PDA

View Full Version : BNP on Question Time



Pages : [1] 2

baboon2004
19-10-2009, 11:43 AM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/18/nick-griffin-question-time-bbc?commentpage=4

Not a bad article - makes v cogent points about the inability/unwillingness of mainstream broadcasters to challenge the BNP. Thursday looks very worrying, really, esp when you read the comments section.

bassnation
19-10-2009, 12:03 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/18/nick-griffin-question-time-bbc?commentpage=4

Not a bad article - makes v cogent points about the inability/unwillingness of mainstream broadcasters to challenge the BNP. Thursday looks very worrying, really, esp when you read the comments section.

two things about the comments section. the first is that the BNP regularly orchestrates saturation of comments and forum pages whenever an article is released online that mentions them. this is organised from their website. they are a small but very vocal minority who want to make it seem that theirs is the prevailing view of the general public.

secondly, the guardians comment pages (CiF) have been a breeding ground for "liberal racists" for some time now.

that aside, i truly believe this country is more right wing that i remember it being, in living memory. i think there is a lot of radicalisation and polarisation going on (predicted by john gray, along with the collapse of the capital system: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/politics/philosopher-john-gray-were-not-facing-our-problems-weve-got-prozac-politics-1666033.html)

what is particularly worrying is the emergence of far right militia, the engish defence league. i can easily see a return to the dischord of the seventies. all those people arguing for allowing the BNP a platform for "democracy" i regard as useful idiots. griffin doesn't need to defend or make nuanced arguments. QT is not forensic and never has been, it is about rabble rousing. all he has to do is repeat the same easy soundbites, and he will have made his mark with a new section of the electorate.

its also well known that every time they make a step forward, racist attacks go up. if they ever gain power (and i don't think this is as unlikely as some - cf. le pen and that very close run thing) people like me in interracial relationships, along with my loved ones will be sent to the gas chamber. i couldn't give a fuck about freedom of speech when so much is at stake.

bassnation
19-10-2009, 12:07 PM
and i absolutely lay the blame for all this at the door of the establishment who have presided over economic liberalism that has only benefitted the rich, lining their own pockets at our expense, thus engendering new degrees of cynicism. they handed over control to corporations and threw away true represenation. we will now reap the whirwind as a result - and they should NOT be forgiven for this.

baboon2004
19-10-2009, 12:21 PM
what is particularly worrying is the emergence of far right militia, the engish defence league. i can easily see a return to the dischord of the seventies. all those people arguing for allowing the BNP a platform for "democracy" i regard as useful idiots. griffin doesn't need to defend or make nuanced arguments. QT is not forensic and never has been, it is about rabble rousing. all he has to do is repeat the same easy soundbites, and he will have made his mark with a new section of the electorate.
.

exactly. but also, all the people who portray him as some kind of idiot are a problem too. He's clearly not a moron, and that's what makes him dangerous. Why do liberals assume that fascism and intelligence (taken in a common sense, rather than true intelligence, naturally) are antithetical? it's a very dangerous line to take, treating fascists like harmless fools. He's presenting himself as some kind of moderate in certain interviews, which unfortunately is a conjuring trick he's better at than many people would care to admit.

baboon2004
19-10-2009, 12:40 PM
and i absolutely lay the blame for all this at the door of the establishment who have presided over economic liberalism that has only benefitted the rich, lining their own pockets at our expense, thus engendering new degrees of cynicism. they handed over control to corporations and threw away true represenation. we will now reap the whirwind as a result - and they should NOT be forgiven for this.

Yep. Unfortunately it's the logical end point of a capitalist system that privileges money over human beings, and subscribes to the religion of endlessly increasing profits and 'progress'.

bassnation
19-10-2009, 12:40 PM
exactly. but also, all the people who portray him as some kind of idiot are a problem too. He's clearly not a moron, and that's what makes him dangerous. Why do liberals assume that fascism and intelligence (taken in a common sense, rather than true intelligence, naturally) are antithetical? it's a very dangerous line to take, treating fascists like harmless fools. He's presenting himself as some kind of moderate in certain interviews, which unfortunately is a conjuring trick he's better at than many people would care to admit.

yeah, and doing that also plays into the BNPs hands. their lifeblood is white working class resentment, and patronising those people is just going to make things worse.

however, i deeply disagree with the Labour parties strategy for dealing with the BNP in the media, to whit:


"Don't call racist Nick a racist or a fascist." Whatever he has said or done to turn the stomach, and there is a fair amount of that, whatever his views on those who are not Aryan, you can't call him a racist or a fascist, the MPs said, because the chances are that it will backfire.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/16/hugh-muir-diary-jack-straw

this is an extremely high risk strategy and it begs the question, at what point will you confront these cunts? people keep saying oh give them media coverage as their ideas will be exposed, but when we have our elected representatives not even willing to call a spade a spade (ahem) how can this ever be possible? are they going to be marching into number ten before someone other than UAF confront them directly?

john eden
19-10-2009, 12:45 PM
Griffin will do well out of question time.

Some of the stuff in the media is absolute drivel, trying to tie the BNP in with nazi skinheads etc (for example the photo at the top of the Guardian piece which clearly shows people who are members of a different organisation entirely).

Q: "So Nick Griffin, you are a nazi! Ha! Ha! We're onto you sunshine!"

A: "No I'm not, what the BNP is really about is xxxxxxxxxxxx"

Q: "But you are a racist organisation you don't even let black people join!"

A: "Well firstly, we are reviewing that, and secondly (stuff about black police association). Follow on with the corrupt nature of the establishment, expenses, people are sick to death of it all and looking for an alternative...."

alex
19-10-2009, 12:47 PM
I am disgusted that the BNP have even been invited onto question time.

I dont have affluent enough knowledge when it comes to politics to debate this in depth however


and i absolutely lay the blame for all this at the door of the establishment who have presided over economic liberalism that has only benefitted the rich, lining their own pockets at our expense, thus engendering new degrees of cynicism. they handed over control to corporations and threw away true represenation. we will now reap the whirwind as a result - and they should NOT be forgiven for this.

I agree with this totally. And it also saddens me greatly and to some extent makes me so ashamed of where I come from, (Ilford, however I have strong ties with friends in Barking and also my Girlfriend and other friends live in Dagenham) I feel that sometimes people tarnish me with the same brush as these ignorants. I cannot stress to others how much the BNP anger's me and I worry so much what would happen if the MP for us were to change to a member of the BNP instead of Labour.

Worrying times.

john eden
19-10-2009, 12:50 PM
its also well known that every time they make a step forward, racist attacks go up. if they ever gain power (and i don't think this is as unlikely as some - cf. le pen and that very close run thing) people like me in interracial relationships, along with my loved ones will be sent to the gas chamber. i couldn't give a fuck about freedom of speech when so much is at stake.

There is no way the BNP are going to get into power - if they get close then their agenda will be taken on board by the mainstream parties - cf Thatchter and the NF in 79.

That is the main worry - how the mainstream political discourse is framed. There won't be any gas chambers.

mms
19-10-2009, 01:01 PM
why has bonnie greer been used to represent immigrant briton though?

john eden
19-10-2009, 01:07 PM
why has bonnie greer been used to represent immigrant briton though?

presumably because she's a staple of newsnight. And I think has been on QT before. She's not actually representing anyone really, though.

It would be much better if they put Riko Dan and Paul Gilroy on.

vimothy
19-10-2009, 01:25 PM
Yep. Unfortunately it's the logical end point of a capitalist system that privileges money over human beings, and subscribes to the religion of endlessly increasing profits and 'progress'.

:rolleyes:

gabriel
19-10-2009, 01:29 PM
It would be much better if they put Riko Dan and Paul Gilroy on.

^^^^^WOW yes it would

bassnation
19-10-2009, 01:34 PM
There is no way the BNP are going to get into power - if they get close then their agenda will be taken on board by the mainstream parties - cf Thatchter and the NF in 79.

That is the main worry - how the mainstream political discourse is framed. There won't be any gas chambers.

but their agenda is already similar to the mainstream in many ways on immigration. in fact labours agenda on this has been set by the bnp, the mail and other assorted undesirables.

i'm not convinced it could never happen again. if gray is right then this century will be characterised by increasing internecine disputes and warfare over increasingly scarce resources. who knows what could happen? from what i see and hear, i've become more and more concerned over this lurch to the far right.

and if far right policies are implemented by main parties, whats the difference in terms of being subject to those policies, whether its labour or the bnp doing it?

scottdisco
19-10-2009, 01:40 PM
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/18/nick-griffin-question-time-bbc?commentpage=4

Not a bad article - makes v cogent points about the inability/unwillingness of mainstream broadcasters to challenge the BNP. Thursday looks very worrying, really, esp when you read the comments section.

very good stuff i think Baboon, cheers. re 'tactics' on Thursday's show (i am in total agreement w all who criticise the lightweight, pub thug nature of QT's actual content most of the time) i think his paragraphs where he rightly shines a light on shady aspects of the recent histories of Warsi and Straw carry serious weight.

Paul Gilroy, Riko, Darcus Howe, and, say, Lionel Blue would be great to get on there, but in context, Gove and Cruddas would be far better than Warsi and Straw.

as we all know, Bassnation is quite correct re Labour's dog-whistles being influenced by the trash that the Mail and Express bleat about re immigrants.

Greer's alright, her and Hunhe might actually get the best shots in, my gut tells me.
there again, Straw is a tough bastard, so if he can defend himself from Griffin pulling out his stupid quotes about burkas in his surgery etc, he might land a few decent punches.
Warsi i have little time for.

crackerjack
19-10-2009, 01:42 PM
but their agenda is already similar to the mainstream in many ways on immigration. in fact labours agenda on this has been set by the bnp, the mail and other assorted undesirables.

what you mean is labour's immigration agenda has been slightly more cautious because they're concerned it's unpopular. the fact is, their period in power has witnessed record levels of immigration. whereas a bnp govt would presumably witness none, except perhaps a few old colonials escapting zimbabawe and s africa.

how you regard these two as similar is beyond me...

baboon2004
19-10-2009, 01:42 PM
this is an extremely high risk strategy and it begs the question, at what point will you confront these cunts? people keep saying oh give them media coverage as their ideas will be exposed, but when we have our elected representatives not even willing to call a spade a spade (ahem) how can this ever be possible? are they going to be marching into number ten before someone other than UAF confront them directly?

The idea that their ideas will somehow be 'exposed' in front of a hypothetical deeply liberal british public is itslef problematic.

baboon2004
19-10-2009, 01:45 PM
:rolleyes:

oh for fuck's sakes, this is the cheapest 'argument' strategy.So capitalism (esp of the sort that has been so exposed over the past year as highly hypocritical, and which comes crying to the state when it can't support itself) doesn't prioritise profit over humans then? Which world are you living in, can I ask, and what profession do you work in?

john eden
19-10-2009, 01:46 PM
and if far right policies are implemented by main parties, whats the difference in terms of being subject to those policies, whether its labour or the bnp doing it?

The difference is that people get distracted by the BNP instead of taking to task those in power.

For example the campaigns by Unite Against Fascism which are designed to get the vote out so that the BNP don't get in. I.e. - vote for the established parties to "keep the nazis out"...

bassnation
19-10-2009, 01:48 PM
what you mean is labour's immigration agenda has been slightly more cautious because they're concerned it's unpopular. the fact is, their period in power has witnessed record levels of immigration. whereas a bnp govt would presumably witness none, except perhaps a few old colonials escapting zimbabawe and s africa.

how you regard these two as similar is beyond me...

there is no doubt about it - their policies have been driven by the mail, who's editorial line is sometimes indistinguishable from views held by the BNP.
http://enemiesofreason.blogspot.com/2009/10/mail-dont-t-like-bnp-oh-no.html

in addition, we are locking up children just because their parents are immigrants, denying them benefits and many are homeless. the rhetoric about immigrants has at times been deeply offensive and has contributed to the general poisonous atmosphere.

so what if they are getting there by degrees, instead of jumping to the end game? this is all well documented in the uk press and is widely recognised by just about everyone other than the BNP and the daily heil.

baboon2004
19-10-2009, 01:49 PM
very good stuff i think Baboon, cheers. re 'tactics' on Thursday's show (i am in total agreement w all who criticise the lightweight, pub thug nature of QT's actual content most of the time) i think his paragraphs where he rightly shines a light on shady aspects of the recent histories of Warsi and Straw carry serious weight.

Paul Gilroy, Riko, Darcus Howe, and, say, Lionel Blue would be great to get on there, but in context, Gove and Cruddas would be far better than Warsi and Straw.



Fucking hell, I don't want "tolerance" to be represented by Jack Straw. Yes, Cruddas would be a good addition to the panel.

bassnation
19-10-2009, 01:52 PM
The difference is that people get distracted by the BNP instead of taking to task those in power.

For example the campaigns by Unite Against Fascism which are designed to get the vote out so that the BNP don't get in. I.e. - vote for the established parties to "keep the nazis out"...

ok, so everyone knows our "democracy" is broken. i'm with you on that, but thats a much wider strategic issue - in the meantime they are making almost weekly publicity gains. there has to be something tactically that can be done.

i've been very careful here not to single the bnp out, you might note. they all bear the blame, but its them that are doing the running and pretty much awakening all of the latent racism that is present in the uk. feels like we are slipping back to the 70's.

vimothy
19-10-2009, 01:57 PM
oh for fuck's sakes, this is the cheapest 'argument' strategy.So capitalism (esp of the sort that has been so exposed over the past year as highly hypocritical, and which comes crying to the state when it can't support itself) doesn't prioritise profit over humans then? Which world are you living in, can I ask, and what profession do you work in?

Who said anything about argument? Bassnation said that the rise of the BNP is the fault of economic liberalism and you said that it's the logical end point of capitalism or something. There's no argument there. An argument would take the form of something like, there were no racist political parties until Thatcher took power, so we can blame the BNP on her. There were no racist nationalists in British politics until Blair sold us donwn the river for neoliberalism. Or something. I dunno, just seems a bit specious, if you ask me, although in fairness you didn't, and anyway, what profession do I work in, eh?!?!?!?

bassnation
19-10-2009, 02:02 PM
Who said anything about argument? Bassnation said that the rise of the BNP is the fault of economic liberalism and you said that it's the logical end point of capitalism or something. There's no argument there. An argument would take the form of something like, there were no racist political parties until Thatcher took power, so we can blame the BNP on her. There were no racist nationalists in British politics until Blair sold us donwn the river for neoliberalism. Or something. I dunno, just seems a bit specious, if you ask me, although in fairness you didn't, and anyway, what profession do I work in, eh?!?!?!?

yes, i think theres definitely a case for the resurgence of the right being in part caused by swathes of working class britain being declared economically unviable. a culture of hopelessness and then one party offering easy solutions that revolve around blame of the other - thats been proven time and time again to be a toxic mix which allows fascism to flourish. to be fair, it lends itself to political extremes both right and left - but that doesn't seem to be happening here, there is no resurgence of the left to speak of.

however, i didn't say that this was the cause of nationalism, as obviously that would be untrue. nationalism is as old as the hills.

i'm not really interested in providing a launch pad for a boring 30 page thread where you argue the case for economic liberalism. i'd rather pull my own teeth out sans anaethestic.

john eden
19-10-2009, 02:04 PM
ok, so everyone knows our "democracy" is broken. i'm with you on that, but thats a much wider strategic issue - in the meantime they are making almost weekly publicity gains. there has to be something tactically that can be done.

i've been very careful here not to single the bnp out, you might note. they all bear the blame, but its them that are doing the running and pretty much awakening all of the latent racism that is present in the uk. feels like we are slipping back to the 70's.

The best way to counter the BNP is to challenge their actual stated policies and their record whilst in power at a local level. Oh and provide a political alternative to them.

People need to challenge the increasing racialisation of politics and reject representation from ethnic "community leaders". Dividing people up into racial or religious groups has to stop - ffs there is apparently funding being made available for white working class communities now. And faith schools should be banned also.

And I dunno, all the usual stuff about providing a pro-working class alternative so that communities can get militant about the issues which face them.

baboon2004
19-10-2009, 02:05 PM
Who said anything about argument? Bassnation said that the rise of the BNP is the fault of economic liberalism and you said that it's the logical end point of capitalism or something. There's no argument there. An argument would take the form of something like, there were no racist political parties until Thatcher took power, so we can blame the BNP on her. There were no racist nationalists in British politics until Blair sold us donwn the river for neoliberalism. Or something. I dunno, just seems a bit specious, if you ask me, although in fairness you didn't, and anyway, what profession do I work in, eh?!?!?!?

OK, fair enough, but rolling one's eyes is bound to incite! I've just spent the morning being distracted from work by arguing with BNP twats on the net, so my incitement levels are low, as well :slanted:

From Bassnation: "they handed over control to corporations and threw away true representation". I was just saying that such handing over is kind of logical in a society where the profit motive has become the primary one.So economic liberalism didn't come from nowhere (not that I was saying that Bassnation was saying this, as I was agreeing with him), in my view, it's a logical endpoint of such a system. Then as Bassnation says, cynicism follows and the door opens for those pandering to those who need someone to 'blame', such as the BNP

vimothy
19-10-2009, 02:11 PM
Hmm, but from what I remember of the '70s and early '80s, there was more racial tension, not less, and this is despite there being less ethnic minorities and less neoliberalism. Perhaps I am rose-tinting the present though. I've got images of NF skinheads and the Brixton Riots running through my mind, and all I can think of to compare it to is a few morons from the EDL.

Do you have links to any data?

john eden
19-10-2009, 02:15 PM
Hmm, but from what I remember of the '70s and early '80s, there was more racial tension, not less, and this is despite there being less ethnic minorities and less neoliberalism. Perhaps I am rose-tinting the present though. I've got images of NF skinheads and the Brixton Riots running through my mind, and all I can think of to compare it to is a few morons from the EDL.

Do you have links to any data?

The recession is only getting going. You need to add mass unemployment to the equation for it all to really start kicking off.

But yes it is different times, really.

bassnation
19-10-2009, 02:17 PM
Hmm, but from what I remember of the '70s and early '80s, there was more racial tension, not less, and this is despite there being less ethnic minorities and less neoliberalism. Perhaps I am rose-tinting the present though. I've got images of NF skinheads and the Brixton Riots running through my mind, and all I can think of to compare it to is a few morons from the EDL.

Do you have links to any data?

the seventies was a turbulent time, but i don't remember it very clearly as i was quite young (apart from being beaten up by a skinhead in cardiff which left a mark). so when i say living memory i am talking of my own experiences.
and anecdotally, when i left wales in the late eighties i didn't really encounter that many people making racist comments there. the idea of a welsh defence league marching on mosques is a real sea change compared to how it used to be.

but the biggest thing for me is reading newspapers, forums, blogs, people on the street or in the pub. i feel in a minority for holding these views sometimes. the other day i got asked if i was racist towards whites because i go out with a black woman.

fwiw it just feels like there has been a gradual change starting with the tories under hague becoming shrill on the topic and gradually getting worse til we now have the first elected BNP MEPs and councillors. if you want data then there you go - number of far right MEPs in the seventies? zero.

baboon2004
19-10-2009, 02:19 PM
Hmm, but from what I remember of the '70s and early '80s, there was more racial tension, not less, and this is despite there being less ethnic minorities and less neoliberalism. Perhaps I am rose-tinting the present though. I've got images of NF skinheads and the Brixton Riots running through my mind, and all I can think of to compare it to is a few morons from the EDL.

Do you have links to any data?

No data at the moment...

There can definitely be different ways in which the conditions for a grassroots dissatisfaction with economic issues, and subsequent rise in racial tension come about. the late 70s were economically shaky for different reasons, I suppose, and yeah, less neo-liberalism.

bassnation
19-10-2009, 02:22 PM
Hmm, but from what I remember of the '70s and early '80s, there was more racial tension, not less, and this is despite there being less ethnic minorities and less neoliberalism. Perhaps I am rose-tinting the present though. I've got images of NF skinheads and the Brixton Riots running through my mind, and all I can think of to compare it to is a few morons from the EDL.

Do you have links to any data?

the other thing i'd query about what you said is was there really less immigration then? i'm thinking not so much the 70's but maybe a few decades earlier with the vast numbers of jamaicans arriving, which in itself prompted the "enoch was right" marches. the uk has always been a racist country - which is why we need to be cautious when they are on the march and emboldened once again.

scottdisco
19-10-2009, 02:23 PM
there is no doubt about it - their policies have been driven by the mail, who's editorial line is sometimes indistinguishable from views held by the BNP.
http://enemiesofreason.blogspot.com/2009/10/mail-dont-t-like-bnp-oh-no.html

in addition, we are locking up children just because their parents are immigrants, denying them benefits and many are homeless. the rhetoric about immigrants has at times been deeply offensive and has contributed to the general poisonous atmosphere.

so what if they are getting there by degrees, instead of jumping to the end game? this is all well documented in the uk press and is widely recognised by just about everyone other than the BNP and the daily heil.

correct.


The best way to counter the BNP is to challenge their actual stated policies and their record whilst in power at a local level. Oh and provide a political alternative to them.

a Blackburn mate of mine tells me a BNP councillor there is indeed as much use as a chocolate teapot, so it is this sort of thing that needs highlighting.


People need to challenge the increasing racialisation of politics and reject representation from ethnic "community leaders". Dividing people up into racial or religious groups has to stop

yup. including, of course, George Galloway and the SWP cosying up, at one time or another, to some very unsavoury sorts in Respect.


Fucking hell, I don't want "tolerance" to be represented by Jack Straw. Yes, Cruddas would be a good addition to the panel.

yes Jack 'Widely Applauded by the Express for his surgery views' Straw. he could, and should, have phrased his objections at that time in a far more nimble way. i mean, one of his near neighbours is the Oldham MP Phil Woolas who is, of course, very shady.
a daft remark in Blackburn could lead to violence on the streets of Oldham or Burnley.

baboon2004
19-10-2009, 02:31 PM
and anecdotally, when i left wales in the late eighties i didn't really encounter that many people making racist comments there. the idea of a welsh defence league marching on mosques is a real sea change compared to how it used to be.

but the biggest thing for me is reading newspapers, forums, blogs, people on the street or in the pub. i feel in a minority for holding these views sometimes. the other day i got asked if i was racist towards whites because i go out with a black woman.


how many non-white people were in Wales in the late 80s (not a rhetorical question)?

People's archaic attitudes towards race and other issues is sometimes dumbfounding. But then i wonder why I'm so surprised.

vimothy
19-10-2009, 02:31 PM
i'm not really interested in providing a launch pad for a boring 30 page thread where you argue the case for economic liberalism. i'd rather pull my own teeth out sans anaethestic.

Nice one, yeah, cheers for that comment. Hopefully it's got less to do with neoliberalism than with you assuming your conclusion--you know, saying that there is more extreme right now and that it must be because of neoliberalism: that's a circular argument wherever you stand on the spectrum.


You need to add mass unemployment to the equation for it all to really start kicking off

Still time...

baboon2004
19-10-2009, 02:32 PM
the other thing i'd query about what you said is was there really less immigration then? i'm thinking not so much the 70's but maybe a few decades earlier with the vast numbers of jamaicans arriving, which in itself prompted the "enoch was right" marches. the uk has always been a racist country - which is why we need to be cautious when they are on the march and emboldened once again.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/CCI/nugget.asp?id=260

trying to find stats further back...

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_population/Occasional_Paper_42_Part2.pdf see page 3

http://www.iza.org/conference_files/amm_2004/hatton_t129.pdf page 22

bassnation
19-10-2009, 02:40 PM
Nice one, yeah, cheers for that comment. Hopefully it's got less to do with neoliberalism than with you assuming your conclusion--you know, saying that there is more extreme right now and that it must be because of neoliberalism: that's a circular argument wherever you stand on the spectrum.

i never said that. i said there is a resurgence and that i found britain to be more racist now than it has been in (my) living memory. i'm 37, so i was a child in the seventies. and YES, part of this is a centre right government letting working class communities being allowed to wither on the vine. somehow i doubt very much you grew up in one of those communites and saw that decline first hand. you wouldn't be so keen to absolve the right of responsibility if you had.

thing is, economic liberalism and neo-conversatism being a good thing is your hobby horse vimothy, everything seems to get drawn back to that and if it turned into one of those interminable dissensus political science fests i'd regard that as derailment of a thread on what i consider to be a very serious topic - but thats just my opinion.

mms
19-10-2009, 02:53 PM
and anecdotally, when i left wales in the late eighties i didn't really encounter that many people making racist comments there. the idea of a welsh defence league marching on mosques is a real sea change compared to how it used to be.



i was in cornwall in the early 80's when i grew up and my family used to recieve broken windows, threatening letters of a racist nature thru the post and nf logos scrawled on the wall outside our house which i put down to part of my family, although they didn't live down there with us, being mixed race, it was scary, and weird, kids i used to get taxis with to school throwing kicks up to my face in senior school, i imagine all those fucked skinhead kids are in hmp now.


There is plenty of double standards out in the provinces, the young and stupid regarding black people as alright, ( probably the cultural legacy of what's cool like hip hop and fashion etc) and asians as being pakis, as if that's normal, but there are more blacks and asians down there, so it's less alien and threatening. I'm sure there are racists there though of course.

bassnation
19-10-2009, 03:00 PM
how many non-white people were in Wales in the late 80s (not a rhetorical question)?

People's archaic attitudes towards race and other issues is sometimes dumbfounding. But then i wonder why I'm so surprised.

there weren't many non-white people in the valleys to be honest. i rarely heard people make racist comments, but thats not to say that there weren't hardcore racists there. i remember if a black person walked down the street, peoples mouths would hang open. i just think they were unaccustomed to seeing non-white people rather than being boneheads, but who knows? my parents were marxists and brought me up to unequivocally hate racism, despite the monoracial nature of the place.

cardiff is very racially mixed - lots of welsh jamaicans. shirley bassey comes from tiger bay. funnily enough thats where you'd get the nazi skins. last time i saw them was at a napalm death gig in cardiff in the early nineties where they disrupted the gig zeig heiling on the dance floor which then descended into a mass scuffle.

matt b
19-10-2009, 03:07 PM
i never said that. i said there is a resurgence and that i found britain to be more racist now than it has been in (my) living memory. i'm 37,

I don't think this country is more racist than in the past, but it is now more acceptable to express racist views in serious discourse- the whole "PC gone mad", "Britain is full", "all Muslims are terrorists" rhetoric has legitimised a certain sort of language which has racist undertones (or overtones) if you look for them.

This in turn has led to groups like the English defence league (or whatever) being given the space to be overtly racist.

This is true of the BNP too, 5 years ago, they were fairly careful (or it seems to me, more careful) in their public pronouncements for mainstream consumption.

bassnation
19-10-2009, 03:08 PM
I don't think this country is more racist than in the past, but it is now more acceptable to express racist views in serious discourse- the whole 'PC gone mad', 'Britain is full', "all Muslims are terrorists" rhetoric has legitimised a certain sort of language which has racist undertones (or overtones) if you look for them.

This in turn has led to groups like the English defence league (or whatever) being given the space to be overtly racist.

This is true of the BNP too, 5 years ago, they were fairly careful (or it seems to me, more careful) in their public pronouncements for mainstream consumption.

ok, i can agree with that. i think thats what i was trying to articulate.

matt b
19-10-2009, 03:16 PM
i was in cornwall in the early 80's when i grew up and my family used to recieve broken windows, threatening letters of a racist nature thru the post and nf logos scrawled on the wall outside our house which i put down to part of my family, although they didn't live down there with us, being mixed race, it was scary, and weird, kids i used to get taxis with to school throwing kicks up to my face in senior school, i imagine all those fucked skinhead kids are in hmp now.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/front_page/newsid_8303000/8303229.stm

baboon2004
19-10-2009, 03:18 PM
there weren't many non-white people in the valleys to be honest. i rarely heard people make racist comments, but thats not to say that there weren't hardcore racists there. i remember if a black person walked down the street, peoples mouths would hang open. i just think they were unaccustomed to seeing non-white people rather than being boneheads, but who knows? my parents were marxists and brought me up to unequivocally hate racism, despite the monoracial nature of the place.

cardiff is very racially mixed - lots of welsh jamaicans. shirley bassey comes from tiger bay. funnily enough thats where you'd get the nazi skins. last time i saw them was at a napalm death gig in cardiff in the early nineties where they disrupted the gig zeig heiling on the dance floor which then descended into a mass scuffle.

hmm, posted a reply to this that seems to have been lost :slanted:

My Dad grew up in Cardiff, but I don't know it too well - there's a big Somali community there as well now if I'm correct? Interesting to compare Bristol, Cardiff and Liverpool as (the?) three most notable slave ports in Britain outside London, and the racially mixed legacy of this.

Swansea seemed very white, as the Welsh city I know the best.

baboon2004
19-10-2009, 03:19 PM
i was in cornwall in the early 80's when i grew up and my family used to recieve broken windows, threatening letters of a racist nature thru the post and nf logos scrawled on the wall outside our house which i put down to part of my family, although they didn't live down there with us, being mixed race, it was scary, and weird, kids i used to get taxis with to school throwing kicks up to my face in senior school, i imagine all those fucked skinhead kids are in hmp now.


God, that's really fucking horrible. People can be so vile and stupid.

bassnation
19-10-2009, 03:29 PM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/panorama/hi/front_page/newsid_8303000/8303229.stm

thanks for that link. it sums up what i feel about how the uk has changed of late. i think most of us thought that the ideas had been roundly defeated, that multi-culturism was now accepted and had won the argument, just like the correspondent in that bbc programme. its a shock to see it gain such mainstream traction once again.

mms
19-10-2009, 03:32 PM
God, that's really fucking horrible. People can be so vile and stupid.

it wasn't for too long, and they caught the guy who sent the letters. Still i have enormous empathy for anyone asian that lives down there really.

baboon2004
19-10-2009, 03:37 PM
it wasn't for too long, and they caught the guy who sent the letters. Still i have enormous empathy for anyone asian that lives down there really.

i can imagine you would do.

As an aside, i work in an organisation that does work in prisons, and there's this hare-brained scheme to put all the foreign national prisoners into a few distinct prisons, and one of them was Dartmoor. I just can't imagine what goes on in these people's minds.

Bang Diddley
19-10-2009, 03:40 PM
There's a couple of differences from the racism of the 70's as religion (islamaphobia) as well as race (as in the BNP) is being used as a tool too with the EDL denying they are racist but call for people to stand against the islamification of the UK.

We now see people who were migrants themselves sympathetic to people like the EDL or so they claim. So what they have managed to do is to divide on the basis of colour and religion which was not the case in the 70's.

edit : oh and i was watching the Andrew Marr thing yesterday - the give 'em enough rope and they'll expose themselves as fools doesnt work either. They will turn someone on. But equally I dont think you can deny them the right to media but please put them up with someone is able to raise questions meanfully and probe deeper.

mms
19-10-2009, 03:47 PM
There's a couple of differences from the racism of the 70's as religion (islamaphobia) as well as race (as in the BNP) is being used as a tool too with the EDL denying they are racist but call for people to stand against the islamification of the UK.

We now see people who were migrants themselves sympathetic to people like the EDL or so they claim. So what they have managed to do is to divide on the basis of colour and religion which was not the case in the 70's.

yes islamification seems to be the main thing, this weird baseless notion that we're going to be forced to live under sharia etc, which to an extent has its roots in fear of terrorism and also anxiety about towns split along different lines.

bassnation
19-10-2009, 03:51 PM
There's a couple of differences from the racism of the 70's as religion (islamaphobia) as well as race (as in the BNP) is being used as a tool too with the EDL denying they are racist but call for people to stand against the islamification of the UK.

We now see people who were migrants themselves sympathetic to people like the EDL or so they claim. So what they have managed to do is to divide on the basis of colour and religion which was not the case in the 70's.

agreed, but its just a smokescreen - EDL and WDL supporters have screamed racist abuse at muslims, black youths etc, as well as frequently doing nazi salutes as they march. its more a pr thing, and feeds right into what we were discussing upthread - how the media and politicians have stoked fear of muslims. its a much more palatable message than hating someone because of the colour of their skin, but hatred it is.

they always claim support with 2nd generation migrants - i think its massively overstated and i very much doubt they have much support with the black community say, against poles, or muslims, although i'm sure they'd love to divide and rule.

at the end of the day, i feel as sick to my stomach when i read martin amis (or even hear straw pontificate about the burka as if he's highlighted a dreadful problem, instead of what it is - a disingenous sop to the xenophobes) as i do when i read the words of nick griffin. those liberal racists need to shoulder a significant portion of the blame of what has come to pass.

baboon2004
19-10-2009, 04:09 PM
agreed, but its just a smokescreen - EDL and WDL supporters have screamed racist abuse at muslims, black youths etc, as well as frequently doing nazi salutes as they march. its more a pr thing, and feeds right into what we were discussing upthread - how the media and politicians have stoked fear of muslims. its a much more palatable message than hating someone because of the colour of their skin, but hatred it is.

they always claim support with 2nd generation migrants - i think its massively overstated and i very much doubt they have much support with the black community say, against poles, or muslims, although i'm sure they'd love to divide and rule.

at the end of the day, i feel as sick to my stomach when i read martin amis (or even hear straw pontificate about the burka as if he's highlighted a dreadful problem, instead of what it is - a disingenous sop to the xenophobes) as i do when i read the words of nick griffin. those liberal racists need to shoulder a significant portion of the blame of what has come to pass.

100 per cent spot on. Well, I wouldn't put Jack Straw in the same sentence as 'liberal', but aside from that!

Religion is a smokescreen as you say. How many of the BNP even care much about Christianity?

Bang Diddley
19-10-2009, 04:19 PM
.

they always claim support with 2nd generation migrants - i think its massively overstated and i very much doubt they have much support with the black community say, against poles, or muslims, although i'm sure they'd love to divide and rule.

.

I dont think blacks and asians can politically support such groups bit ive heard them divided on the lines of religion which is a worry as I think feel the religious divisive tool is becoming part of the arsenal of right wing groups.

john eden
19-10-2009, 04:22 PM
Religion is a smokescreen as you say. How many of the BNP even care much about Christianity?

It's about culture and not religion - even the BNP say this. What they are in the business of is establishing and promoting a (white) British identity. Identity is even the name of their magazine.

The problem with multiculturalism is that the BNP seek to crowbar in their ideas about culture alongside all the other ones. So if you can have islamic or black community leaders, then who will speak up for "the (white) indigenous majority"?

This is why anything which racialises an issue or policy plays right into their hands.

bassnation
19-10-2009, 04:31 PM
It's about culture and not religion - even the BNP say this. What they are in the business of is establishing and promoting a (white) British identity. Identity is even the name of their magazine.

The problem with multiculturalism is that the BNP seek to crowbar in their ideas about culture alongside all the other ones. So if you can have islamic or black community leaders, then who will speak up for "the (white) indigenous majority"?

This is why anything which racialises an issue or policy plays right into their hands.

"identity" is the first phase - with "purity" coming later. again, this is common knowledge about their approach. the whole identity thing is much easier to sell than purity, which people recoil from, even now. islamaphobia legitamises racism for people who wouldn't have marched with the NF. nice middle class people, and all that. people argue all the time that the "BNP have changed, we should give them a chance to air their ideas". they haven't changed their goals, just the way they go about achieving them - and every single dunderheaded government intervention on terrorism or monitoring muslims have helped them along the way. thanks a million, you pricks.

bassnation
19-10-2009, 04:36 PM
The problem with multiculturalism is that the BNP seek to crowbar in their ideas about culture alongside all the other ones. So if you can have islamic or black community leaders, then who will speak up for "the (white) indigenous majority"?

the white community already has leaders - last time i looked the cabinet was white through and through. and white people aren't indigenous to northern europe, as they well know.

nomadthethird
19-10-2009, 04:49 PM
It's about culture and not religion - even the BNP say this. What they are in the business of is establishing and promoting a (white) British identity. Identity is even the name of their magazine.

The problem with multiculturalism is that the BNP seek to crowbar in their ideas about culture alongside all the other ones. So if you can have islamic or black community leaders, then who will speak up for "the (white) indigenous majority"?

This is why anything which racialises an issue or policy plays right into their hands.

Yes, exactly, this is why a couple of years ago on here a few of us were trying to explain why, rhetorically, the left needs to move to the biological model of populations, where race doesn't exist.

That basically blows the BNP and other racists out of the water and leaves them no leg to stand on. Unless you keep insisting on race being a question of "identity", of course...

baboon2004
19-10-2009, 04:52 PM
Yes, exactly, this is why a couple of years ago on here a few of us were trying to explain why, rhetorically, the left needs to move to the biological model of populations, where race doesn't exist.
...

Do you have any links to articles/resources that explain this model in basic detail? Thanks - would be useful for some work I'm doing.

nomadthethird
19-10-2009, 04:57 PM
Do you have any links to articles/resources that explain this model in basic detail? Thanks - would be useful for some work I'm doing.

Yup, I'll PM them to you in a sec.

scottdisco
19-10-2009, 04:58 PM
they haven't changed their goals, just the way they go about achieving them - and every single dunderheaded government intervention on terrorism or monitoring muslims have helped them along the way. thanks a million, you pricks.

like when the govt goes to 'Muslim community leaders' (as if "British Muslims" are some monolithic bloc) and listens to often politically quite extreme dubious scrotes speaking up for groups of people they have no right to do so for, thus feeding into stereotypes of anti-Muslim bigotry among the wider population, so then when a small group of extremists marches shouting about the need to impose sharia law, the Daily Express (as it did about four days ago) can lead with a clearly provocative and patently inaccurate front page headline MUSLIMS DEMAND SHARIA as if we're talking about every Briton of, say, Pakistani heritage demanding sharia law in the UK.

John and Nomad are both OTM about the racialising of an issue or policy being meat and drink to the BNP.

vimothy
19-10-2009, 05:23 PM
Getting pre-1990s data is proving to be a bit of a ball-ache. Here's one graph showing percentage of population born in a foreign country, from 1951-2001. Assuming that this is some kind of proxy for ethnic minorities, I think it shows the trend that you would expect: a steady increase (and of course many migrants have children here who don't appear on this graph):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/94/Foreignborn.jpg/450px-Foreignborn.jpg

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_Kingdom_since_1922


...During this period British politicians began ignoring their own people's wishes on the matter of immigration. Enoch Powell gave the famous "Rivers of Blood" speech on 20 April 1968 in which he warned his audience of what he believed would be the consequences of continued unchecked immigration from the Commonwealth to Britain. Prime Minister Edward Heath sacked Powell from his Shadow Cabinet the day after the speech, and he never held another senior political post. Powell received almost 120,000 (predominantly positive) letters and a Gallup poll at the end of April showed that 74% of those asked agreed with his speech. After the 'Rivers of Blood' speech, Powell was transformed into a national public figure and won huge support across Britain. Three days after the speech, on 23 April, as the Race Relations Bill was being debated in the House of Commons, 1,000 dockers marched on Westminster protesting against Powell's "victimisation", and the next day 400 meat porters from Smithfield market handed in a 92-page petition in support of Powell.

baboon2004
19-10-2009, 05:25 PM
Fucking hell, there's a side of Smithfield I never knew.

crackerjack
19-10-2009, 05:38 PM
like when the govt goes to 'Muslim community leaders' (as if "British Muslims" are some monolithic bloc) and listens to often politically quite extreme dubious scrotes speaking up for groups of people they have no right to do so for, thus feeding into stereotypes of anti-Muslim bigotry among the wider population, so then when a small group of extremists marches shouting about the need to impose sharia law, the Daily Express (as it did about four days ago) can lead with a clearly provocative and patently inaccurate front page headline MUSLIMS DEMAND SHARIA as if we're talking about every Briton of, say, Pakistani heritage demanding sharia law in the UK.

That's a bit of a leap. If there's one Muslim group I'm pretty sure the govt hasn't talked to or sought to legitimise in any way, it's the Al Muhaj/Islam 4 Uk mob. Whatever 'legitimacy' they have is entirely the fault of the media, from Channel 4 and Newsnight right down to the tabloids, which has invited them into the studio and splashed them on the front page simply cos they're reliably entertaining (ie inclined to say and demand utter utter shite).

crackerjack
19-10-2009, 05:41 PM
Fucking hell, there's a side of Smithfield I never knew.

Smithfield was pretty notorious for reserving jobs as family heirlooms. I think this persisted well into the 80s.

scottdisco
19-10-2009, 05:48 PM
fair play there Crackerjack, i apologise on that score, that was a complete lack of causality.

in fairness, i was more thinking of this sort of thing (http://www.hurryupharry.org/2008/10/30/this-government-cannot-be-trusted-on-islamism/) when i meant to finger the govt (though Blears made that quite good speech AFAIK seeking to change ways of doing business in this area, after this article was written)

of course the likes of your Express, on the other hand, don't do nuance anyway, so the govt talking to some folk is for them probably as if they had talked to this Islam 4 UK mob. and i get the impression EDL members like a bit of Express over their cornflakes..

mms
19-10-2009, 06:17 PM
That's a bit of a leap. If there's one Muslim group I'm pretty sure the govt hasn't talked to or sought to legitimise in any way, it's the Al Muhaj/Islam 4 Uk mob. Whatever 'legitimacy' they have is entirely the fault of the media, from Channel 4 and Newsnight right down to the tabloids, which has invited them into the studio and splashed them on the front page simply cos they're reliably entertaining (ie inclined to say and demand utter utter shite).

perfect fall guys who represent no one but themselves, and a useful polar extreme to the bnp themselves..
its just outrage baiting stuff.

scottdisco
19-10-2009, 06:34 PM
perfect fall guys who represent no one but themselves, and a useful polar extreme to the bnp themselves..
its just outrage baiting stuff.

well yes deffo, kind of my point (that i made very, very badly!)

crackerjack
19-10-2009, 06:43 PM
perfect fall guys who represent no one but themselves, and a useful polar extreme to the bnp themselves..
its just outrage baiting stuff.

absolutely, which is why it's so irresponsible for people like newsnight to give choudhry air time as muslim reps - they wouldn't dream of doing same with bnp.

but it's guaranteed car crash tv, so wtf

bassnation
19-10-2009, 07:38 PM
absolutely, which is why it's so irresponsible for people like newsnight to give choudhry air time as muslim reps - they wouldn't dream of doing same with bnp.

but it's guaranteed car crash tv, so wtf

i don't agree with him being on it, but i'm not going to able to stop myself watching it, probably cringing a lot and / or shouting in vain at the tv.

Mr. Tea
19-10-2009, 08:46 PM
I don't think this country is more racist than in the past, but it is now more acceptable to express racist views in serious discourse- the whole "PC gone mad", "Britain is full", "all Muslims are terrorists" rhetoric has legitimised a certain sort of language which has racist undertones (or overtones) if you look for them.


But is racist to point out that Britain (and England, even more so) is an exceptionally crowded country already with a desperate shortage of social housing and that most of our population growth is due to immigration? Is the only officially non-racist position to take that of supporting immigration for ever and ever, regardless of its effects on the demand for land, housing, resources and services?

grizzleb
19-10-2009, 09:19 PM
But is racist to point out that Britain (and England, even more so) is an exceptionally crowded country already with a desperate shortage of social housing and that most of our population growth is due to immigration? Is the only officially non-racist position to take that of supporting immigration for ever and ever, regardless of its effects on the demand for land, housing, resources and services?I'd say yes. I think we should just build more houses, the average immigrant generally work more than the average UK native. Our birth rate is going down too apart from the 'breeding classes', let them in I say. And crowded, is it really? I don't see that it is that crowded.

run_time
19-10-2009, 09:24 PM
Also with an ageing population, UK is going to sorely need a regular inflow of immigrants to maintain something close to our current standard of living...

crackerjack
19-10-2009, 09:25 PM
You're both making arguments for immigration, but are you seriously suggesting it's racist to argue against it?

grizzleb
19-10-2009, 09:28 PM
You're both making arguments for immigration, but are you seriously suggesting it's racist to argue against it?
Nah, not really. I just can't see any proper argument for it, and I'm slightly suspicious of that 'PC Britain' stuff.

mixed_biscuits
19-10-2009, 09:28 PM
Given complete freedom of movement, people will enter the country until that point at which any comparative advantages to living here have been lost - logically speaking, sooner or later, conditions will inevitably get worse.

crackerjack
19-10-2009, 09:38 PM
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/david_aaronovitch/article6881553.ece

crackerjack
19-10-2009, 09:41 PM
Nah, not really. I just can't see any proper argument for it, and I'm slightly suspicious of that 'PC Britain' stuff.

well one argument against it is that we're entering a period of mass unemployment. either we provide jobs for people who live here, or we face the consequences in terms of crime, welfare dependency etc etc

grizzleb
19-10-2009, 09:54 PM
Yeah, I think a serious debate we should have is how to get long term unemeployed people back into jobs. What would be a worthwhile tactic thus?

I'm loathe to admit it but Michael Portillo's suggestion of no benefits claiments under a certain age could be reasonable. Also some incentive sceme for employers to employ those who have been long term unemployed over others, and what about (I know it sounds mental but in the long run...) giving these dole-hound fucks some sort of cash bonus thingy if they say, complete a year of employment when they haven't been working for so long.

500 for every year of unemployment? haha.

But it's a serious problem that if isn't tackled will pose problems in the future.

craner
19-10-2009, 10:17 PM
If Jack Straw can't skewer this fuck then Labour really do deserve to leave power. I mean, what could be easier?

Mr. Tea
19-10-2009, 10:18 PM
I'd say yes. I think we should just build more houses

Easier said than done! Where are we to build all these houses? True, there are some unused urban 'brownfield' sites, but these will only get us so far. Then there's the remaining parts of the country that aren't already under concrete and asphalt, and most of that is used for intensive agriculture. And housing is only one aspect of it: there's also schools, hospitals, social services of all kinds and a transport system that can barely cope as it is.


the average immigrant generally work more than the average UK native.



Also with an ageing population, UK is going to sorely need a regular inflow of immigrants to maintain something close to our current standard of living...

The population of the country already outnumbers jobs by a couple of million. And maybe we should be looking at why employers prefer to hire immigrants while there are whole families of indigenous Brits living on state benefits generation after generation. Whatever the problem is, a simple shortage of people aged 16-65 (or even 66) is not it.



Our birth rate is going down too apart from the 'breeding classes', let them in I say. And crowded, is it really? I don't see that it is that crowded.

WTF? I take it you haven't caught the Central Line or the number 25 bus lately - let along had to wait for an operation...

(edit: OK, obviously not everyone in Britain lives in London, but it's surely not the only place where housing and other resources are the objects of stiff competition.)

mistersloane
19-10-2009, 10:35 PM
giving these dole-hound fucks

that's a lovely phrase, isn't it?

muser
19-10-2009, 10:47 PM
The population of the country already outnumbers jobs by a couple of million. And maybe we should be looking at why employers prefer to hire immigrants while there are whole families of indigenous Brits living on state benefits generation after generation. Whatever the problem is, a simple shortage of people aged 16-65 (or even 66) is not it.



do you mean excluding people who are incapable or to old to work? sounds like a pretty random approximation you pulled out there. The amount of people at state pension or over in 2005 was around 11 million not including people with disabilities.

Don't get this whole 'indigenous' thing either, I have nothing against having controls on immigration but to say you are indigenous to any one country is a bit short sighted. Unless you believe all white British ancestors just popped out of the ground 2.5 million years ago, made a union jack and then stayed put.

bassbeyondreason
19-10-2009, 10:49 PM
Stop my dole and I'll be shottin' brown.

Mr. Tea
19-10-2009, 10:58 PM
do you mean excluding people who are incapable or to old to work? sounds like a pretty random approximation you pulled out there. The amount of people at state pension or over in 2005 was around 11 million not including people with disabilities or musicians.

I'm talking about people who count as unemployed (not pensioners or incapacitated), which I think stands at about two million. It's hardly 'random', these are official figures that anyone can look up.

Hang, on I stand corrected: 2.47m unemployed, 1.63 claiming "jobseeker's" by late summer this year. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8306212.stm)

And if people have to carry on working until an older age, then so be it. Life expectancy is higher than ever and for the most part it's easier to stay healthy as you get older too.



Don't get this whole 'indigenous' thing either, I have nothing against having controls on immigration but to say you are indigenous to anywhere is a bit short sighted unless you believe we just popped out of the ground made a union jack 2.5 million years ago and then stayed put.

Well let's say "native" in the literal sense of having been born here, as opposed to having come here as an immigrant.

swears
19-10-2009, 11:06 PM
Even though I don't think the BNP should have a platform like this, I have to admit I'll be watching this for the car-crash tv value. Be interesting to see how the other panelists react to him, gonna be so awkward. I bet Question Time's ratings will go through the roof.

grizzleb
19-10-2009, 11:22 PM
Yeah, I think QT is the most watched politics programme in the UK anyway, but it's gonna be good water-cooler fodder. Hope he gets ripped a new arsehole.

I think it's totally right he's getting air time, it is a democracy after all.

muser
19-10-2009, 11:23 PM
I'm talking about people who count as unemployed (not pensioners or incapacitated), which I think stands at about two million. It's hardly 'random', these are official figures that anyone can look up.

Hang, on I stand corrected: 2.47m unemployed, 1.63 claiming "jobseeker's" by late summer this year. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8306212.stm)


ok I see where you got that from but that doesn't mean there are two and half million less jobs then people.



Well let's say "native" in the literal sense of having been born here, as opposed to having come here as an immigrant.

sorry but still going by that then you would be drawing an arbitrary line in time for being someone who has been allowed into this country but is classed as a citizen and is more worthy of employment and someone who is not. Doesn't really make sense.. but I do think we need a better system for immigration, controls over illegal immigration etc

Definitely going to be watching this, I reckon the best viewing would be to fill the panel with either a bunch of z-list celebrities or articulate and outspoken professionals/politicians/influential people from various minorities in the UK.

baboon2004
19-10-2009, 11:34 PM
But is racist to point out that Britain (and England, even more so) is an exceptionally crowded country already with a desperate shortage of social housing and that most of our population growth is due to immigration? Is the only officially non-racist position to take that of supporting immigration for ever and ever, regardless of its effects on the demand for land, housing, resources and services?

To my eternal discredit, I've not yet read it, but apparently 'Who Owns Britain?' makes a pretty good case that Britain is not in fact crowded, but rather beset by the problem of too few people owning too much land.

Mr. Tea
20-10-2009, 12:17 AM
ok I see where you got that from but that doesn't mean there are two and half million less jobs then people. Doesn't it? If you assume each employed person has one job, and there are X people and Y of them are unemployed, what's wrong with drawing the conclusion that there are (X-Y) fewer jobs than people?

Anyway, what I'm getting at is that if there are lots of people in the country who are unemployed as it is, and employers are saying "we need more immigrants to work for us", it's reasonable to ask "why can't/won't you employ some of the people who already live here?".



sorry but still going by that then you would be drawing an arbitrary line in time for being someone who has been allowed into this country but is classed as a citizen and is more worthy of employment and someone who is not. Doesn't really make sense.. but I do think we need a better system for immigration, controls over illegal immigration etc


Well of course it's arbitray - so are the minimum wage, the poverty line, the income tax brackets, the ages of majority, consent and retirement...

Look at it this way: a nightlcub has a (to a degree arbitrary) maximum capacity of say, 300. The first 300 hundred people to turn up that night have the "right" to get in, and people who turn up later don't. If the club decides to let more people in after that, then apart from risking legal action it means the club is now uncomfortably crowded for the punters, it takes half an hour to queue for the bogs and in the event of a fire it's going to be absolute carnage. Note that none of this argument hinges in the least on the skin colour or religion of any of the punters, either those who got their first or the late-comers.

What's the alternative other than just saying that anyone in the world who wants to live here should be allowed to? If Britain isn't crowded now with 60m-odd inhabitants, what's it going to be like with 80m, 100m, 120m...? And to bring this back to the original topic, overcrowding and competition for resources and jobs is one of the main causes of the tensions that are manipulated and exacerbated by the likes of the BNP.*



To my eternal discredit, I've not yet read it, but apparently 'Who Owns Britain?' makes a pretty good case that Britain is not in fact crowded, but rather beset by the problem of too few people owning too much land.

That may well be the case, but short of all-out revolution I can't see the situation being improved any time too soon. Anyway, it's an undeniable fact that Britain is crowded, simply going on population density compared to most other countries. There was something in the news recently about how new houses being built here are the smallest in Europe.


*without wishing to downplay the effects of decades of negligent government policies and the poisonous propaganda peddled by the tabloid press, of course

massrock
20-10-2009, 01:02 AM
That may well be the case, but short of all-out revolution I can't see the situation being improved any time too soon.
One suggestion is a land value tax.

Mr Harrison, Mr Weale and other economists say the burden of taxation needs to be shifted off income and profits and on to those untaxed gains in property values. In short, we need a land value tax.

...

Mr Harrison, and others such as David Reed at the Labour Land Campaign and Dave Wetzel of the Professional Land Reform Group, argue for a tax on all land to encourage its more efficient use.

Think of the 13-hectare Battersea Power Station site, which has stood derelict since 1982. It was sold last month for £400m by a developer who bought it for £10m in 1993. A yearly tax on its value would have focused owners' minds on making better use of it.

House buyers would factor an annual tax on the value of the land under the house into calculations of what they would be prepared to pay for it. This would lower prices and discourage speculation. Second homes would carry a higher cost than they do now.

This is not about raising more tax revenue. The revenue from a land value tax would be used, for example, to scrap stamp duty and/or council tax or to reduce income tax or VAT, which is highly regressive. Many countries, such as Denmark and Australia, already have some form of value tax.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2007/jan/08/tax.business

bassnation
20-10-2009, 10:23 AM
Given complete freedom of movement, people will enter the country until that point at which any comparative advantages to living here have been lost - logically speaking, sooner or later, conditions will inevitably get worse.

its always nice when people ignore arguments to the contrary, further upthread. we NEED immigration to keep the NHS running, to ensure the same standard of living, and to counter an aging population. who's going to be looking after you in the old peoples home, or delivering your grandchildren in hospital?

this country has thrived on immigration.

and yes, most criticisms of immigration ARE racist, because no-one seems to give a fuck about white australians or south africans settling here. why is that? i'm not accussing you of that btw, but its a general point.

bassnation
20-10-2009, 10:28 AM
That may well be the case, but short of all-out revolution I can't see the situation being improved any time too soon. Anyway, it's an undeniable fact that Britain is crowded, simply going on population density compared to most other countries. There was something in the news recently about how new houses being built here are the smallest in Europe.

thats more to do with the trend of people living by themselves in smaller units and in larger houses. three times as much housing is used for white people than for ethnic minorities or immigrants.

its yet another right wing myth that has been debunked, that britian is full and this is due to immigration.

no-one is suggesting removing border controls, although its a bit fucking rich for previous immigrants to want to pull up the drawbridge imo. its a huge landmass, not a night club with a capacity of a few hundred. and like i said, you might not have done this, but the far right DOES focus on skin colour as it seems perfectly acceptable for rich white people to migrate here.

the NHS would collapse tomorrow if we got rid of all those immigrants "filling our country up"

bassnation
20-10-2009, 10:31 AM
To my eternal discredit, I've not yet read it, but apparently 'Who Owns Britain?' makes a pretty good case that Britain is not in fact crowded, but rather beset by the problem of too few people owning too much land.

exactly.

bassnation
20-10-2009, 10:34 AM
well one argument against it is that we're entering a period of mass unemployment. either we provide jobs for people who live here, or we face the consequences in terms of crime, welfare dependency etc etc

you reading these from the BNPs manifesto, crackerjack? its well known that migrants do work native brits either don't want to do, or aren't trained to do so. there's also a much higher percentage of migrants with degrees than there are in the native UK population.

in addition, you have specific nationalities specialising in professions - like jamaican midwifes. we have a serious shortage of them, to be honest we need more fucking immigration, not less.

i'm much more concerned about globalisation than i am immigration, shipping in of exploited foreign workers for short term work. both sides are getting abused there. i once worked with a highly skilled technical architect from bangladesh who should have been paid 40-70k over here, instead sapient were paying him 7k, barely enough to survive in london. thats wrong, as i can't compete with that and also he is getting screwed over. we need better labour rights for both uk and non-uk people to create a level playing field, fuck the companies bottom line.

crackerjack
20-10-2009, 10:45 AM
you reading these from the BNPs manifesto, crackerjack?

What is the point of a comment like that, seriously? Go fuck yourself.

matt b
20-10-2009, 10:55 AM
Look at it this way: a nightlcub has a (to a degree arbitrary) maximum capacity of say, 300. The first 300 hundred people to turn up that night have the "right" to get in, and people who turn up later don't. If the club decides to let more people in after that, then apart from risking legal action it means the club is now uncomfortably crowded for the punters, it takes half an hour to queue for the bogs and in the event of a fire it's going to be absolute carnage. Note that none of this argument hinges in the least on the skin colour or religion of any of the punters, either those who got their first or the late-comers.


In an attempt to help you with this laboured analogy, you may wish to add the following amendments:

1. No-one knows the capacity of the club, because a club has never been full before.
2. Large swathes of the club are roped off VIP areas with nobody in them.
3. Some bits of the club are busy, because that's where the sound is best.
4. Other bits are almost empty, but the floor has collapsed and the speaker cones are ripped.

For starters

bassnation
20-10-2009, 10:59 AM
What is the point of a comment like that, seriously? Go fuck yourself.

alright dear, calm down.

the point is that your arguments against immigration could be lifted wholesale from their material, got a problem with that?

you want to engage with my refutation of your argument, be my guest.

vimothy
20-10-2009, 11:08 AM
It's a tennet of neoliberalism that immigration, like globalisation, is an unalloyed good. But immigration, like globalisation, puts downward pressure on the wages of unskilled workers. It's not going to be a relentless march to third world living standards for the UK's working class, by any means, but it would be foolish and counterproductive not to acknowledge this fact.

crackerjack
20-10-2009, 11:09 AM
alright dear, calm down.

the point is that your arguments against immigration could be lifted wholesale from their material, got a problem with that?

you want to engage with my refutation of your argument, be my guest.

You haven't refuted my argument - you haven't even touched on the consequences of long-term mass unemployment - you've just made the case for managed immigration, which I support. Specific skills shortages? Then let's fill them from wherever.

But if you're going to maintain the near hysterical tone you've shown throughout this thread, my last comment stands.

vimothy
20-10-2009, 11:10 AM
Incidentally, I think that the BNP being given time on the stage is a bad idea. These people are trolls. They should be ignored. You can't beat them in an argument: they don't operate on that level. It's just a massive PR coup for them.

bassnation
20-10-2009, 11:11 AM
In an attempt to help you with this laboured analogy, you may wish to add the following amendments:

1. No-one knows the capacity of the club, because a club has never been full before.
2. Large swathes of the club are roped off VIP areas with nobody in them.
3. Some bits of the club are busy, because that's where the sound is best.
4. Other bits are almost empty, but the floor has collapsed and the speaker cones are ripped.

For starters

and....

5. People are regularly leaving the club as they fancy going to another.

bassnation
20-10-2009, 11:15 AM
You haven't refuted my argument - you haven't even touched on the consequences of long-term mass unemployment - you've just made the case for managed immigration, which I support. Specific skills shortages? Then let's fill them from wherever.

But if you're going to maintain the near hysterical tone you've shown throughout this thread, my last comment stands.

i'm not the one telling people to fuck off, mate - if your points are valid surely you can avoid getting all het up behind that monitor. and believe me it doesn't bother me in the slightest to be told to fuck off by you.

what you did is raise the spectre of mass unemployment, when i've provided reasons why immigration fills roles that domestically aren't filled. i've also touched upon the real problem with labour, which is globalisation and exploitation of workers by companies rather than "illegals taking jobs". wheres your evidence for this? just sounds like far right scaremongering to me, but prove me wrong.

vimothy
20-10-2009, 11:17 AM
've also touched upon the real problem with labour, which is globalisation

What is the difference?

bassnation
20-10-2009, 11:18 AM
Incidentally, I think that the BNP being given time on the stage is a bad idea. These people are trolls. They should be ignored. You can't beat them in an argument: they don't operate on that level. It's just a massive PR coup for them.

yes i agree. as i said upthread, he doesn't need to present nuanced arguments, or even win the argument, but just repeat the same slogans - britain is full, sharia law etc and he'll have new recruites. there's no way it can be a bad thing for them which means we should have thought more carefully about it.

bassnation
20-10-2009, 11:21 AM
What is the difference?

a lot of the time the people that are shipped in aren't domiciles long term, they come in do the work and then leave. plus there is a distinction between saying "jobs for british people" and wanting better employment regulation so foreign workers don't get exploited and uk workers undercut - i think, anyway, although i don't know the answer in truth.

i guess i'm thinking about contracts via consultancies or large companies more than people migrating though.

crackerjack
20-10-2009, 11:27 AM
i'm not the one telling people to fuck off, mate



No, but you're the only one calling people BNP sympathisers.


what you did is raise the spectre of mass unemployment, when i've provided reasons why immigration fills roles that domestically aren't filled. i've also touched upon the real problem with labour, which is globalisation and exploitation of workers by companies rather than "illegals taking jobs". wheres your evidence for this? just sounds like far right scaremongering to me, but prove me wrong.

And here we go again. I point out that in a time of high unemployment govt's first responsiblity is to people who live here, and you equate that with moaning about "illegals taking jobs". And you can't see where the problem is?

vimothy
20-10-2009, 11:27 AM
But it seems hard to imagine how immigration can fail to exert downward pressure on unskilled wages, just like globalisation (i.e. importing the product of unskilled labour). Even if everyone comes into this country legally, they will still hold down the equilibrium unskilled wage. Poor people are going to compete with other poor people for the same jobs, making them worse off as a result of immigration and rich people and employers who consume their product or hire them better off.

bassnation
20-10-2009, 11:36 AM
No, but you're the only one calling people BNP sympathisers.

i didn't say that. but i stand by what i said, you could lift that argument from their literature. thats not the same as accussing you of being a nazi - which i don't think you are. i just don't agree with your opinion.

http://www.socialistworker.co.uk/art.php?id=8894


The central thrust of the right wing arguments is that immigration is a bad thing. This notion rests upon a number of racist myths.

The favourite lie of anti-immigrant racists is that immigrants take jobs from British citizens. In reality, the British economy would be far weaker without the contribution made by generations of immigrants.

The National Health Service (NHS), for instance, could not have been built without the huge input of doctors, nurses and other medical and ancillary staff from the Caribbean, Asia and elsewhere.

In the early 1960s, Tory health minister Enoch Powell, who later became infamous for his anti-immigrant “rivers of blood” speech, encouraged immigration from the Caribbean to staff the NHS.

The British ruling class has always operated an “open door/closed door” approach to immigration, depending on what it perceives to be its economic interests at the time.

Consequently, some Tory governments have encouraged inward migration, while some Labour governments, not least Tony Blair’s administration, have brought in racist controls on immigration.

But Blair’s policies have more to do with placating right wing tabloids than with economics. Both the Financial Times and the Economist advocate more inward migration. They realise that Britain has an ageing population and needs immigrant workers.

New Labour is facing two ways at once on this question. Blair tells British workers that we must work longer before retirement, accept a declining state pension and take out private pensions so that big business can cut back on company schemes.

This, Blair says, is because we do not have a big enough working population to pay for a decent quality of life for pensioners.

Yet inward migration offers Britain a means of increasing the proportion of the population who are of working age.

In 2003, 84 percent of new immigrants were aged between 15 and 44. More than a fifth were taking up specific jobs, and over a quarter were students with college places.

bassnation
20-10-2009, 11:37 AM
But it seems hard to imagine how immigration can fail to exert downward pressure on unskilled wages, just like globalisation (i.e. importing the product of unskilled labour). Even if everyone comes into this country legally, they will still hold down the equilibrium unskilled wage. Poor people are going to compete with other poor people for the same jobs, making them worse off as a result of immigration and rich people and employers who consume their product or hire them better off.

but what is the percentage of unskilled migrants? and does your analysis take into account an aging population?

crackerjack
20-10-2009, 11:40 AM
But it seems hard to imagine how immigration can fail to exert downward pressure on unskilled wages, just like globalisation (i.e. importing the product of unskilled labour). Even if everyone comes into this country legally, they will still hold down the equilibrium unskilled wage. Poor people are going to compete with other poor people for the same jobs, making them worse off as a result of immigration and rich people and employers who consume their product or hire them better off.

Quite.


i didn't say that. but i stand by what i said, you could lift that argument from their literature. thats not the same as accussing you of being a nazi - which i don't think you are. i just don't agree with your opinion.

You coud probably lift my argument from almost anywhere, but if you're main recourse is the SWP, it's hardly surprising you prefer to hit the BNP button.

bassnation
20-10-2009, 11:44 AM
You coud probably lift my argument from almost anywhere

yeah, you are right - it could have been lifted from the express, the daily mail - but specifically from the bnp literature. ;)

but not from the economist or the ft, curiously. they support immigration, for sounder economic reasons than your nightmare scenario. those aren't exactly loony left pamplets are they?

hucks
20-10-2009, 11:50 AM
but not from the economist or the ft, curiously. they support immigration, for sounder economic reasons than your nightmare scenario.


Why are you happy to support right wing neo lib (etc and so on, I'm exaggerating) economists here where you, presumably given you're also quoting the SW, wouldn't elsewhere? When the FT or Economist support immigration, a big reason is because it keeps wages down.


I don't mean this snarkily, btw, I find myself doing this too and wonder why.

crackerjack
20-10-2009, 11:52 AM
yeah, you are right - it could have been lifted from the express, the daily mail - but specifically from the bnp literature. ;)

but not from the economist or the ft, curiously. they support immigration, for sounder economic reasons than your nightmare scenario. those aren't exactly loony left pamplets are they?

Yeah, for reasons already outlined. Odd to find someone who readily quotes the SWP lining up with neoliberals.

vimothy
20-10-2009, 11:53 AM
but not from the economist or the ft, curiously. they support immigration.

It's not that curious. These are those evil neoliberals you were blaming the BNP on at the start of this thread. It's perfectly possible to support immigration in general whiilst being aware of the downsides. Hell, you could even take steps to reduce the downsides (in fairness the Economist and the FT are both well aware of this) and thus strengthen the arguments for immigration and globalisation!


but what is the percentage of unskilled migrants? and does your analysis take into account an aging population?

I think you must know the ballpark answer to your first question. As for your second, it doesn't matter if the population is ageing. Increasing the supply of anything will exert downward pressure on price. Don't get me wrong, I am very definitely for globalisation, immigration, liberalisation and all of those things beloved of the FT and the Economist. But that doesn't mean that you can't recognise some of the drawbacks and move to compensate those effected. Wouldn't that be a good thing to do?

crackerjack
20-10-2009, 12:00 PM
Why are you happy to support right wing neo lib (etc and so on, I'm exaggerating) economists here where you, presumably given you're also quoting the SW, wouldn't elsewhere? When the FT or Economist support immigration, a big reason is because it keeps wages down.


I don't mean this snarkily, btw, I find myself doing this too and wonder why.

This is precisely the problem. Immigration debate has been couched for so long in terms of race that it's become reflex for many on the left to support it, no matter what. And to accuse anyone who questions it of racism, or indeed picking their views from the pages of the Mail and Express.

baboon2004
20-10-2009, 12:01 PM
Yeah, I think QT is the most watched politics programme in the UK anyway, but it's gonna be good water-cooler fodder. Hope he gets ripped a new arsehole.

I think it's totally right he's getting air time, it is a democracy after all.

I have no idea what background you're from, obviously, but as a (black) friend of mine was saying last week, the people who're talking about democracy and freedom of speech etc seem always to be people who've never had to worry about being accepted or fitting in.

Not accusing you of that, as I know nothing about you, but I think it's a point everyone should think deeply about.

And I think calling it "good water-cooler fodder" could be taken as very smug by people in britain for whom this is deeply menaingful and scary. Not having a go, just saying how it comes across.

mrfaucet
20-10-2009, 12:02 PM
yeah, you are right - it could have been lifted from the express, the daily mail - but specifically from the bnp literature. ;)

but not from the economist or the ft, curiously. they support immigration, for sounder economic reasons than your nightmare scenario. those aren't exactly loony left pamplets are they?

The problem with your response to crackerjack was that it was relying on the notion that the bnp are inherently wrong about everything. It might be they are wrong about the vast majority of things, but the fact that an opinion or statement appears in their manifesto or on the website doesn't in itself make it false. crackerjack's point that sorting out the problem of unemployment amongst people already living in Britain will be true or false regardless of whether it appears in the Socialist Worker, the BNP's manifesto or the Independent, yet you instead decided to focus on the fact that the BNP might say it. It also has the implication that crackerjack is some secret BNP sympathiser so I think it's completely understandable for him to react the way he did. Why not debate people's points rather than effectively slandering them?

baboon2004
20-10-2009, 12:12 PM
"But who are the people who join such an organisation and who does Griffin represent?"

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/oct/20/bnp-membership-list-analysis

The Guardian again manages to sound surprised that there are people in Britain who support racist policies. Ffs. What kind of champagne liberal paradise do these people inhabit???!

"If this picture makes the supporter base of the BNP sounds very normal, bland even" This writer needs to be punched by Hannah Arendt, perhaps? This kind of ridiculous lack of acknowledgement of the pervasiveness of fascist attitudes of all types through British society, is counterproductive.

Edit: i realise getting annoyed at the Guardian is pointless, and I should know better.

scottdisco
20-10-2009, 12:43 PM
It's not that curious. These are those evil neoliberals you were blaming the BNP on at the start of this thread. It's perfectly possible to support immigration in general whiilst being aware of the downsides. Hell, you could even take steps to reduce the downsides (in fairness the Economist and the FT are both well aware of this) and thus strengthen the arguments for immigration and globalisation!

a very good point.

tbh w Labour introducing Aussie style points systems - and doubtless the next govt, if Conservative, will probably tighten up even more so - it seems clear to me that immigration will become a lot more managed than it has been (or a lot more managed than people have perceived it to be in recent years, and of course it is undeniable a lot of European nationals in particular have come to the UK in recent years, i am not denying that), so anyone who is 'concerned' about immigration to the UK has - i think - little to worry about, or will have less to worry about.
(i don't wish to sound blase, but there you go.)


The Guardian again manages to sound surprised that there are people in Britain who support racist policies. Ffs. What kind of champagne liberal paradise do these people inhabit???!

exactly.

they should come and join me in the Chinese chippy in Walker, Newcastle, where local scrotes hurl the most hateful abuse at the ethnic Han owner.

or see my mate of south Asian heritage who got beaten up outside a Cheshire town centre taxi rank a few years ago for being a "Paki".

or see my Brummie mate living in a west Yorkshire satellite town who attempting to mingle in, friendly like, at a local pub not long after moving there, was met w wide-eyed disbelief when he explained he was from Brum (he's of white Anglo background) as he wasn't a "fucking nigger".

or etc ad infinitum etc

alex
20-10-2009, 12:59 PM
I am not too sure if this point has already been raised (I am sure it has actually, one of you guys has definately clocked on to it) But why were the BNP ever allowed to be aligned against Labour, Conervatives, Lib Dem's, even UKIP etc...??

Did the fact that they are a racist party & are actually in breach of the law, never get to anyones attention. It's just a little confusing? I mean how the fuck did they get to the point that they are at?? Surely also aswell, recognising them as a legitamate party gives more insentive to people to vote for them?!

Reading up from this post upwards, completely agree with what you wrote baboon, that article is incredibly deluded. Am I meant to read it, jaw dropping, shaking my head again & again saying "well I never, I wouldnt of thought, captains, nurses and other such 'bland' people would vote for the BNP". How patronising is that?

I think that due to labour's forgetfullness of the working class and the ever increasing idea that big business is the main priority, they have obviously alienated REAL, working class people and this is a complete and utter, ugly, knee jerk reaction to the last 10 years. What it could of been apart from this however is unknown, intriguing though.

don_quixote
20-10-2009, 01:21 PM
i live in charnwood.

last council elections (which i was actually living away for) the choice was tory, ukip or bnp. no other party was on the ballot.

i really should start standing round here or something.

john eden
20-10-2009, 01:26 PM
I am not too sure if this point has already been raised (I am sure it has actually, one of you guys has definately clocked on to it) But why were the BNP ever allowed to be aligned against Labour, Conervatives, Lib Dem's, even UKIP etc...??

Did the fact that they are a racist party & are actually in breach of the law, never get to anyones attention. It's just a little confusing? I mean how the fuck did they get to the point that they are at??

The BNP had their "Sinn Fein" monent when Derek Beackon was elected as a Councillor on the Isle of Dogs in east london in 1993. Until then they were doing basic protest and provocation stuff like "Rights For Whites" marches. But the election success showed them that they could adopt more mainstream tactis, with the added bonus that this could mean far less physical aggravation.

So ever since they have pursued a "euro-nationalist" strategy based on Le Pen and others. They have been very careful to operate within the law, with a few notable exceptions which have been very much test cases - for example Griffin's statement that "Islam is a wicked religion" which resulted in a prosecution and court case.

The consitution is a similar test case. It wouldn't suprise me if the sensible people in the party voted for a new equal opps constition or shifted the goalposts in some other way.

scottdisco
20-10-2009, 02:30 PM
The consitution is a similar test case. It wouldn't suprise me if the sensible people in the party voted for a new equal opps constition or shifted the goalposts in some other way.

very good point.

as a mate of mine remarked the other day, 'if he was allowed in, Ian Wright [the footballer] would join the BNP'. it was in semi-jest, of course, but he's probably right :slanted:

some of their views on Islam and recent immigrants, for example, will of course sit well with reactionaries of many different ethnicities etc and nobody should find that a novel insight: i always remember being frustrated w BBC News man George Alagiah wrt a piece of his when he went w a camera-crew to Burnley some years ago.

it was discussing recent Polish migrant workers etc and George spoke to locals of Pakistani heritage, including some men who were builders. they were moaning about the Poles (or whichever central European nationality) and GA very naively tried to say something like 'surely you know about prejudice, i'm surprised to hear this from you' etc type fare.
well, yes, George. doesn't always work that way, unfortunately.

being a populist cunt is not restricted to WASP males after all.

crackerjack
20-10-2009, 02:36 PM
it was discussing recent Polish migrant workers etc and George spoke to locals of Pakistani heritage, including some men who were builders. they were moaning about the Poles (or whichever central European nationality) and GA very naively tried to say something like 'surely you know about prejudice, i'm surprised to hear this from you' etc type fare.

Had the exact same thing with an old flatmate a few weeks back. He was talking about how the east end wasn't as bad now as it was 2 years ago cos there weren't as many Poles about. I said your parents are Indian, you were born in Kenya, brought up in Oldham, live in America and are married to an Irishwoman. What don't you like about immigration?

Mr. Tea
20-10-2009, 02:54 PM
thats more to do with the trend of people living by themselves in smaller units and in larger houses. three times as much housing is used for white people than for ethnic minorities or immigrants.

its yet another right wing myth that has been debunked, that britian is full and this is due to immigration.

I never said "Britain is full because of immigrants" - most of the population growth took place in the 18th/19th/early 20th centuries during and after the industrial revolution. I'm just saying that most of the growth happening now is to do with immigration.

I appreciate what you're saying about people living apart more, this is certainly true. And yes, plenty of rich, mainly white people live in massive old houses, but as I said above, new houses and flats being built are very small, and in London for instance most 3- or 4-story Georgian/Victorian houses are divided up into flats. So whatever trend there was for large houses has certainly been reversed by now.



no-one is suggesting removing border controls, although its a bit fucking rich for previous immigrants to want to pull up the drawbridge imo. its a huge landmass, not a night club with a capacity of a few hundred. and like i said, you might not have done this, but the far right DOES focus on skin colour as it seems perfectly acceptable for rich white people to migrate here.

I really don't know about Britain being a "huge landmass", you know. I mean France has the same population (a bit less even, I think) and almost 2.5 times as much land area. Not that France doesn't have social problems of its own, but competition for land and homes is obviously much less severe than it is here. And France is a fairly densely populated country in the scheme of things, compared to the US, say, let alone Australia or Canada. Surely these are the countries that should be welcoming immigrants with open arms? Yet Australia's immigration policy is notoriously hard-line. Even in Europe there are some relatively sparsely-populated countries, like Sweden. Plus it's hardly as if the population is evenly distributed; most of it is squashed into a few of the larger English cities.

Anyway, ignoring that for the moment, yes I can of course see how this kind of argument could easily be given a racist slant, and thanks for acknowledging that I'm not. In fact, if you compare a wealthy Australian or American who's going to come here and live in a big house, drive a car and so on with some guy from Bangladesh or Somalia, or even Poland, it makes more sense to let the latter person in rather than the former from a land-/resource-use perspective.



the NHS would collapse tomorrow if we got rid of all those immigrants "filling our country up"

Which raises a quite different question about the likely effect this is having on the provision of health care in the developing countries that supply us with so many of our doctors, nurses and pharmacists...

Edit:

This is precisely the problem. Immigration debate has been couched for so long in terms of race that it's become reflex for many on the left to support it, no matter what. And to accuse anyone who questions it of racism, or indeed picking their views from the pages of the Mail and Express.

Yes, exactly: you get right-wing people indiscriminately against immigration, and leftists indiscriminately in favour (because any other position is "racist", by definition) with neither side able to understand that there may be both advantages *and* disadvantages sometimes, like this is too complicated an idea or something.

Martin Dust
20-10-2009, 02:55 PM
If it's live, everyone should walk out and leave the BNP rep sat at the desk on their own, fade to black...

BSquires
20-10-2009, 02:57 PM
i live in charnwood.

last council elections (which i was actually living away for) the choice was tory, ukip or bnp. no other party was on the ballot.

i really should start standing round here or something.

So do I!

Maybe it's not such a surprise that the BNP is 'popular' considering the fact that Mark Collett's parents live in Charnwood. I think his mother stood in the last council election. If they can't raise some cronies in the party here then they are screwed... It does mean I get their retard publicity through my door though... joy.

vimothy
20-10-2009, 03:29 PM
Maybe I was being too pat earlier in my discussion of the probable downsides to unskilled labour immigration. Labour economics is not something that generally interests me, so you may want to take this with a large pinch of salt, but…

In one theoretical model, we assume the following: constant returns to scale technology, one output good sold at prices set in global markets, three factors of production: capital, skilled labour and unskilled labour, perfect elasticity of capital supply and the perfect inelasticity of labour supply. Since the return to capital is fixed, any gains from a change in labour composition (i.e. net migration inflows leading to more unskilled workers who reduce the marginal product of unskilled labour) accrue to skilled workers. This is an aggregate gain for this economy (per capita income rises) though specific sectors (unskilled workers) lose out.

Any elasticity in labour supply will result in voluntary unemployment among workers whose wages are falling.

However, if we were to relax another assumption, and model the same economy, but with heterogeneous tradable goods, we would see a very different dynamic at work. With a variety of tradable goods, output can accommodate changes in the skill composition of labour. Immigration will drive up profitability in the affected sector, pushing down wages of unskilled workers and driving up the wages of skilled workers. This in turn will lead to an expansion of production and an increase in the demand for unskilled labour, eventually returning the unskilled wage to its pre-immigration equilibrium.

That said, what effect immigration is having in British labour markets is an empirical rather than theoretical matter. But simply assuming that everything is good and that the aggregate benefits to the economy justify policy does not seem good enough to me any more. I think that those of us in favour of immigration, globalisation and liberalisation have been too quick to dismiss the grievances of those whose livelihoods are touched by these changes. Even those who haven’t but think that they have need to be considered in order to maintain support for the global liberal economy.

scottdisco
20-10-2009, 03:40 PM
I think that those of us in favour of immigration, globalisation and liberalisation have been too quick to dismiss the grievances of those whose livelihoods are touched by these changes. Even those who haven’t but think that they have need to be considered in order to maintain support for the global liberal economy.

a very fair response Vim.

my 'populist cunts' ^ was clearly flip, for instance, i must admit.

scottdisco
20-10-2009, 03:50 PM
Which raises a quite different question about the likely effect this is having on the provision of health care in the developing countries that supply us with so many of our doctors, nurses and pharmacists...

very true

vimothy
20-10-2009, 04:22 PM
If there is anyone out there who’s not as technologically inept as me, could you get some data from the ONS site? In the British Labour Force Survey there should be some tables cross-tabulating skill and educational composition of native and immigrant workforces in the UK. I can’t make the bloody thing work and its doing my nut.

grizzleb
20-10-2009, 04:54 PM
If it's live, everyone should walk out and leave the BNP rep sat at the desk on their own, fade to black...
Why, because they are beyond talking to? Stuff likes this only makes retards think they have a point. They should be treated like everyone else, as belittled as such, not with ridiculous stunts. The fact so many people are talking about it only legitimises them more to some extent. The thing to remember is that alot of their support will be people who aren't what we would call properly racists, just a little thick. The only way you can beat that kind of ideology is if A) You treat it like any other party and B) You argue against it's actual policies (or what have you) and not simply bash it's image of racism. That's cheap and easy and will only serve to gain them sympathy in the long term.

mixed_biscuits
20-10-2009, 05:33 PM
its always nice when people ignore arguments to the contrary, further upthread. we NEED immigration to keep the NHS running, to ensure the same standard of living, and to counter an aging population. who's going to be looking after you in the old peoples home, or delivering your grandchildren in hospital?

My point didn't contradict the arguments up-thread. The arguments up-thread were for allowing immigration until an optimal population has been reached (they assumed that we haven't reached this point); my point referred to the consequences of permitting indiscriminate and endless immigration (I know that this isn't nor will be the case) whilst other countries restrict immigration: if we allow indiscriminate immigration whilst others discriminate, then immigration would only cease once we become the least appealing choice for those able to move.

The problem is not space but upgrading and maintaining infrastructure. Presumably building restrictions on the outskirts of London could be relaxed to solve the former but ensuing heavier loads on the transport network, education, health and social services would be difficult to manage.

Martin Dust
20-10-2009, 05:34 PM
Why, because they are beyond talking to?

A show of solidarity, a short statement and gone.


Stuff likes this only makes retards think they have a point.

Nick Griffin is far from being a retard.


They should be treated like everyone else, as belittled as such, not with ridiculous stunts.

The problem is, they shouldn't really, they are all racist cunts and shouldn't be treated like everyone else. Come up to Sheffield and I'll introduce you to his goons, see if you change your mind ;)


The fact so many people are talking about it only legitimises them more to some extent.

Rubbish.


The thing to remember is that alot of their support will be people who aren't what we would call properly racists, just a little thick.

It has it's basis in racism and fear, and I wouldn't call the working classes thick either. Properly racist, FFS.


The only way you can beat that kind of ideology is if A) You treat it like any other party and B) You argue against it's actual policies (or what have you) and not simply bash it's image of racism. That's cheap and easy and will only serve to gain them sympathy in the long term.

Do you really believe that?

grizzleb
20-10-2009, 05:40 PM
What? It's not all working class who are in the BNP, I didn't call the working class thick so you can fuck off. I'm working class.

Nick Griffin is far from being a retard, I was referring to people who might be swayed by his arguments.

I make the distinction between naive people who might vote for his party on the basis of what they say "Were not racist, just patriots" and party apparatus, who I would say are racist.

And as for the last point, as a fucking concern of human rights as much as anything else, you have to treat everyone exactly the same, otherwise it is , by definition, persecution. They should be given no special treatment, it just makes them look 'special'. They're not. They are a political party with racist views. That's it.

Martin Dust
20-10-2009, 05:48 PM
What? It's not all working class who are in the BNP, I didn't call the working class thick so you can fuck off. I'm working class.
Nick Griffin is far from being a retard, I was referring to people who might be swayed by his arguments.


OK, so you didn't call the working class retards but then go on to say the people who vote for them are, who just happen to be 80% working class - make your mind up.

grizzleb
20-10-2009, 06:11 PM
That's a nonsense argument. Does anyone know what logical fallacy is afoot there?
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/composition.html ?

You've ignored everything else I did say and focused on something I didn't say.

There's a difference between saying that people who vote BNP are idiots and working class are idiots. A huge one. I'd happily include the other 20% of WHATEVER CLASS.
Besides of which, I had no idea what % of what class voted BNP anyway, so bolt.

grizzleb
20-10-2009, 06:17 PM
By your logic, if 70% of people who voted for the BNP were men, then I would be calling men (all of them) retards. That's why you are patently talking mince.

scottdisco
20-10-2009, 06:21 PM
Those Tory generals who today attacked the British National Party should remember that at the Nuremburg [sic] Trials, the politicians and generals accused of waging illegal aggressive wars were all charged — and hanged — together

classy stuff from Griffin earlier today responding to the There's Nothing British About the BNP campaign

got to love how he's forgotten which airplanes his mob really liked in WWII

i found this picture in a google, i'm sure the IT bods at BNP party HQ can do even better, you'd think

http://www.cybermodeler.net/history/germany/images/luft13.jpg

Mr. Tea
20-10-2009, 06:32 PM
OK, so you didn't call the working class retards but then go on to say the people who vote for them are, who just happen to be 80% working class - make your mind up.

Can we diffuse this whole situation by saying "uneducated" instead of "thick" or "retarded"? A lot of working class people are uneducated, and this isn't a slur on anyone's personaly qualities: it's an inescapable result of underfunded and mismanaged state schools in poorer areas, (plus a whole matrix of related socio-economic factors) and the ever-increasing cost of a university education which makes it more and more unappealing to anyone who can't rely on substantial parental contributions.

baboon2004
20-10-2009, 07:04 PM
Can we say formally under-educated, to make it even fairer/truer?

Mr. Tea
20-10-2009, 08:10 PM
Can we say formally under-educated, to make it even fairer/truer?

I guess, if it makes you feel better. I don't mean to sound patronising, just recognising that a lot of people in this country are at best indifferent to the value of learning, if not actively hostile to it, and that this attitude is more common among working class people. Sorry to say it, but that's just my experience.

scottdisco
20-10-2009, 08:20 PM
incidentally - to address something that i think's been raised ^ - the BBC have to let the BNP on QT as it's within their rules to let all legitimate political parties on the show. (IIRC.)

as John has so rightly noted, the contemporary BNP are good at getting away with it, and they're certainly operating under electoral law atm (i don't know the status of that challenge to their constitution, but for now they're fine AFAIK).

of course we can debate whether they should be allowed on (i admit i know plenty of folks who think not), but at the end of the day (and to re-hash this old joke for a second time on Dissensus) the Beeb often remind me of this Onion headline in a lot of their operating practice

http://www.discospock.com/humor/header/headaclunazi.gif

benjybars
20-10-2009, 08:42 PM
is Bonnie Greer really on there with Nick Griffin?

wow, that is one shit line-up.

Martin Dust
20-10-2009, 08:52 PM
By your logic, if 70% of people who voted for the BNP were men, then I would be calling men (all of them) retards. That's why you are patently talking mince.

The actual % is 61% men but I was trolling you a bit to see if you actually meant what you said.

baboon2004
20-10-2009, 08:53 PM
http://www.discospock.com/humor/header/headaclunazi.gif

spot on.

Also reminds me of some comedian who said, post 9/11 something along the lines of "Some have suggested that the West try to work with Al-Qaida to understand their point of view. However, since their point of view involves the destruction of the entire Judaeo-Christian civilisation, a compromise seems unlikely" (apologies for crap syntax)

Martin Dust
20-10-2009, 08:55 PM
That's a nonsense argument. Does anyone know what logical fallacy is afoot there?
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/composition.html ?

You've ignored everything else I did say and focused on something I didn't say.

There's a difference between saying that people who vote BNP are idiots and working class are idiots. A huge one. I'd happily include the other 20% of WHATEVER CLASS.
Besides of which, I had no idea what % of what class voted BNP anyway, so bolt.

11% professionals.

Martin Dust
20-10-2009, 09:02 PM
Can we diffuse this whole situation by saying "uneducated" instead of "thick" or "retarded"? A lot of working class people are uneducated, and this isn't a slur on anyone's personaly qualities: it's an inescapable result of underfunded and mismanaged state schools in poorer areas, (plus a whole matrix of related socio-economic factors) and the ever-increasing cost of a university education which makes it more and more unappealing to anyone who can't rely on substantial parental contributions.

I'm not heated about it but as much as I support Freedom of Speech I know the "reds" on the panel are going to blow it because on a local level I know how fevered they are when faced with the BNP.

john eden
20-10-2009, 09:31 PM
car crash telly.

you
20-10-2009, 10:29 PM
Ive watched a bit of the coverage including the Jon Snow interview on C4 today. Some of nick griffins points or at least his sidesteps were almost good - unfortunately.... A lot of people say that the BNP are racist in that they only accept white british as members.... Is this right??? Is that illegal - it is right? So are the BNP just all white totally by co-incidence - in that if challenged they just explain that non white british applicants will get turned away for other reasons like subtle differences in opinion? So that by policy they are legally nationalist but a also group that consistently harbour racist opinions that each member agrees with??

craner
20-10-2009, 10:42 PM
The Beeb asked Douglas Murray, by the way, but backed out at the last minute.

scottdisco
20-10-2009, 10:58 PM
to answer you's question, the BNP are a racist, neo-nazi party. latterly they have allowed Jewish Britons in; their big recent thing is anti-Muslim bigotry so this fits their agenda of making it look like they have got over their bread and butter Jewish obsession (their leadership haven't, they're just glossing (http://thecst.org.uk/blog/?p=470) over it).

in their own words


In its constitution, the BNP says it exists to represent the "collective National, Environmental, Political, Racial, Folkish, Social, Cultural, Religious and Economic interests of the indigenous Anglo-Saxon, Celtic and Norse folk communities of Britain and those we regard as closely related and ethnically assimilated or assimilable aboriginal members of the European race also resident in Britain"

It says membership of the BNP is "strictly defined within the terms of, and our members also self define themselves within, the legal ambit of a defined 'racial group' this being 'Indigenous Caucasian' and defined 'ethnic groups' emanating from that Race".

this story (http://www.searchlightmagazine.com/index.php?link=template&story=162) and this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=04QolIvfQEw) short YouTube are also relevant (i can't embed in Politics threads it seems, but it's worth watching as it's only 1m49s)

i nicked the quotes for the constitution from Matt B. the link and the video were nicked from Craner: all in this earlier thread (http://www.dissensus.com/showthread.php?t=9311)

this might also be of interest - it lays things out clearly (http://www.stopthebnp.org.uk/uncovered/pg04.htm) (from the same organisation that Craner linked to.)

craner
20-10-2009, 11:16 PM
Shall I roll out the history again, Scott? You know I love to...the NF/BNP split, Julius Evola, Roberto Fiorie...all this stuff is so transparent, and accessible! All Straw has to do is 2 hours of homework, with the help of Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke (I mean, a short tutorial), and he could obliterate this fuck for eternity! All this stuff about Griffin being a great debater or talker or even close to a quasi-intellectual is laughable! He's so easy to expose, has no charisma, no depth to anything he says. Even Mosely would've given him about 2 minutes of his time before moving on.

God, I'm itching to do it, but I won't, alas, be asked onto QT. I was hoping Murray was...I was going to contact him and give him tips. He'd have done it.

craner
20-10-2009, 11:40 PM
The roots and heart of the BNP elite remain in European fascism...their basic ideology is there. It's inimicable to all our traditions...even our jingoistic or Tory extremist ones (say, Enoch Powell). It's always been an exotic import. It's simply fed the vanity and ambition of it's main advocates.

The rank and file are lazy thugs and cranks.

This is true of the most successful Fascist party ever to exist on these islands...Mosley's fascists: all laid bare in this great biog (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Blackshirt-Oswald-Mosley-British-Fascism/dp/0140258213/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1256077840&sr=1-2). Mosley was an appalling man on many levels, but doomed himself to even more awful company as soon as he took the plunge into extremist politics. So, fuck him, fair enough, what a disgusting idiot. My point is, he was never successful because the impulses that drove fascism in Italy, Germany, White Russia, the smaller Eastern European countries, Spain to an extent, and parts of Latin America do not exist here or in the USA.

But that kind of control and uniformity is central to certain parts of the far right elite, and, as I said, the rest are subcultural thugs and cranks.

The more prominent they are, paradoxically, the less effective or successful they will be.

I think Ukip have far more chance of gaining a constituency...they could've had farmers and the fish industry on their side by now if they weren't such weirdos.

craner
20-10-2009, 11:42 PM
BNP activists wouldn't have cut the mustard with SA bootboys, let alone the SS. You get me?

don_quixote
20-10-2009, 11:45 PM
So do I!

Maybe it's not such a surprise that the BNP is 'popular' considering the fact that Mark Collett's parents live in Charnwood. I think his mother stood in the last council election. If they can't raise some cronies in the party here then they are screwed... It does mean I get their retard publicity through my door though... joy.

collett is hardly working class either.

he comes from swithland lane in rothley (http://maps.google.co.uk/maps?q=swithland+lane+rothley&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=Swithland+Ln,+Rothley&gl=uk&ei=KT3eSvzEM4aNjAeOifVc&sa=X&oi=geocode_result&ct=image&resnum=1&ved=0CAsQ8gEwAA) and went to the fee-paying school in loughborough.

scottdisco
20-10-2009, 11:46 PM
beautifully put Oliver.

i must admit the last time i saw Griffin on the TV he was being interviewed by BBC News man Matthew Amroliwala (a rather bland, MOR kind of guy, or at least that's what he plays to every day), and Griffin was kicked all over the shop, i was almost embarrassed for him.

john eden
21-10-2009, 10:15 AM
Having said that, Griffin certainly held his own against Paxman.

This piece in the times is quite good -

Ten steps to put Nick Griffin on the wrong foot

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/david_aaronovitch/article6881553.ece#

I think the point about mixed race relationships is a better route to go down than calling them nazis.

scottdisco
21-10-2009, 10:43 AM
I think the point about mixed race relationships is a better route to go down than calling them nazis.

very true, they should certainly stick to practical basics (all our history ^ aside).

that said, the time Paxman didn't do so well with him was Paxo asking him about mixed-race relationships, no?

that Cohen piece where he said it would be good if they got rid of Dimbleby for the night and put Andrew Neil in the chair: yes! :cool:

john eden
21-10-2009, 10:55 AM
that said, the time Paxman didn't do so well with him was Paxo asking him about mixed-race relationships, no?


Quite possibly - the thing I remember is Griffin going on about "peace walls" in Oldham (like in Gaza) and how muslims were behind all drug dealing. He was on a roll. Paxman didn't exactly pull him up on any of this shit.

vimothy
21-10-2009, 11:20 AM
OT Question: Can you make tables in Dissensus?

vimothy
21-10-2009, 11:29 AM
Two for immigration and the British labour market:


IS THE NEW IMMIGRATION REALLY SO BAD? (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/118684793/PDFSTART) David Card

This article reviews the recent evidence on US immigration, focusing on two key questions: (1) Does immigration reduce the labour market opportunities of less skilled natives? (2) Have immigrants who arrived after the 1965 Immigration Reform Act been successfully assimilated? Overall, evidence that immigrants have harmed the opportunities of less educated natives is scant. On the question of assimilation, the success of the US-born children of immigrants is a key yardstick. By this metric, post-1965 immigrants are doing reasonably well. Even children of the least educated immigrant origin groups have closed most of the education gap with the children of natives.


THE IMPACT OF IMMIGRATION ON THE BRITISH LABOUR MARKET (http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/118684795/PDFSTART) Christian Dustmann, Francesca Fabbri and Ian Preston

Using data from the British Labour Force Survey this article provides an empirical investigation of the way immigration affects labour market outcomes of native born workers in Britain, set beside a theoretical discussion of the underlying economic mechanisms. We discuss problems arising in empirical estimation, and how to address them. We show that the overall skill distribution of immigrants is remarkably similar to that of the native born workforce. We find no strong evidence that immigration has overall effects on aggregate employment, participation, unemployment and wages but some differences according to education.

Looks like Bassnation and the neoliberals were right: "the overall skill distribution of immigrants is remarkably similar to that of the native born workforce".

crackerjack
21-10-2009, 11:30 AM
Ive watched a bit of the coverage including the Jon Snow interview on C4 today. Some of nick griffins points or at least his sidesteps were almost good - unfortunately.... A lot of people say that the BNP are racist in that they only accept white british as members.... Is this right??? Is that illegal - it is right?

The BNP's constitution forbids non-whites from joining (I believe it also forbids Jews, though they've sidestepped this in the past as they've run at least one Jewish candidate before now).

Now that they're in the European parliament there's been a legal challenge and they'll change it some time next year, most likely.

vimothy
21-10-2009, 11:33 AM
Someone (Hain?) was saying that on the news last night.

V. amusing and patriotic response to the Army last night as well. Still, I can't help but feel that it would be better if they were ignored rather than challenged.

john eden
21-10-2009, 11:40 AM
Someone (Hain?) was saying that on the news last night.

V. amusing and patriotic response to the Army last night as well. Still, I can't help but feel that it would be better if they were ignored rather than challenged.

Ignoring them has brought them huge electoral success (in relative terms - it's very impressive considering where they have come from).

crackerjack
21-10-2009, 11:43 AM
Ignoring them has brought them huge electoral success.

That's impossible to gauge. They've been talked about as their popularity has increased, and as their popularity has increased they've been talked about :confused:

Unless by ignoring them you mean not inviting them on QT.

john eden
21-10-2009, 11:54 AM
That's impossible to gauge. They've been talked about as their popularity has increased, and as their popularity has increased they've been talked about :confused:

Unless by ignoring them you mean not inviting them on QT.

They started this process in 1993. Most people were ignoring them until a couple of years ago (or whenever Barking kicked off - 2006?), by which time the foundations had been laid.

Until 2006 they were treated as a curiousity in the mainstream press (and much of the left), like the various left groups and the Natural Law Party.

But this isn't the issue - if "anti-fascism" is about defending the status quo from the BNP then I'm not interested. The etablishment can wring its hands about all this but the simple fact is that there isn't any kind of left wing alternative to the BNP so they have a monopoly on the politics of resentment - a commodity which will be increasingly commonplace in the near future.

slightly crooked
21-10-2009, 11:55 AM
that Cohen piece where he said it would be good if they got rid of Dimbleby for the night and put Andrew Neil in the chair: yes!

Can't help thinking that it's going to degenerate into such an antagonistic circus that Jerry Springer might be more appropriate.

vimothy
21-10-2009, 12:11 PM
Ignoring them has brought them huge electoral success (in relative terms - it's very impressive considering where they have come from).

Has it? How do you know that?

EDIT: Also, it should be possible to address the underlying grievances without turning the public debate into a three ring circus -- Griffin all over the news last night to "explain" why he compared British generals to Nazi war criminals, e.g.

scottdisco
21-10-2009, 12:19 PM
Quite possibly - the thing I remember is Griffin going on about "peace walls" in Oldham (like in Gaza) and how muslims were behind all drug dealing. He was on a roll. Paxman didn't exactly pull him up on any of this shit.

cheers John, my bad, never actually saw it!

peace walls?
:rolleyes:

IIRC when it all kicked off eight years ago in Oldham provocateur white British Stoke City casuals (or, racists, to give them their proper name) were up for a match and started abusing local south Asian Britons, then local Asian lads from districts like Glodwick were moved to anger over the next few weeks culminating in the scenes a few weeks after the Stoke match at Boundary Park.

(the wiki on the riots (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oldham_Riots) goes into detail and is far fairer than my rumour-mongering. certain wards in Oldham are among the most deprived in the country and parts of the town are very segregated - tbc i'm not from Oldham but have mates from there, i'm not just slagging the place off or anything.)

interestingly, when Griffin had been due to speak in Leigh, near Wigan, recently (he pulled out as i recall), there was trouble nearby between bused-in scouse-area NF street thugs and local lads (of various ethnicities and backgrounds) 'defending' their turf.

fair point on the politics of resentment John. i'm sorry to keep banging this drum but Phil Woolas, an Oldham MP and cabinet member, has stoked this to very dangerous levels in the last several years. he has genuinely said things that Nick Griffin would have been too canny to say on the broadcast news. Woolas is doing it clearly as he thinks he can outflank them and then win people over but because he's a useless twat on the whole, all he has done is the first part: stoke it. the second part - salving - he's not so clued up on.

i had no idea (though would have guessed) the actual statistic when they got their man in, in Millwall, in '93, racist attacks in the area then spiked by 300%, incidentally.


Can't help thinking that it's going to degenerate into such an antagonistic circus that Jerry Springer might be more appropriate.

yup probably.

let us hope that Craner's homework shout for Straw pays off...

...nice up Vim on the stats and reports front, as ever.

they have become water-cooler fodder in the last few years, and this has to have helped them.

slightly crooked
21-10-2009, 12:22 PM
But this isn't the issue - if "anti-fascism" is about defending the status quo from the BNP then I'm not interested. The etablishment can wring its hands about all this but the simple fact is that there isn't any kind of left wing alternative to the BNP so they have a monopoly on the politics of resentment - a commodity which will be increasingly commonplace in the near future.

Very good point.

While it can be too glib to simply blame neo-liberalism for the rise of the BNP, it is undeniable that even well-functioning markets create winners and losers; that a level of instability and insecurity is impossible to avoid. The idea that hard times or declining neighbourhoods are simply due to impersonal economic trends is a much harder sell than embodying the problem in a particular group of people. The BNP's heady brew of blaming immigrants, unpatriotic PC do-gooders and the mainstream political parties does seem the most blatant attempt to mobilise resentment politically.

(Although mainstream public opinion in many other areas seems dripping in resentment/displaced resentment: bankers, MPs' expenses, Jonathon Ross, etc.)

scottdisco
21-10-2009, 12:30 PM
(Although mainstream public opinion in many other areas seems dripping in resentment/displaced resentment: bankers, MPs' expenses, Jonathon Ross, etc.)

very good point, politics of mob easily roused across the axes.

that RBS guy Goodwin was essentially incited against one day by H Harman in a statement, bonkers.

slightly crooked
21-10-2009, 12:39 PM
From Wiki on Oldham:

Many people of the white community believed that more council tax money was spent to serve Asian agendas such as mosque building in substitution for providing for 'white needs'

A few years back, I worked for a company who did research for local authorities on housing needs - carrying out surveys to assess particular shortfalls in housing provision (especially social housing) in the area as a guidance for future planning policy. One of the directors told me that the survey they had done in Oldham a couple of years before the riots may have contributed to the tension that caused the riots. As ever, after a piece of work like that, the council were looking for clear targets/conclusions but Oldham had/has a fairly plentiful supply of cheap housing, so there were few standout findings. The only real shortfall in provision was for homes for larger families, so the council ran with this. Of course, this was then interpreted by local opinion as the council favouring Asian families by building new homes for them.

vimothy
21-10-2009, 12:42 PM
Housing is a massive issue round here. I know a few people who are outright unashamed racist and lack of housing because the council gives it to immigrants and bag heads first is the chief reason given.

IdleRich
21-10-2009, 12:47 PM
"Can't help thinking that it's going to degenerate into such an antagonistic circus that Jerry Springer might be more appropriate."
Yeah, sounds right, and, to get back to the thing about whether it's ok for them to be on Question Time, I can't see that a load of thugs involved in a Springer-style slanging match is going to win over many undecideds so where is the harm?
Also, to look at the bigger picture, presumably if the BNP did have a bigger political representation then the arguments that the BBC is putting across about being obliged to show their side of the debate would hold more water and in that case the other political parties would have no grounds to disagree with their appearance - unless they simply hold that their views make them unacceptable which I think is a dangerous way to go. What I'm saying is, democracy means that sometimes you have to debate with people who you find abhorrent so they might as well realise that and get on with it.

baboon2004
21-10-2009, 12:51 PM
Quite possibly - the thing I remember is Griffin going on about "peace walls" in Oldham (like in Gaza) and how muslims were behind all drug dealing. He was on a roll. Paxman didn't exactly pull him up on any of this shit.

It wasn't great by Paxman, must be said.

Surely if BNP thugs do turn up tomorrrow night, it's gonna totally fuck up Griffin's attempt to position the bNP as a 'normal' political party with positions on topics outside race and immigration?

nomadthethird
21-10-2009, 12:57 PM
OT, but you guys realized Jerry Springer is all staged, right?

Just checking.

scottdisco
21-10-2009, 01:00 PM
It wasn't great by Paxman, must be said.

Surely if BNP thugs do turn up tomorrrow night, it's gonna totally fuck up Griffin's attempt to position the bNP as a 'normal' political party with positions on topics outside race and immigration?

this may sound like provincial self-flagellation from yours truly in a perverse way but the location (London) is surely good for Griffin.

i don't know the stats of BNP voters broke down into hardcore committed camps and the floating voter resentment camps (etc.) but it's areas up north and in the midlands that seem to have the most of the former, anecdotally.

(though i know the BNP do well in bits east of London, granted.)

Nomad: QT is often such car-crash viewing - as noted ^ - that it should be staged..

john eden
21-10-2009, 01:01 PM
It wasn't great by Paxman, must be said.

Surely if BNP thugs do turn up tomorrrow night, it's gonna totally fuck up Griffin's attempt to position the bNP as a 'normal' political party with positions on topics outside race and immigration?

Unlikely to happen. More likely is that there will be some kind of disturbance outside the venue - a picket of anti-fascists.

Griffin, as an elected politician, has the right to organise bodyguards tp ensure his safe delivery to a speaking engagement he has been invited to.

I would imagine plod and the BBC will be keen to maintain public order...

slightly crooked
21-10-2009, 01:05 PM
Housing is a massive issue round here. I know a few people who are outright unashamed racist and lack of housing because the council gives it to immigrants and bag heads first is the chief reason given.

Housing is a massive issue in most parts of the country, but issues around social housing never quite managed to be trendy enough to rise up Labour's public service agenda in the same way as schools, NHS etc. Harder sell to middle-England, perhaps?

The main problem being huge quantities of social housing stock were lost completely through Right to Buy, without ever being adequately replaced. Also this trend ment that it was, on the whole, the better council properties that were bought, leaving only the worst of the stock in public hands. Even in recent years, when the lack of social housing was having real knock-ons in driving up prices for private housing, the government were desperate to avoid spending any real money to improve the situation, choosing instead to try to increase supply almost solely through section 106 arrangements with private developers (i.e. for every development of over 15 units, x% had to be provided for social housing, shared-ownership etc.) The main problem with this strategy being that, if the arse falls out of the property development business, increases to the supply of social housing dry up as well.

I'm pretty sure that most allegations of favouritism towards immigrants are unproven, but given the overall scarcity of provision it's inevitable that it will become a focus for tensions.

scottdisco
21-10-2009, 01:09 PM
The vast majority of people who live in social housing in Britain were born in the UK according to a research study published by the Equality and Human Rights Commission today. The study found that less than two per cent of all social housing residents are people who have moved to Britain in the last five years and that nine out of ten people who live in social housing were born in the UK.
The independent research, which was undertaken for the Commission by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR), found that social housing policies are targeting those in most need including the homeless, the elderly and families with children.

It found no evidence to support the perception that new migrants are getting priority over UK born residents. Nor was there any evidence of abuse of the system, including 'queue jumping' or providing false information.

EHRC report from this July (http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre/research-finds-no-bias-in-allocation-of-social-housing/)

vimothy
21-10-2009, 01:12 PM
Nice one Scott

IdleRich
21-10-2009, 01:25 PM
"OT, but you guys realized Jerry Springer is all staged, right?"
Yeah Stewart Lee choreographs it doesn't he?

scottdisco
21-10-2009, 02:38 PM
http://www.currybet.net/images/blog2006/20061209_cv.jpg

http://scarlettcrusader.files.wordpress.com/2007/12/disgrace.jpg

etc

baboon2004
21-10-2009, 02:41 PM
You got £10 tickets if you turned up at the box office with a copy of the Bible, at one time.

scottdisco
21-10-2009, 03:07 PM
You got £10 tickets if you turned up at the box office with a copy of the Bible, at one time.

LOL

^^

"I NEED YOUR HELP"

indeed.

Martin Dust
21-10-2009, 03:23 PM
there isn't any kind of left wing alternative to the BNP so they have a monopoly on the politics of resentment - a commodity which will be increasingly commonplace in the near future.

That's a very good point Jon ov Eden.

mixed_biscuits
21-10-2009, 04:31 PM
Are the BNP not more left-wing than right (not that it really matters)? They are collectivist, nationalist, favour restrictions on free trade and are strongest in labour heartlands (ie. their voters are more likely to be former labour supporters than conservatives).

vimothy
21-10-2009, 04:44 PM
The line about the generals is interesting, because you'd expect that sort of stuff to be anathema to the bog standard jingoistic Tory right. The BNP's anti-war position is something I'm not sure I understand...

scottdisco
21-10-2009, 04:45 PM
i suppose you could argue their nativism (and the trade restrictions you cite) are just as indicative of a certain populist strain of right-leaning impulses historically, though of course they are no economic liberals/right-leaning in that sense. a certain sort of conservatism, maybe. a certain sort of nineteenth century American strain, perhaps.

although some contemporary American trades unions are very protectionist; fair enough.

their (BNP) scorn for trades unions would put them away from a left-leaning bracket, mind you. one's opinion about the right to form collective bargaining associations in your workplace is perhaps more fundamental a judge of political spectrum/axis attitudes than one's relationship to their nation-state you might say. (certainly all the people i know who are the most hostile to unions are Tories.)

Griffin's attitude to mixed-race relationships is certainly more stereotypical of a right-wing view than left, but you could just argue that's semantics.

but there again all their influences and lineages are European neo-fascism. in fairness, anti-semitism is found right and left, whereas anti-Muslim bigotry (at its most visceral anyway, i am not talking about a measured dismissal of the Taliban's moralism) is more a right thing AFAIK.

scottdisco
21-10-2009, 04:58 PM
The line about the generals is interesting, because you'd expect that sort of stuff to be anathema to the bog standard jingoistic Tory right. The BNP's anti-war position is something I'm not sure I understand...

certainly a lot of paleo-cons (not that i'm lumping the BNP in there, although they're not a million miles apart) are antiwar for many different reasons.

the Daily Express editorial page (which leans toward British paleo-conservatism - though i am aware paleo-conservatism is a somewhat flip term for a current that has been identified specifically in America) has explicitly argued for British withdrawal from Afghanistan, but going above and beyond usual reasons such as blood and treasure, in addition very clearly implying any positive benefits for Afghan society are not worth it, because Afghan lives are worth intrinsically less than British lives. i don't think a slightly more extreme formulation of that would be too much of a leap for the BNP to view a lot of their world affairs through that sort of prism. it's not as if the party of well-directed boots and fists is scrupulous about the rule of law all the time is it. Griffin mentions international law when it suits him.

apologies for spewing the word "Tories" earlier as it if were some sort of rude word.

crackerjack
21-10-2009, 05:04 PM
Are the BNP not more left-wing than right (not that it really matters)? They are collectivist, nationalist, favour restrictions on free trade and are strongest in labour heartlands (ie. their voters are more likely to be former labour supporters than conservatives).

You've listed nationalist there with leftist traits. Do you consider nationalism leftist?

Tbh, I think this argument has been had elsewhere and is a bit of a snooze. It's generally brought up by the libertarian right, who (to their credit) have co-opted social liberalism as part of their platform, even though historically it's been a leftwing trait. Racial and sexual equality have traditionally been leftwing causes througout western Europe and America (note the blue-dog Dems all deserted to the Republicans when civil rights were pushed through by a Dem president). Likewise legalisation of homsexuality and abolition of capital punishment.

The left-right terms originated with the French Revolution, where the right favoured traditional authority and the left republicanism (although I concede that ultra-leftists like Hebert and Collot D'Herbois effectively became far more authoritarian than their predecessors).

crackerjack
21-10-2009, 05:06 PM
certainly a lot of paleo-cons (not that i'm lumping the BNP in there, although they're not a million miles apart) are antiwar for many different reasons.

the Daily Express editorial page (which leans toward British paleo-conservatism - though i am aware paleo-conservatism is a somewhat flip term for a current that has been identified specifically in America) has explicitly argued for British withdrawal from Afghanistan, but going above and beyond usual reasons such as blood and treasure, in addition very clearly implying any positive benefits for Afghan society are not worth it, because Afghan lives are worth intrinsically less than British lives. i don't think a slightly more extreme formulation of that would be too much of a leap for the BNP to view a lot of their world affairs through that sort of prism. it's not as if the party of well-directed boots and fists is scrupulous about the rule of law all the time is it. Griffin mentions international law when it suits him.

OTM


apologies for spewing the word "Tories" earlier as it if were some sort of rude word.

It is isn't it? Did I miss that meeting?

scottdisco
21-10-2009, 05:06 PM
Freedland on the new Tory mates here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/20/conservatives-european-allies-holocaust-deniers)

scottdisco
21-10-2009, 05:08 PM
on 'Tory' as pejorative:


It is isn't it? Did I miss that meeting?

sorry Cracker ;)

i am doing my best to be even-handed here, you know what i'm like :cool:

crackerjack
21-10-2009, 05:13 PM
wiki def


Traditionally, the Left includes: social liberals, social democrats, socialists, communists and anarchists[2][3][4][5] while the Right includes: conservatives, fascists, reactionaries, monarchists and nationalists.[6] The classification of capitalism as right-wing or left-wing varies from country to country.[7][citation needed]

....

It should be emphasized that in these years there was little in their views of economic policy to distinguish the various factions of the French Revolution from one another. Both Montagnards on the (1792-1793) left and Monarchiens on the (1789) right were essentially orthodox liberals on economic matters, although the Montagnards proved more willing than other groups to court popular favor in Paris by agreeing to (temporary) economic controls in 1793, and there were indeed economic radicals to the left of the Montagnards who insisted on genuine economic redistribution to achieve the Egalité promised by the revolutionary slogan.

mixed_biscuits
21-10-2009, 05:19 PM
You've listed nationalist there with leftist traits. Do you consider nationalism leftist?

European communist countries were somewhat nationalist. Leftism here would be nationalist were there not a larger socialist collective to be part of (ie. the EU), so I would say they are collectivist-before-nationalist. I thought the Nazis had a fair admixture of leftism in them 'National Sozialistische Duetsche Arbeiter Partei.' As for authoritarianism, the left here micromanages society here and has given as good as the neocons gave abroad so who knows. *parp*

vimothy
21-10-2009, 05:21 PM
Paleocon--hmm... I don't really associate American and British conservatives.

The BNP, though--no reason to think that they would be liberal or neocon interventionists, but there is a security argument for constinuing to be in Afghanistan, as well as wanting to respond after 9/11. In my experience (not huge, I assure you) this kind of antiwar sentiment is not uncommon amongst neo-nazis. The BNP is basically not very patriotic--they're anti-establishment.

crackerjack
21-10-2009, 05:27 PM
European communist countries were somewhat nationalist. Leftism here would be nationalist were there not a larger socialist collective to be part of (ie. the EU).


:rolleyes:



I thought the Nazis had a fair admixture of leftism in them 'National Sozialistische Duetsche Arbeiter Partei.'

Right, and the more leftwing elements among them were first against the wall (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Strasser)

vimothy
21-10-2009, 05:28 PM
Oh noes--not this again!

Er, although I'm as much to blame for this sort of debate as anyone. Liberals vs. illiberals, that's what it's all about, IMO.

scottdisco
21-10-2009, 05:30 PM
European communist countries were somewhat nationalist. Leftism here would be nationalist were there not a larger socialist collective to be part of (ie. the EU), so I would say they are collectivist-before-nationalist. I thought the Nazis had a fair admixture of leftism in them 'National Sozialistische Duetsche Arbeiter Partei.' As for authoritarianism, the left here micromanages society here and has given as good as the neocons gave abroad so who knows. *parp*

parp indeed ;)

the National Socialists did start shutting down all independent dissent, inc all trades unions, after a while of course.
(there again, to be fair to you, the leader in Caracas is nominally socialist, and he's not a massive fan of healthy internal debate. then all we need to do, mind, is recall Year 11 politics lessons about the similarities between authoritarians of different economic viewpoints mattering more than the differences when it comes to handling internal security.)


Paleocon--hmm... I don't really associate American and British conservatives.

The BNP, though--no reason to think that they would be liberal or neocon interventionists, but there is a security argument for constinuing to be in Afghanistan, as well as wanting to respond after 9/11. In my experience (not huge, I assure you) this kind of antiwar sentiment is not uncommon amongst neo-nazis. The BNP is basically not very patriotic--they're anti-establishment.

yeah fair call on the first bit Vim, i would agree w you actually. my rather too small example was literally focused on the Express (funnily enough, the British newspaper that has enabled the BNP the most, even more so than the Mail, although they wouldn't thank you for pointing it out), and i know they have as much to do w intellectual traditions of principled British conservatism as Bill Clinton does w marital fidelity.

i think wrt the BNP and Afghanistan i get the impression their basic bottom line is get out, put the drawbridges up, if we put enough walls up round our island home, we should be able to prevent blowback, and this way we're not spilling blood and treasure.

ah, i see Vim and Cracker just answered M_B in a more concise and better way than me.

crackerjack
21-10-2009, 05:32 PM
Paleocon--hmm... I don't really associate American and British conservatives.

The BNP, though--no reason to think that they would be liberal or neocon interventionists, but there is a security argument for constinuing to be in Afghanistan, as well as wanting to respond after 9/11. In my experience (not huge, I assure you) this kind of antiwar sentiment is not uncommon amongst neo-nazis.

Sure, they're populist/anti-establishment. But liberal interventionism is obviously anathema to the far-right. And Iraq war in particular obviously ties in with fascism's traditional enemy (http://www.jewwatch.com/)

edit: incidentally that link came up 3rd on google when i entered 'jews'. there's a lot of sick fucks out there (and a few enquiring scholarly minds, like ours)

crackerjack
21-10-2009, 05:34 PM
not that the bnp are fick (http://timesnews.typepad.com/news/2009/10/tommorrow-belongs-to-them.html)

scottdisco
21-10-2009, 05:34 PM
that website is priceless Cracker.

Norman Finkelstein as one of their enemies? he's one of the most vocal anti-Zionists around.

bizarre.

Tentative Andy
21-10-2009, 06:35 PM
This is a really interesting thread - although obv on a horrible subject.
Not sure how much I want to get into it, because I'm not up to date on all the latest statistics and articles - if people ask me questions then I might not be able to come back on them. But I would like to say something about the idea we've discussed of whether Britian is 'full' or close to being so. I would never want to claim that describing Britian as full, swamped, crowded etc is in itself racist, and to do so doesn't help the debate at all. However, whether intentionally or not, imo these terms do unfortunately tend to monger fear, and feed into racism in the way that they may lead people to view immigrants as a thread, something to be wary of.

I reckon there are two main problems with the claim that immigration is filling up Britian. The first is that it treats Britian as a black box in terms of population. This is misleading because my understanding is that if there is a population problem in the UK, it is not one of population level or population density, but population distribution: the fact that so much of the population is crowded into a few south-central English cities.
(Of course, there are various reasons for this, and not all of them are easily overcome. Tea mentioned that a lot of the underpopulated land is used for agriculture - however, I don't agree that all of Britian's agriculture is hugely intensive, in the case of sheep and cattle farming areas especially there is still some ammount of 'free space' that could be utilised without preventing farming taking place. Other reasons for not building could include poor economic prospects, the environmental impact of rural expansion, and the fact that some of the wilder/more remote rural areas are just not very hospitable environments for large-scale settlement. However, the fact remains that there is land there if required.
Also, it's not just a case of urban versus rural. Many urban cities have under-utilised capacities. It's widely know that the population here in Glasgow has been steadily declining for a long time, and there's consequently large ammounts of both vacant housing and abandoned brownfield land that could be made use of. Again, there are obvious reasons why some cities are less populous than others, to do with trends of industrial/economic decline and growth. Some of the inequalities in these factors are prob impossible to solve, some are but would require strong government intervention of a kind that some parts of the political spectrum might not approve of. But again, the point is that it's not a wholly insurmountable problem).

The second problem is that the claim seems to assume that immigration will continue in the future at either the present rate or higher, when in fact there is no reason to assume that this will be the case. As m_b pointed out, people will on migrate en masse based on perceived relative advantages of the destination, and these will tend to relate to the quality of life there. If indeed the ammount of surplus level of jobs and housing is decreasing, then that in turn gives less reason for people to continue to move here, leading to decreased immigration rates in the future. Without wanting to be flippant, it's entirely possible that the problem could 'solve itself' in the near future, albeit perhaps not in the most pleasent way.
There was another thread, I forget which, where the recent Polish migrations (which we are all told were going to 'swamp' us, of course) were being discussed, and someone pointed out that a large number of Polish immigrants have already returned home, having found the economic conditions here not nearly as positive as they'd hoped/expected. (A further factor, of course, that affects which countries are most attractive to migrants is how easy or otherwise it is to access them. However in this regard, it ought to be pointed out that the British immigration system, while rightly more just than some, is far from being the 'soft touch' that its right-wing critics claim).
A further point that ought to be considered is that an increase in the rate of migration does not by itself mean that the entire population level of the country will rise. It needs to be weighed against other population trends, and has been pointed out many times, the birth rate amongst indigenous UK citizens has massively declined in recent decades.

One more thing I'd like to mention, more directly connected to the BNP - it is often assumed that the BNP's core support comes from a disenfranchised white working class, looking for radical answers to long-term problems with unemployment and poor housing provision. This perception, I would argue, has lead some liberal critics to hold back from fully taking on the BNP, both out of a general feeling of guilt or sympathy towards its supporters, and a fear of further alienating them.
But in fact, whilst yet again I don't have the figures to hand, I've heard of several studies that suggest a large percentage of the BNP's support comes from people of more lower middle-class backgrounds. In this case, the presumable reasons for support would be far less creditable, ranging from straightforward racism, mongered fears about Islamification and political correctness, and perhaps that feeling of a 'loss of traditional priviledge' that was discussed in the American health care thread - the world is changing, the country doesn't solely belong to 'us' anymore, and we're scared.

crackerjack
21-10-2009, 07:19 PM
A further point that ought to be considered is that an increase in the rate of migration does not by itself mean that the entire population level of the country will rise. It needs to be weighed against other population trends, and has been pointed out many times, the birth rate amongst indigenous UK citizens has massively declined in recent decades. When I studied these things, which was admittedly a few years back, all the stats seemed to suggest that the UK population rate was steady, presumably as a result of the balance between low numbers of people being born here versus a reasonable number of people moving here.
.

Must have been a very long while back - don't think anyone's disputing that population has grown significantly in last 10 years.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4045261.stm

(current estimate c61m)

Tentative Andy
21-10-2009, 07:33 PM
^Ok, fair enough, thanks, like I said I'm very much behind on the statistics.

mistersloane
21-10-2009, 08:28 PM
EHRC report from this July (http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/media-centre/research-finds-no-bias-in-allocation-of-social-housing/)

I'd really like to see figures just for London with this; I know that the official figures for people resident in the UK but non-registered (i.e. 'illegal immigrants') in the UK are under one percent but then when broken down into areas it goes up to 5% for London, I wonder whether the same is for housing.

scottdisco
21-10-2009, 09:07 PM
I'd really like to see figures just for London with this; I know that the official figures for people resident in the UK but non-registered (i.e. 'illegal immigrants') in the UK are under one percent but then when broken down into areas it goes up to 5% for London, I wonder whether the same is for housing.

possible yeah. must admit not sure how to find that out.

re the report itself, there's some interesting details therein for sure.

have cherry-picked a few paragraphs that struck me and putting them up here.
one paragraph i've included as i didn't know how it really works, the allocation lists for social housing i mean; wrt Northampton council specifically in that case (i mean, i could have a vague guess but didn't really know).
this is probably not news to the likes of slightly crooked and others who seem to have professional familiarity w it all, granted.


The type of accommodation available to migrants is affected by the local housing market. Where housing is of high cost, a greater proportion of migrants may live and remain in social housing, partly accounting for the high proportions of overseas born populations in social housing in inner London in comparison with other parts of the UK (see Figures 7 and 8). Some 17.3 per cent of the UK’s overseas born population lives in inner London compared with 36.6 per cent of the UK’s overseas born social tenants. Overall, some 54.3 per cent of the UK’s migrant social tenants live in inner and outer London, although this region houses just 38 per cent of the UK’s overall migrant population
[...]
8. Migrants’ perceptions: Perceptions about particular forms of housing or personal safety in certain areas also have an impact on where migrants live. Research shows that among both migrant and visible ethnic minority communities, some parts of the UK are felt to be ‘off limits’ because of the risk of racially aggravated violence (Communities Scotland, 2004). There is some evidence of migrants choosing to live in private rental accommodation rather than large social housing estates, as they felt safer in the former (Hewitt, 2003)
[...]
Only four country-of-birth groups have higher proportions of persons living in social housing than the UK-born population. These are the Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Jamaica and Somalia-born populations. Over 95 per cent of the Somalia born population lives in rental accommodation and of this group, nearly 80 per cent are in social housing. However, these groups are numerically small in relation to the total of social tenants in the UK. The overall size of the Somalia-born population is small - an estimated 92,200 persons in Quarter Three of 2007, of which 72,800 were social tenants, compared with 8.4 million UK-born social tenants. An LFS analysis estimates that 73 per cent Afghanistan-born persons were social tenants, amounting to just 19,200 people.

A number of factors account for the over-representation as social tenants of Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Jamaica and Somalia-born populations. These include:

• Lower household income, thus an inability to purchase property (for Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Somalia-born populations).
• Larger family size, with many families being unable to afford suitable properties (for Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Somalia-born populations).
• A preference for settlement in London, where property prices are higher and greater proportions of all country-of-birth groups are social tenants (for all four groups and UK-born populations).
• High proportions of new arrivals among the population, with new arrivals least likely to have accumulated the savings needed to purchase property (for Afghanistan, Bangladesh and Somalia-born populations).
[...]
A points-based system allocates a certain number of points for a particular social characteristic. For example, Northampton Borough Council allocates 35 points to a household that is judged to be homeless, 25 points for a household issued with a notice of eviction, 15 points for no inside lavatory, 3 points for no heating in the bedroom of the present property and so on. The points are totalled and the household with the highest number of points is highest on the waiting list and will receive the next vacant property that is appropriate to their needs. (A household comprising an adult and two children will receive the next vacant three bedroom house).
[...]
5.6 Key points
• Social housing allocation policies show no evidence that foreign migrants are favoured over UK citizens. But there is a small amount of evidence which suggests that they may, unintentionally, discriminate against ethnic minority communities who may also have less understanding than white groups, of their housing rights and the way in which social housing is allocated.
[...]
Dominant views about migrants and social housing were threefold. Firstly, that migrants and ethnic minority communities were being granted housing outside the allocation system by queue jumping, perhaps by bribing local authority housing staff. Secondly, some interviewees thought that migrants were committing tenancy fraud, by presenting false information or borrowing children from compatriots. Thirdly some interviewees believed that the allocation systems itself disadvantaged white British. These discourses have had the effect of racialising the allocation of social housing:

All those new flats are being built just for the Polish people. All the flats are going to Polish. Once the council have made up their mind there’s nothing you can do. We hear about it once it’s done. It’s annoying because my sister-in-law is living with her father waiting for flat. She’s pregnant and still on the list….Hundreds of them are walking around not working. Being supported from somewhere. don’t mind working with foreigners. As long as they are working. (Male, Crewe)

• Public concerns about migration and social housing were intimately bound together with issues around ‘race’, culture, belonging, identity and economic security, as well as fears about Europe and globalisation.
Everyone who is coming in this country, they get jobs, they get a house, when English people who have lived in this country all their lives are getting redundant...If you say I am a Londoner, people will think you are posh, you’ve got money. But if you say I’m from East London, they will judge you, you are poor, you are an immigrant you are from a neglected area….We are turning into a different country, we’ll be a minority. In school my daughter is not allowed to say prayers. They should learn that this is England. (Female, East London)

mistersloane
21-10-2009, 09:28 PM
i have to post this. sorry.

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f119/mistersloane/bcp.jpg

scottdisco
21-10-2009, 09:37 PM
But I would like to say something about the idea we've discussed of whether Britian is 'full' or close to being so. I would never want to claim that describing Britian as full, swamped, crowded etc is in itself racist, and to do so doesn't help the debate at all. However, whether intentionally or not, imo these terms do unfortunately tend to monger fear, and feed into racism in the way that they may lead people to view immigrants as a thread, something to be wary of.

sounds fair to me.


However, the fact remains that there is land there if required. Also, it's not just a case of urban versus rural. Many urban cities have under-utilised capacities. It's widely know that the population here in Glasgow has been steadily declining for a long time, and there's consequently large ammounts of both vacant housing and abandoned brownfield land that could be made use of. Again, there are obvious reasons why some cities are less populous than others, to do with trends of industrial/economic decline and growth. Some of the inequalities in these factors are prob impossible to solve, some are but would require strong government intervention of a kind that some parts of the political spectrum might not approve of. But again, the point is that it's not a wholly insurmountable problem

ditto.



The second problem is that the claim seems to assume that immigration will continue in the future at either the present rate or higher, when in fact there is no reason to assume that this will be the case. As m_b pointed out, people will on migrate en masse based on perceived relative advantages of the destination, and these will tend to relate to the quality of life there. If indeed the ammount of surplus level of jobs and housing is decreasing, then that in turn gives less reason for people to continue to move here, leading to decreased immigration rates in the future. Without wanting to be flippant, it's entirely possible that the problem could 'solve itself' in the near future, albeit perhaps not in the most pleasent way.

might be something in this


(A further factor, of course, that affects which countries are most attractive to migrants is how easy or otherwise it is to access them. However in this regard, it ought to be pointed out that the British immigration system, while rightly more just than some, is far from being the 'soft touch' that its right-wing critics claim).

very, very true


One more thing I'd like to mention, more directly connected to the BNP - it is often assumed that the BNP's core support comes from a disenfranchised white working class, looking for radical answers to long-term problems with unemployment and poor housing provision. This perception, I would argue, has lead some liberal critics to hold back from fully taking on the BNP, both out of a general feeling of guilt or sympathy towards its supporters, and a fear of further alienating them.


there might be something in that, certainly wrt the point you make about alienation. i dunno.

i must admit all the forecasts are there for those sizeable projected increases (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article4615213.ece).
that said, there's always (my italics following)


However, John Salt, from the Migration Research Unit at University College London, said: “I do not think anybody is really in a position at the moment to plan for what is likely to be happening in 50 or 60 years time. There are too many variables. For instance, we do not know how long the present trend on net migration is going to continue.”

i must say of course, the pull-factor of specifically London is always a big draw (i fully sympathise w all the Londoners asking London-centric questions on this thread). as probably the most ethnically diverse city in its continent - and one of the most diverse on earth - there are probably going to be established communities somewhere in that Ldn of every minority ethnic group you could think of. i'm not unaware of that.
i can't find the link but it was on - IIRC - perhaps a BBC programme or a broadsheet article from maybe about six years ago i saw once, describing perhaps Keith Best or such from the Immigration Advisory Service (some such body) saying people wanted to go to Ldn, or failing that Brum or Mcr. those were the only cities that a lot of immigrants at that time were interested in.

of course w the large numbers of EU nationals coming over here in recent years, that has changed on its head and so we have all the Slovaks in Cambs, the Portuguese in Lincs, the Poles in Cheshire etc.
(as well as people wanting to go to Ldn.)

it's not addressing anything specific as such but i've always quite admired these (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/david_aaronovitch/article4709591.ece) two David Aaronovitch (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/david_aaronovitch/article1081787.ece?print=yes) columns (one is a year old, the other four, granted) on the subject of immigration to Britain.

P.S.
brilliant, mistersloane, brilliiant!

hucks
22-10-2009, 12:45 AM
Then you've got stuff like today's figures on the estimates of the UK population in 2030 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8318010.stm)making headline news.

Good points from Andy but can I request paragraphs?:D

mms
22-10-2009, 08:31 AM
Then you've got stuff like today's figures on the estimates of the UK population in 2030 (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8318010.stm)making headline news.


yes what the fuck is that bullshit?
give me a break.

droid
22-10-2009, 10:19 AM
The annual 70m scare story:

http://enemiesofreason.blogspot.com/2009/10/annual-70m-scare-story.html

vimothy
22-10-2009, 11:21 AM
I don't think absolute population levels will ever be a problem. Ditto population density. We should encourage densely populated cities. What, do you want to live in Hattersley?

don_quixote
22-10-2009, 11:35 AM
"britain is full" people should really visit holland.

baboon2004
22-10-2009, 11:55 AM
10 m people live in London or thereabouts, and what percentage of Britain is London by land area?

viktorvaughn
22-10-2009, 11:57 AM
http://www.informationisbeautiful.net/leftvright_world.html

right vs left pictorial representation. can't vouch for accuracy.

scottdisco
22-10-2009, 04:58 PM
What, do you want to live in Hattersley?

haha!


The annual 70m scare story:

http://enemiesofreason.blogspot.com/2009/10/annual-70m-scare-story.html

nice one Droid, cheers

loving VV's graphic :D

baboon2004
22-10-2009, 05:15 PM
Anyone going down to Shepherd's Bush this evening?

Mr. Tea
22-10-2009, 05:29 PM
"britain is full" people should really visit holland.

Don't forget that Wales and Scotland and largely empty; England's pop. density is the same as that of the Netherlands.

Which just brings home the point that the distribution of population is more important than the total number - of course it's to London and a few other big cities that immigrants come, not north Wales or the peak district or the Highlands.

And as m_b pointed out, there's the effect on services like transport, schools, the NHS* and so on, which are surely just as important as land/housing.

*that said, immigrants are usually young and the majority of the demand on NHS servies is from old people, so an increase in tax-paying young adults is unambiguously good from the POV of state health provision

Tentative Andy
22-10-2009, 06:04 PM
Good points from Andy but can I request paragraphs?:D

Heh, no problem, sorting it now.
Reading back, some of that post does read rather like a bad high-school geography/modern studies essay, but the main point I'm trying to get across is that saying 'Britian is full' is not a very precise claim in itself, and the claim needs to be unpacked before we can even begin to see if its true. The unpacking prob needs to be taken further than I've managed so far.

craner
22-10-2009, 07:02 PM
Erm, what are those idiots doing (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8321157.stm) outside (and inside!) Televison Centre?

don_quixote
22-10-2009, 07:42 PM
well there's one solution to make griffin really look like a penis tonight. just don't ask him any questions. let him sit their like a big smug prick and watch his face fall as dimbleby just asks all the other panel members their opinions and doesn't let him get a word in edgeways. constantly interrupt him and tell him that they're coming to him.

that would be ace. eventually he'd crack and look like a complete mentalist.

mixed_biscuits
22-10-2009, 08:01 PM
I'm quite happy to leave people to make up their own minds about Griffin as, just as with Le Pen in France, any fears of his party becoming a major force will prove to be unfounded. We don't need rent-a-protesters or gimmicks to twist voters' arms.

craner
22-10-2009, 08:07 PM
I second that! I don't understand why anyone even thinks that the BNP have any right to take part in the complex immigration debate when their "policies" are so absurd, sinister and unworkable. They don't warrant a foothold in it.

craner
22-10-2009, 08:13 PM
I think the point about mixed race relationships is a better route to go down than calling them nazis.

Giving a forensic account of the pro-fascist origins of all their ideas and ideals is always useful, and there's plenty of contemporary evidence to illustrate that this still underpins their core. It's just, no one ever does it. I can't work out why. Haven't they done enough research? I wish Peter Hain would stop being so prissy, and get stuck in. I'm guessing he'd be way more effective than Straw. (My man, MP for Neath!)

hucks
22-10-2009, 10:38 PM
Straight in there with the WW2 question...

tox
22-10-2009, 10:56 PM
Jack Straw's owning it.

don_quixote
22-10-2009, 10:57 PM
god they'd do well to stop asking the hysterical students to speak.

hucks
22-10-2009, 11:00 PM
jesus yeah

mrfaucet
22-10-2009, 11:00 PM
I'm relieved to know it's ok to be in the ku klux klan so long as you're non-violent.

Mr. Tea
22-10-2009, 11:02 PM
god they'd do well to stop asking the hysterical students to speak.

Yep, definitely.

The prick's getting slaughtered out there. "Britain must remain a Christian country..." because Islam is wicked and mysogynistic - yeah, Christianity, that nice religion that's always stood up so firmly for women's rights. :rolleyes:

His line about "Almost entirely non-violent KKK members" (and Greer's response!) is priceless.

Edit: shit, I'm in cross-post mode tonight.

hucks
22-10-2009, 11:11 PM
People keep saying that BNP voters aren't racists. There's some real denial going on here. I don't get it

Mr. Tea
22-10-2009, 11:13 PM
You've listed nationalist there with leftist traits. Do you consider nationalism leftist

Well 'national socialism' is Nazism, isn't? Literally and formally? National-Socialistiche Deutsche Arbeiter Party, right?

I agree though that the old simplistic left-right binary is pitifully inadequate to describe political parties in both social and economic terms.

Edit: ah bugger, I went back too far to see what I'd missed and ended up rehashing a point from yesterday, and it's been dealt with already.
Point is, I think the racist and ultra-nationalist aspect of Nazi ideology is far more important their economic policies, and the same goes for Griffin's lot.

mrfaucet
22-10-2009, 11:16 PM
Well 'national socialism' is Nazism, isn't? Literally and formally? Nationalistiche-Socialistiche Deutche Arbeiter Party, right?

I agree though that the old simplistic left-right binary is pitifully inadequate to describe political parties in both social and economic terms.

This was more of a tactical thing though wasn't it, at least it eventually became that way. That's why in one poster the Nazi's would be blaming Germany's problems on Marxist Jews and then in another blaming it on Jewish capitalists. All of which was designed to appeal to as many people as possible. That's why it's so hard to pin down Nazism as an ideology because it takes on so many of these contradictory aspects.

Mr. Tea
22-10-2009, 11:35 PM
Ooh, they're talking about Jan Moir now as well, excellent.

.................................................. .................................


"Has this programme been an early Christmas present to the BNP?"

Griffin: "Well you can't even say 'Christmas' these days, Because Of Muslims!"...

.................................................. .................................

Edit: thinking about this...


This was more of a tactical thing though wasn't it, at least it eventually became that way. That's why in one poster the Nazi's would be blaming Germany's problems on Marxist Jews and then in another blaming it on Jewish capitalists. All of which was designed to appeal to as many people as possible. That's why it's so hard to pin down Nazism as an ideology because it takes on so many of these contradictory aspects.

...I remember reading somewhere that the Nazis distinguished between 'good' (implicitly German) capitalism based on industry and agriculture, 'honest toil' in other words; and 'bad' (implicitly Jewish) capitalism, i.e. finance capitalism/investment banking, or dishonest usury.

hucks
22-10-2009, 11:36 PM
God he's weird

baboon2004
22-10-2009, 11:43 PM
erm, what are those idiots doing (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8321157.stm) outside (and inside!) televison centre?

what the fuck?!?

craner
22-10-2009, 11:43 PM
Can I just say, as I said.

baboon2004
22-10-2009, 11:45 PM
We're just lucky Griffin is incompetent, that's all I can say.

Everyone came off that programme very badly.

craner
22-10-2009, 11:45 PM
About Griffin "coming across well" and "converting the masses", not the SWP ruckus, which was just silly.

baboon2004
22-10-2009, 11:47 PM
Why was it silly? Explain that to me, please, from your armchair. You can disagree with it, sure, but saying it's silly is just smug idiocy.

craner
22-10-2009, 11:47 PM
I don't think they did actually. Chris Huhme was much better than I've ever seen him. I thought Straw's laid-back, hardly caring approach worked well: why should you care about these silly views?

mixed_biscuits
22-10-2009, 11:48 PM
Gash programme: it decided to drop the usual format and had everyone super-prepared, as if Griffin were the biggest end-of-level baddie from any political debate computer game ever.

At the start we were all primed with 'whatever this guy says, what he really wants to do is this' whilst everyone tried to outdo each other in going apesh+t on his ass; then there was lots of waffle on immigration; at the end they all read out their pre-written spiel to reinforce the priming from the start.

swears
22-10-2009, 11:48 PM
This was weird, like watching a TV debate from twenty or thirty years ago, when there were major differences between political parties.

baboon2004
22-10-2009, 11:48 PM
Unfortunately it took Griffin to state the obvious point that Straw has far more blood on his hands than the BNP does (yet, and obv hopefully it will stay that way).

Straw is a smug twat with vile views of his own (did you listen to what these people all said about immigration???), and he used the programme to bolster his own reputation. Obviously his very basic points were correct, and he was more eloquent than the others - that doesn't excuse his own grim record.

Again, the main point is - Griffin is an incompetent. The next person they recruit as leader might be a Le Pen. The view that British people reject these views because they are all more intelligent than that (anyway, why anyone could think that some highly intelligent people are not fascists is beyond me)/don't sympathise with fascist points of view, is just astonishingly smug.

craner
22-10-2009, 11:54 PM
Why was it silly? Explain that to me, please, from your armchair. You can disagree with it, sure, but saying it's silly is just smug idiocy.



Well, it's nothing big, but once the BNP have to actually explain their policies rather than propound slogans, they're lost. Their politics are so outside the acceptable or possible thatt boils down to what they are. That is: identity politics. That is: neo-fascists in charge of subcultural thugs and cranks. It's laughable.

mixed_biscuits
22-10-2009, 11:54 PM
The discussions continue on This Week btw...

mistersloane
22-10-2009, 11:54 PM
I thought Griffin did 'well' on Islam, and will probably pick up further support from the show cos of that; I think it's underestimated just how huge Islamophobia is.

Bonnie Greer did well too. You're right though swears, it did feel like time was being reversed, horrible feeling.

Nothing on mixed marriages though :(

baboon2004
22-10-2009, 11:55 PM
there was lots of waffle on immigration

no-one seemed to have very progressive views on this, did they?

craner
22-10-2009, 11:55 PM
This is really not smug at all. What planet are you coming from here?