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!

I don’t think it is necessary to have such sophisticated policies. If you are hard right, you will do just fine without them. That is because having policies that say for example “these Muslims who are accountants are good” might be nicer, but it’s not necessarily needed. When you look at hard right parties elsewhere they don’t bother with that. Their vote wants something far simpler. Whether it is bigotry is moot; the message needs to very simple.

The hard right parties don't - because they're capitalising on voters' reaction to current deficiencies in policies, and the effect that has on their day-to-day lives.

The way for centrist parties to fight against those is to acknowledge the issues and propose policies which address them.

A lot of it is because people are very quick to shoot down those deemed to have a view that is not left and liberal.

Ukranian refugees were largely accepted because they were mainly women and children who generally wanted to go home and would/will go home when it is safe. The men joined the army to defend it.

Afghan refugees are largely men who are fleeing their country not staying to fight to improve it. The men are coming over and either (1) sending money home despite claiming asylum and/or (2) planning to bring family with no intention of returning. The ones that stay are often very vocal about western way off life. Not all, but enough.

Neither of those positions is even remotely comparable to the Ukrainian.

Polish immigration had the problem of being too fast, too quickly and overwhelmed some areas of the country.

If you call people racist, sexist, anything its and shut down their voices, you don't change opinions - they just stop volunteering them and then the left wonder how Brexit happened.

In my case I'm a Tory, my close friends and family know but none of my neighbours or colleagues. Not because I'm ashamed to be a Tory but I'm sick of the personal insults I get as a result. So I just don't disclose anymore. The Tories are not going to win the next election (even I don't like the current bunch but I'd rather them than labour) however I suspect there will be some surprise on July 5th at just how well the Tories polled.

edited to change whilst to despite in reference to asylum as it read like I was saying they were being given money whilst claiming asylum where as I was trying to say, despite coming here claiming hardship/asylum, when they can, they send money home.

The uncomfortable truth is that education level is no indication of radicalisation.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1910631/

I think it's terrifying to see how their vote goes. I think Macron is out of his mind. These parties tend to hide behind a liberal smokescreen. Le Pen for example, believe in abortion and don't believe in privatisation of public services.

By the time you have a hard right with a simple message on “common sense” my view is that kind of nuance is totally lost. Centre right parties are being out competed because voters are not listening to that - the Tories have effectively lied about immigration policy for the last five years. It will be interesting to see if their vote holds up more than the polls indicate, but they have created ideal conditions to be tuned out by voters who are not stupid. If you voted on immigration being s concern at the last election then this “immigration that benefits the U.K. only” policy was there last time. People feel that was not delivered.

They will vote for something far simpler now. Zero migration as proposed by Reform. Is that absurd, yes. Is it popular, yes. I don’t know if you saw the debate in Grimsby. I don’t think the Conservatives really understand the anger there is in places like that about immigration and the sense they have been lied to. They are in no mood to listen now.

I too think Macron is insane; but if there is far right in power in France then I do not think nuance will be much in favour elsewhere in Europe. That includes us.

Fascism has never really gone away in Europe. Spain was fascist during my lifetime (70s), and there were various pockets particularly across eastern Europe that were massively boosted by the Yugoslav war. It steps up in times of political uncertainty and thrives in poverty.

And there is now and has been for a long time a great degree of uncertainty re unwillingness to address how to manage Europe's decline. As the European population becomes older (the average citizen is now in their 40s), younger populations with unprecedented levels of tertiary educated people in China, Brazil, India will overtake us economically and then eventually politically. (We've managed to delay Russia doing the same by throwing our war resources behind Ukraine.)

This isn't something that any politician can prevent and it's not possible to address it with the kind of short term (5 years) strategy that they run election campaigns on, but the information gap is where fascism sneaks in. People can feel themselves getting poorer, they know that sums don't add up, they know that spending 14 years printing money isn't the answer and so there's a mismatch between this and what political parties present as being the decisive issues.

People have questions that aren't being answered. Fascism, with its neat, pat and loathsome narrative of violent exclusion, holds at its nasty centre a promise of inclusion, belonging and answers to those who qualify as worthy, and the youth of an economically declining continent who will never get the slice of pie their parents and grandparents had are prime targets.

Some wild claims here. Asylum seekers get £48.18 a week. Highly doubtful they can send any of that home, given the cost of living in the UK and why is it a crime if they do? Afghans are fleeing violence and persecution. There is no resistance to the Taliban, there's no credible army to join.

90 per cent of refugees from Ukraine were women and children because men aged 18-60 were banned from leaving the country. They didn't stay to fight.

I didn't see the Grimsby debate, but if immigration came up high on the list of Grimsby residents priorities then that's an indication of how well the lies and misinformation are being sold.

Even the Telegraph acknowledges that the issues in Grimsby are:

• Emigration of young people out of the area
• Poor educational attainment
• Overabundance of low-skilled low-paid employment with few prospects

These are hard problems to fix. And the solution won't come from raising income tax thresholds, cracking down on benefits, and cutting government spending.

The issues Grimsby faces appear very similar to those driving the AfD support in the former East Germany. If there's a demographic shift showing educated young women moving out of the area the parallels will be complete.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/06/16/uk-shrinking-towns-despite-record-immigration/

And that is why I edited the message because I knew it read like that but is not what I was saying.

@DogInATent Grimsby is a strong warning. What was not broadcast was the reception that Rishi Sunak received. This was not some pantomime booing. It sounded angry. He looked worried.

They had to soundproof the broadcast room further to stop the sound of angry people feom
being recorded. It is ominous. These people are tuning away from a mainstream that doesn’t comprehend them. And that is dangerous.

He's playing a longer game. The Presidential elections come up in two years. Calling the snap parliamentary election now has three outcomes:

• the electorate pause for thought, and don't vote for Le Pen's party and things are back to where they were.
• Le Pen's party gets a majority and over the next 2 years is shown to be ineffectual when in power and their policies in opposition are shown to be a sham.
• Le Pen's party gets a majority and does well in power.

The last is considered to be the least likely, but the only one that's a real threat to Macron in two years time. There is a risk in this strategy, but by putting some time between the parliamentary and presidential elections he's allowing Le Pen's bluff to be shown. If he had done nothing it potentially allows the right wing sentiments to fester and grow.

He's probably looking across at the US elections coming up and wanting his elections out of the way in case Trump gets elected and the right gains a broader ascendency. To his east he has the least effectual German government in many years facing their own right wing crisis.

@DogInATent exactly. Many people in Grimsby have poorer education and weaker earning power than the average migrant. Those are the things that need to be addressed if you want to stop them voting Reform.

The average migrant that they've never met, but are told by Reform, etc. are taking up all the benefits.

Fixing poor educational attainment is a generational problem, but I don't see the genuine interest in investing in education or youth services or industrial training coming from these voters. The whole "for the children" rhetoric only seems to go as far as the right to wave flags based on the sacrifices of previous generations. Grimsby's problems could be fixed, but starting now it would take 25 years and a lot of investment to get there. But politics is a 4 year cycle, and with the average life expectancy in the UK stalled or in decline that's not a perspective that the over-fifty electorate are thinking about.

I have no children, and I honestly think I have a longer political perspective than those I know who do. When the majority are focused on next week, two decades seems an impossibly long timescale for anything.

But you can't, can you? Not for the people voting this year.

Realistically you can't do much improve the earning prospects of most of the population over 25. You can't do realistically do much to improve the educational attainment of anyone over 16. Once they get to a certain point in the system there's no lever long enough to change trajectory.

It's why removing youth services and Sure Start funding has been so damaging. Those investments take decades to produce their full benefit, and cutting the funding was to create an asteroid barreling down on whoever is in power a decade after the funding cuts.

There's also the scenario of 'cohabitation' where Macron suffers a significant loss of influence over domestic affairs.

It's why removing youth services and Sure Start funding has been so damaging. Those investments take decades to produce their full benefit, and cutting the funding was to create an asteroid barreling down on whoever is in power a decade after the funding cuts.

Absolutely this. Sure Start made tangible improvements on people's adult lives and Cameron started to take it away from them to the country's detriment.

@DogInATent agree that it needs to be a long term strategy. Sure Start worked for the tracked cohort that are now in employment - even with the shock effects of Brexit and covid they are doing better than they would have done without it. Similar investment in babies being born now in Grimsby could see more of them able to get more of the tech and renewables jobs in the area.

NC for this

This is a really interesting conversation. It's probably one of the calmer conversations I've seen on here which is nice.

However, as the daughter of an immigrant I do feel absolutely furious that we've ended up here for one very simple reason....No one is ever allowed to have a rational conversation about immigration and integration on MSM.

raising legitimate concerns has not been permitted in all forms of media for at least 20 years, that I recall.

This is the result.

And while I have voted both Labour and Conservative at points, I very much blame the left for this problem of not being able to speak up. And I blame the left for the insane vehicle that anti-racism has become.

I refuse to discuss politics in real life except with my partner. It's going to be a very unpleasant few weeks.

I have engaged in conversations here in the past and someone found a very clever way of calling me a coconut or an old uncle Tom or something. I can't remember. After that I thought "life is stressful enough without talking about politics on MN."

OP I mean this kindly, but you do sound like the sort of left-wing person who is looking around in horror saying "How did this happen" when it's so screamingly bloody obvious how it happened!

I didn't see what happened to the prime minister at Grimsby. I don't seem to be able to find any clips either.

It will be back to the bad old days of feeling the BNP presence round here I reckon, while lefties wring their hands, ask what happened, and probably try to impose more limits on speech.

Extreme parties can only get traction when moderate parties are not doing their job correctly.

See to my mind we have plenty of conversations about immigration. All the parties have the same start position - that we need immigration controls. They just vary a little in terms of the admin and numbers. This is in massive contrast to the 50s and early 60s say - immigration has been a huge political issue and much talked about, with acres and acres of legislation about it, from the mid 1960s onwards, in the UK. That was the point at which immigration was designated by mainstream politics as a "problem" and that's continued ever since.

We do have immigration control.

Yes, I know, and they all agree that we need it.

That was the point at which immigration was designated by mainstream politics as a "problem" and that's continued ever since.

Look at the historic opinion polls. Immigration didn't make the lists of top priorities until it was created as a problem early this Millennium and in the run-up to Brexit. Yes, there was anti-migrant sentiment before then, but it was generally out-right racism, "No Blacks, No Irish, No Dogs".

The perfect storm for the late-90s/early-00s anti-immigration sentiment was built over decades. First with the closing of heavy industry and the closing of the pits/furnaces under Thatcher, then Blair encouraging inward investment of clean industry dropping high tech and distribution into the former heavy industry areas. High tech and warehousing jobs weren't seen to offer much to communities still over-invested in their heavy-industry identities.

A short-sighted focus on growth without considering the organic implications saw unfettered FOM when other countries (such as Germany) took a more cautious approach. Coupled with the usual levels of social responsibility associated with UK entrepreneurship this saw the high tech and warehouse jobs going to large numbers of Europeans with the qualifications and willingness to do exactly what the Conservatives wanted the UK workforce to do and "get on their bike" to follow the work.