What's going on with the far right parties?

[ItsPrettyGoodReally]

Hi,

I wondered if anybody might know what it is that means far right parties are rising in so many countries?

I was really desperate for this general election so we could get rid of the tories and get a labour government. But now suddenly people are talking about the far right in the UK, and in France and Germany, and Trump seems to be doing well in America.

I do kind of understand that maybe it's a reaction against globalisation and a return to the nation state.

However, I also see the massive gap between the ultra rich and the rest of us, and that reminds me of the way things were just before WWII, which is not a good thing.

It all feels a bit 1932 to me, and I would rather that the world was keeping a calm head while dealing with all the challenges.

Does anybody out there have a way to rationalise the situation that seems like there is a safe and calm way out of all this?

I think the key is that we all (across the globe) have to keep respecting democracy, and talking, and voting, and above all keeping our best calmest heads on, but I would be glad to know what others think.

Thanks!

This sums the situation up so succinctly and perfectly. Well done

There isn't anti-English hatred from the vast majority but people still do not trust the British government.

As a rule, Irish people are very irritated by the sort of thinking that says anything negative happened 'centuries ago' and no longer affects people today.

Have you heard of the Northern Ireland Troubles?
That happened centuries ago did it?
( In case you're unaware the Troubles began as a civil rights movement as the Irish were being discriminated against and treated as second-class citizens in Northern Ireland. You can look it up.)

During Brexit, the British government showed huge disregard for The Good Friday Agreement, an International Peace Treaty they had signed in 1998. They simply didn't seem to care about maintaining peace in Northern Ireland. That angered a lot of people.

In ROI today, many people's parents and grandparents lived through the War of Independence (from the UK) and the Civil War. Brutal times. And it really does take generations to heal.

And you are quite bonkers if you think Jewish people are 'over' their history given what's happening in Gaza right now.

Thank for expressing that so clearly. That is what I see when I go to Ireland. My relatives there lived very close to the place where the UK government were executing people in the street in 1922, and were there only a few years after the event.

When they tell me that, and ask me to explain why I am proud to be British it is quite challenging.

Northern Ireland is a whole other complicated thing that I don't understand, but again everybody expects me to have a deeply considered view on it when I visit Ireland, and I have no idea what to say.

Again, I think this comes down the same problem we're seeing in Grimsby. I think the British government is quite often not very good to people who are already in a position of weakness.

Ireland was able to become independent, and Scotland considers independence too, as we know.

But Grimsby and the red wall in the north can't become independent. I wonder if maybe that is why we see people voting for parties like Reform UK?

I could be wrong, but I do wonder if that's what it is.

And what is the elephant in the room?

Is it immigration levels or is it large swathes of people being entitled, lazy, and more than happy to profit off the shelter monopoly?

ask if people want immigration levels to go down they say yes

ask if they want their property price to go down 30% in value due to the bottom rung of demand being pulled away, see what happens.

It's also quite an assumption that 'decreasing quality of life and wages' is somehow linked to immigration

One could easily assert that without immigration half the people in this Country would be homeless due to their sheer laziness and lack of work ethic,

And then claim we need a sensible discussion on this elephant in the room.

@FlakyShaker Are you saying immigration is 'good' because it keeps the less advantaged (British or immigrant) homeless and in substandard housing?

Wrt mass immigration, it's up to everyone to have calm discussions on the issue without hate towards any groups, then decide if they want to reduce numbers. Or continue as they are but address the impact including with more housing provision. For all who need it. Decent and affordable housing.

ask if they want their property price to go down 30% in value due to the bottom rung of demand being pulled away, see what happens.

I'm sure lots of people would be fine with a drop if it meant they could afford to upsize when their family outgrows their starter home. And if older, they want their children and grandchildren to have decent affordable homes.

Ok so no substandard hovels might mean a smallish drop in house prices. Possibly, because lots of people even if they had decent social housing would still want to buy if and when they could afford to. It gives more choice over type of housing and provides equity later in life.

But even if there was a small drop, it would be made up for by a bigvdrop in tax burden and an improved economy. Housing, poverty, and health are interlinked. Insecure and substandard housing costs the NHS and welfare benefits bill a lot.

I don't know if you are trying to alienate the Scots, but people in Britain talking about what the English have done?

I am not sure what the point of this thread actually is now, but James Watt is universally accredited with inventing the steam engine. He was Scottish.

their sheer laziness and lack of work ethic,

Appropriate to this thread title, that's a very far right sentiment. And it's also untrue.

There's 916,000 job vacancies in the UK.
Yet more than 1 million people on jobseekers benefits. That's not including people unable to work or people looking for work but not claiming benefits.

So there's fewer jobs than people looking for one.

There are also lots of people working but on benefits. Doing the important but low paid jobs.
Because of the lack of social housing, lots end up homeless despite working. Others who end up in housing need are disabled, not 'lazy'. Nobody chooses to be too unwell to work. Especially not when it too often means substandard housing and poverty.

@Againname

Immigration is neither good nor bad. Immigration policy can help or hinder a Country.

Immigration policy in this Country doesn't appear to be discussed on economic facts. What evidence has been presented that the Country would be in a better state if Immigration was higher, lower, or non-existent.

It's all rhetoric at the end of the day. People can bang on about things being overcrowded but there seems to have been a significant lack of complaining from homeowners about their properties going up 10% yoy. Pin drop there.

And no people wouldn't be fine with property going down by 30%, you are way off base on this one. Interest rates are at a pretty normal healthy level and it's practically the norm to believe they should fall to lower levels so that people's ridiculously large mortgages become easier to pay off.

Yes, it's complete rhetoric.

When rhetoric is thrown around on here about immigrants not integrating with British culture, then we need a 'sensible discussion' on it.

When rhetoric is thrown about lazy entitled Brits who prefer immigrants to do the jobs they don't want to do, then it's not something we need a 'sensible discussion' about apparently.

Thanks for proving my point.

Good grief this thread is really something. Asking for any examples of the English being nice WTF!!

I'll give you my personal example shall I, my Irish grandmother was loved and cherished by her English husband having arrived in England pregnant and unmarried and about to be locked up in a Magdelen laundry. She had a happy and wonderful life and never set foot in Ireland again. In this instance yes, the "English" were very nice.

@FlakyShaker When rhetoric is thrown around on here about immigrants not integrating with British culture, then we need a 'sensible discussion' on it.

I'm not sure if you've read my posts but I've not thrown any rhetoric around about culture. I did mention it once in response to other people posting concerns about lack of integration. I suggested, if it is an issue, that support is provided to bring groups together and help with integration. However, I've not really been posting on that.

I've been saying the exact same as you... I think, as you've put sensible discussion in quotation marks so I'm not sure of you do think we need a discussion or if you're being sarcastic?

Regardless, we, ('we' as in everyone) do need a sensible discussion about mass immigration and the impact that especially impacts on the less advantaged.

Calm discussion without hate or hostility towards any groups, and then decide on the best way to address the impact. One option, yes, is reducing the numbers of immigrants. However there's other options too. For example, could have a more even distribution across the country (and within regions).

Or, and this is something needed regardless of immigration, massive social housing build, sufficient provision of well-funded public services, and job opportunities with wage protection. Everywhere in the country.

What's definitely not ok is to say 'but house prices' and condemn the least advantaged to substandard and insecure housing. Well, I guess it is ok if someone is very far right but I think those people tend to be a minority.

@Againname

Where has this 'sensible discussion' idea come from? What would that achieve? Do people sit around discussing the shape of clouds to predict weather patterns?

We need a predictive data driven model based on different immigration levels and points systems, showing the outcome to quality of life metrics across the spectrum.

When rhetoric is thrown about lazy entitled Brits who prefer immigrants to do the jobs they don't want to do, then it's not something we need a 'sensible discussion' about apparently.

Actually no. It's very important, to have calm discussion about all the issues. Especially as they're interlinked.

But also, ignoring people's concerns and/or assumptions is the worst thing to do. There's a need to listen, and then either acknowledge their concern if it's legitimate and offer solutions. Or if their concern is coming from lack of understanding or misunderstanding, then explain why their assumption is incorrect.

Ignoring people doesn't make their concerns, legitimate or not, go away. Ignoring people actually increases hostility and hate.

I've posted above wrt the impact of mass immigration especially on the less advantaged, and suggested several different ways to address the impact (reducing numbers is just one option of several).

I've also addressed in a separate post above the other rhetoric (about British people) that you posted.

@Againname

What's definitely not ok is to say 'but house prices' and condemn the least advantaged to substandard and insecure housing. Well, I guess it is ok if someone is very far right but I think those people tend to be a minority.

It's not a minority, it's been the vast majority of people's attitude over the last two decades that the cost of shelter going up yoy is a good thing.

I've posted above wrt the impact of mass immigration especially on the less advantaged, and suggested several different ways to address the impact (reducing numbers is just one option of several).

Why?

This is for a Government to consult with economists and scientists to develop a robust model to drive policy. What's someone posting on a forum their opinion on a massively complex intertwined outcomes like the impacts of varying immigration numbers got to do with any of it?

What else do you want to give us solutions for while you're about it? Nuclear fission?

On MN (and also in RL) there's loads of people concerned about unaffordable housing. And not just those directly affected. Parents and grandparents worried about their kids.

Related, there's also lots of threads about displaced regional 'blow-ins'. Some are wealthy, but many others have been priced out of their areas. So they become 'blow-ins'...and then people in the areas they blow in to post concerned about their house prices going up. Then they become blow-ins themselves and rinse and repeat...

I can't be sure but I suspect if people were asked something like this below, most would choose option (A).

A) House prices might slight drop. But you can then afford to upsize from your starter home your family has outgrown, your kids and grandkids can get decent affordable housing, and your town centre won't have homeless problems.

And your house price won't fall by much because even with more social housing, lots of people still want to buy when they can because it's more choice of type of housing and equity in later life.

And your tax burden will reduce and the economy will improve after a short period, because with more social housing the welfare benefits and NHS bill will reduce.

Or B) The shitty status quo (social and economic situation, not the music band).

@Againname

On MN (and also in RL) there's loads of people concerned unaffordable housing. And not just those directly affected. Parents and grandparents worried about their kids.

That's a recent development, where the greed and property obsessiveness of the last 2 decades now can't be unpicked without a large set of people seriously suffering.

Either it's the people overburdened with high mortgages suffering or it's the young who can't afford a house. You can't have both. People who have MEWed to buy range rovers aren't going to be happy with negative equity let alone people who have bought at the recent highs and have 4-5x their income in mortgage debt while their living costs have massively increased.

It's one thing to be concerned about it, it's quite another when the solution to it lowers your own quality of life. If people were actively encouraging this Governments wouldn't be actively shying away from pointing out that housing is too expensive and needs to come down in value. They've all referenced things like interest rates and help to buy schemes. Labour is planning to extend the scheme offering FTB's 5% deposit mortgages, which is another prop for housing market.

So no, the majority of people don't want housing to fall to affordable levels based on the way the election campaigns are going.

MN is a discussion forum? Yes also advice on parenting and anything else someone wants advice on (although that advice often involves affordable housing for the poster or their adult DC), but discussion too.

Governments serve the population and in a democracy take note of and address individuals lived experiences and their concerns. Especially the less advantaged (who don't tend to be economists or scientists, and anyway so far your suggested approach has failed. Failed individuals, failed the economy, and failed society).

Anyway although I've only skimmed this thread (I often do other things at the same time as being on MN) so might've missed something, I think the discussion on this thread has been mostly calm and reasonable.

Either it's the people overburdened with high mortgages suffering or it's the young who can't afford a house. You can't have both.

It's not only young people. There's 2 million private renters over 50. And 4.6 million over 50s still to pay off their mortgage.

And you can have both. More social housing won't dramatically reduce house prices. Loads of people will still want to buy. Even if they start off in social housing. Buying gives more choice over type of housing, area, and it provides equity in later life.

People who have MEWed to buy range rovers aren't going to be happy with negative equity let alone people who have bought at the recent highs and have 4-5x their income in mortgage debt while their living costs have massively increased.

Their living costs would reduce if there was more social housing. Unaffordable housing is a major factor in the high benefits and NHS bill.

Also the majority of people have DC and DGC or other relatives they care about, and want them to have decent affordable housing.

But anyway like I said, more social housing won't cause dramatic house price reductions. Small ones maybe but nothing significant. Because lots of people will still prefer to buy, even if they initially have social housing whilst saving up.

I agree with you that Labour's new Help to Buy scheme is as awful as the Conservative one. Last thing most people want is more inflated house prices, and from I understand, polls suggest the majority share my view.

It's also very expensive. Why not spend that money instead on reducing the NHS and benefits bill by building more social housing?

Lalog · Yesterday 13:09
**
Good old British culture, with its German royal family, Jewish fish and chips, Indian curry, German classical music, American popular music ...”

This, going back to the Romans and before. And it’s all the better for it.
Is Farage a French Huguenot name?

Yeah - never had any British pop music here have we?

A mass house building programme would probably lead to static or slowly rising prices where wages grew faster than house prices. Even with a massive national effort, we wouldn't be able to build houses quickly enough to swamp the market so that supply outstripped demand - especially if immigration continues at current levels.

@Againname

And you can have both. More social housing won't dramatically reduce house prices. Loads of people will still want to buy. Even if they start off in social housing. Buying gives more choice over type of housing, area, and it provides equity in later life.

And your evidence for this economic revelation is where exactly? If I want to read an opinion on this there's plenty of well argued papers correlating social housing to lower GDP and short term negative reduction in house prices. Every paper concedes that it's a complex problem in which predicting the optimal number of social houses is very difficult.

Again, back to the nuclear fission point I made earlier. This is what Governments should be discussing with people who have dedicated their lives to the subject and make their decisions transparent. People on internet forums just throw meaningless opinions around, much like politicians throw meaningless rhetoric around. I don't go to a baker for an opinion on my plumbing so why should I go to a random internet person for an opinion on immigration and economic policies?

@Againname

MN is a discussion forum?

Yes it is, hence why I'm discussing how pointless it is when people start trotting out their silver bullet ideas for immigration and economic policies both on internet forums and amongst politicians.

This is the only 'sensible discussion' there can had about the subject. Politicians need to refer to well studied predictive data driven models to make decisions rather than continually relying on rhetoric such as 'build more houses', 'lower immigration' with no well defined reasoning or ability to keep their promises on the matter.

See for example how people actually studying these issues present their findings compared to what you've said above.

"The negative long-run relationship between GDP and social housing might be understood through the channel of public spending. According to the Solow model, if government spending is higher, it will leave less saving and investment, which will create a lower level of income in the steady state. This finding also agrees with Englund and Ioannides (1997), who found that an increase in GDP leads to a rise in house prices, but also a negative correlation between social housing and GDP. This result is contradictory to the positive impact in the literature; however, most studies are not directly comparable, given the lack of relevant data and the difficulty of disaggregating other factors in measuring the effects of housing on health and education"

AKA Complex intertwined problem that nobody fully understands but attempts to through falsification of various models.