BNP on Question Time

[vimothy]

've also touched upon the real problem with labour, which is globalisation

What is the difference?

 

[bassnation]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

"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]

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]

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]

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]

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.