisticated conversation about this.

It is a minefield subject in RL...

Britain First use dodgy tactics to get people to share their pictures. An american relative had forwarded on one of their pics which showed a sick dog and was something about donate to Britain first to help get scum off the streets that injured the dog. I mean really.

I think that UKIP supporters are often their own worst enemy. I'm sure some of them are out and out racists, but I think far more of them are probably deluded and desperate, yet unable to articulate their concerns in a way that doesn't come across as offensive to us right-on Mumsnetters.

But, yes, THIS^

(great name, by the way!)

Thanks

I know two people who say they are going to vote UKIP. One is a disaffected Tory (about 55 / accountant / lives in a relatively leafy suburb). He thinks the Tories have become too centrist. The other is a disaffected Labour voter (about 45 / postman / lives in Council accomodation). He thinks Labour have become too centrist.

They will make interesting bedfellows.

Tories too centrist ? Does he think that Genghis Kahn was a bit of a lefty, and Hitler should have been a tad more right-wing ?

I'm working class and I can tell you now that UKIP do NOT fucking represent me or any member of my family.

I've seen people sharing Britain First bollocks on Facebook too (usually the same kind of people who perpetuate rape myths and won't believe people like Rolf Harris are actually guilty). They're generally thick, don't read the news (other than the Daily Mail - full of real news, that one) and - here's the kicker - have never voted in their lives and won't be voting anytime soon.

A lot of people who bang on about how UKIP 'speak' for them have got no intention of actually voting - they're just racist scumbags who like to do the 'I'm not racist but' dance while blaming everyone else for their problems but expect other people to sort things out for them.

If it looks like a duck...

Yes - stifling debate is only going to make people more likely to vote UKIP.

The thing is, immigration is great in many ways, and lot of us here on MN will have embraced it and benefitted from it. Some people haven't, though, and they're often the people who are most vulnerable and least likely to be able to express themselves well on forums like this.

And, whatever class we belong to, all of us (except perhaps London's oligarchs) are going to be affected by Britain's creaking infrastructure and dwindling resources further down the line. We need to engage in a meaningful debate about this, even if it's framed in terms of overall population growth, rather than immigration.

But UKIP is not saying "no more immigrants" It just wants there not to be a free for all for Europe. As I understand it, UKIP wants people to be able to come in from all over the world including Europe. We haven't got uncontrolled immigration at the moment. There are controls at the moment and they discriminate against non-Europeans. We also have the situation where Slovakian girls are being trafficked to England for sham marriages.

I know two people who say they are going to vote UKIP. One is a disaffected Tory (about 55 / accountant / lives in a relatively leafy suburb). He thinks the Tories have become too centrist. The other is a disaffected Labour voter (about 45 / postman / lives in Council accomodation). He thinks Labour have become too centrist.

Ha, grovel that's hilarious! Part of me (albeit a very small part!) would quite like UKIP to end up in power just so I could see them implode. PMQ's with Our Nigel would be interesting...

Arsenic

Temps I've also been disappointed by the way the Brexit debate has been overshadowed by the more populist immigration one as UKIP has tried to broaden its appeal. Like you I speak two European languages, and I own property elsewhere in the EU, but I have also become increasingly worried about the sluggish bureaucracy and democratic deficit of the would-be United States of Europe.

The Harvard / Blairite / free marketeer / pro-globalisation consensus is that in order for the substantial welfare state preferred by social democracies in the developed world to be sustainable financially, we must abandon nation states and create ever larger political blocs capable of wielding enough economic muscle to compete with the BRICs economies. Hence ongoing attempts at political union across the EU. Though I can see some merit in this argument, it falls over on the point that it simply doesn't take cultural differences into account.

There is a basic assumption in the EU project that all European peoples are basically the same, and as such can be brought together under a single political system. But I think it doesn't take much time spent living among actual normal people in Europe to see that there are some profound cultural differences across the continent. Trying to agglomerate all those peoples under a single political system is (to me) self-evidently doomed, because people will resist the erosion of their specific cultural identities. So what we'll end up with if we persist in this deluded effort will either be unacceptably authoritarian (because it won't be able to push its policies through otherwise) or else stuck in perpetual stasis (because its politicians can't agree on what to do).

A good analogy is the company I work for. It's a FTSE 100 company that's grown pretty big by acquiring smaller companies; but each acquired company had been left more or less to continue as they had pre-acquisition. Now they're trying to enforce more coherent group-level policies and messages, but it's a nightmare trying to get anyone to agree on anything because the culture of each business unit is completely different, owing to their origins as different companies. IMO the EU is a bit like that, trying to enforce supranational political coherence without a thought for the underlying cultural differences that brought about such divergent political systems in the first place. The result, increasingly, is stasis, as decisive action disintegrates into horse-trading and backroom deals.

It's on that basis (as well as some technical stuff about the democratic deficit) that I oppose the United States of Europe, not on the basis that I don't like East Europeans (I have no opinion about East Europeans in general). But depressingly these kinds of discussions just get drowned out by the simpler and more strident patriotic/racist stuff, or mendacious fallacious figures about '3 million jobs that depend on the EU'.

I've no intention of voting UKIP, but I am anti immigration.

I know I'm not racist.

But anti immigration.

Anti all immigration mark?!

At its present levels arsenic yes.

I'm not going to lie and pretend to be an expert in social and political science, and even if I did you'd all see through me in a heartbeat but even I can see things aren't adding up cost wise.