If anyone can summarise the point of this article it would be much appreciated. From what I can garner Sunny is complaining about something to do with the perceived right wing attitudes to immigration, but the link is not obvious.

Well what do you expect, seeing as it is writtern by Tim Montgomerie.

He is just another cardboard cut out, speak your weight neo con.

I have issues with several points.

However, my main issue is that I don’t agree with labelling the BNP and Tim Montgomerie as agents of the same version of the right wing.

In the same way as you can’t compare Enoch Powell and Ken Clarke, the two are simply different kinds of right wing, and cannot feasibly be compared.

So by your logic:

if a racist party wanted to socialise industry, you couldn’t, as an anti-racist want to socialise industy and be anti-racist.

Hmm

“However, my main issue is that I don’t agree with labelling the BNP and Tim Montgomerie as agents of the same version of the right wing. ”

But nobody cares what your issues are tory troll. If you don’t like the articles’ go back to Conservative home.

Ah okay Sally. So to be damaging and ludicrously inaccurate is fine, as long as someone on the right who is a troll (i don’t know what means) doesn’t point it out.

Good to know the “liberal” conspiracy is read by people so illiberal as yourself.

In fact, it’s got nothing to do with whether I “like” the article or not, the article is a gross misrepresentation of the truth.

In response to the article:

I have noticed that many people who are racist do not accept the tag of racism, they want their racist cake and eat it, thus even though many people spout these un-factual views on immigration, they often do not like to be called racists because they confuse talking about immigration with their perpetuation of myths.

As for the comments thus far, it is clear that this piece will generate a shit storm of nonsense and mis-reading, for example Robtro who pretends to not get it, or WCT leaping two steps ahead and making out that the article labels Tim a BNP supporter when it does not.

All these things do is pull focus from the issue at hand which is the alarming way in which the Tories seem to be happy using immigration myths and being bedfellows with far-right parties in Europe as if none of the shit will stick.

Well it is sticking and it smells utterly foul.

For futher ref we have Comment 6 where the article is smeared as “a gross misrepresentation of the truth.” when clearly it is not and clearly this is a tired attempt to draw debate away from the issue and into a bun fight.

Oh dear.

8

You didn’t mention my comment. I feel left out.

Cute picture of Trustafarian Bollinger Club Cameron with a puppy

Is that going to be his contribution to the Pot Luck Supper at the Korean Embassy?

@9: I could’ve done, is as knee jerk as the others and invents an argument seemingly from nowhere.

[troll]
Postman Pat in the Home Office wants another million Somalis and larcenous Roma to immigrate!

Buy a good insurance policy now!

Let me make my position very clear, so nobody has any misunderstanding from here on.

The article intimates that Tim Montgomerie is simply right wing, and that the BNP are simply right wing.

Labelling them so narrowly as to give them the same ideology would offend both groups.

Tim Montgomerie is centre-right.

The BNP are far, or hard-right.

The differences are so vast and extreme that it would be like comparing Tony Blair to the Militant Tendency. It doesn’t work and it would offend both parties.

That is all.

”Gypsies are taking all your GP appointments!!”, “The Poles are taking over”

Two things I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone on the right say. They’re actually things that Lefties say as ‘examples’ of what the right say.

Also you say “You can’t be anti-racist while furthering the very talking points that racists want to push” but again this is not true. This statement supposes that simply because racists are wrong with their intolerance of others that they cannot then be right on other matters. By your logic, if a racist says the sky is blue it follows that it isn’t. It is a fallacy of accident.

(just for the sake of argument let’s discount the BNP as neither the left or right wants to claim ownership of them – besides, the point of your article is to paint the tories as not understanding racism anyway. It has precious little to actually do with the BNP)

Hi WCT – if the right was so interested in the truth then I’d like to see more intances of rightwingers challenging the lies tht are put out in housing an other issues rather than accepting them as ‘popular concern’.

It’s quite easy to point at the BNP and scream racist to polish your credentials. But it’s important to recognise what the BNP also do – they are interested in promoting a victim mentality amongst whites by telling them that their way of life and livelihood is under threat from people of different backgrounds. Hell, the BNP don’t even talk about their holocaust denialism and eugenics theories any more. They are interested in local concerns.

If one is simply echoing concerns which are bawdy on bad starts and fear-mongering then that’s not really fighting racism.

If I said that Jews were nice people but it was a bit worrying that they controlled the global financial system and looked out for each other – that would not be included in the fight against anti-semitism’. See?

WCT:

It’s odd, you’re not acutally making your position clear, you’re making your mis-undersatanding of the article clear, for example, it is your mis-understanding that “The article intimates that Tim Montgomerie is simply right wing, and that the BNP are simply right wing.”

Splitting hair over semantic terms for spectrums of right-wing thinking is not what the piece is about, it is about the Conservative Party not understanding racism.

Mark M:

Another gross mis-understanding and yet more bad maths: you take the idea that pandering and perpetuating false immigration information and feeding into those myths is somehow connected to the denying a BNP member’s feelings about the colour of the sky.

That’s just weird and very, very bad maths.

Once again we see a failure to read or understand the article, all of which is very odd as it is very clear.

Doesn’t invent an argument at all. Here’s Sunny’s parting remark:

”You can’t be anti-racist while furthering the very talking points that racists want to push.”

Now the racists in this case are the BNP. The BNP want to socialise industry. So by Sunny’s logic, you can’t be anti-racist and ‘further the very talking points that racists want to push,’ in this case the socialisation of industry.

Whoops – I’m typing on my iPhone. Above, I meant ‘concerns which are based on bad stats’

I accept there are differences between different strains if the right (though bizarrely, rightwingers don’t apply that to lefties). But I’m talking here about perpetuating racist narratives – not simply repeating basic racism.

Tim does that with the artile on Muslims too.

19

Ok, my typing isn’t too hot on the iPhone either.

councilhousetory:

Wow, your argument is a terrible one. What has socialising industry got to do with being racist? Good grief, you seem so desperate for this terrible line of argument to fit you are killing it to fit it into a very odd shaped hole.

The fact is that you can get a cigarette paper between the BNP and the Conservative party rank and file. Montgomerie is doing the usual Tory balancing act of pretending to attack the racist while making sure he does not upset the tory blue rinse brigade.

DHG

It’s not my argument. It was pointing out the what the article was saying. But that has been clarified at post 19.

As to socialising industry, it is a BNP policy. In fact it is their number 2 economic policy. Number 1 is of course BJ4BW. So the BNP share common ground with traditional socialists and Gordon Brown. Are they furthering the racists cause?

“As to socialising industry,” ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

Nobody cares about what your idiotic views on socialising industry are.

Look, I know the comments policy isn’t always enforced, and normally that’s a good thing, but comment #12 adds absolutey nothing to the discussion whilst smearing an entire race as thieves. Is there any point in having a comments policy at all if that kind of comment is tolerated?

I would argue with it but there’s not enough substance to argue with; the comment is entirely composed of racist lies.

24

I didn’t express my views, idiotic or otherwise. Have I touched a nerve sally?

“Many people who are racist do not accept the tag of racism …” (D.H-G., comment 7)
People I’ve argued with about racism have believed that a racist is one who commits race-hate crimes. They argue that, in a democratic society, electing a party to government which will legislate and act upon racially discriminatory policies is legal, and therefore acceptable.

25

Agree.

The differences are so vast and extreme that it would be like comparing Tony Blair to the Militant Tendency. It doesn’t work and it would offend both parties.

That works – Tony Blair is centre-right, too. I.E. A red Tory.

That involves building up a victim mentality amongst poor whites and giving the impression that their housing and public transport is rubbish is because of immigration – not because their local / national government hasn’t invested in them (the real reason).

From the original piece. Whereby I see where you’re coming from Sunny – you fall into the same trap with the use of common English that can be displayed as division.

“Poor” “Whites”, “Their” – it comes across as you are stating something from the outside rather than a part of. I can understand, again, you utilising those words making a point about the Tories as you are outside them. Yet, to bring those who feel left out of both society and the political debate using those words of division will ostracise.

You can read the part ‘poor whites’ as a derisionary statement – as in having no empathy with the situation and therefore showing contempt. I know that isn’t what you meant – and I hope that you understand what I mean.

But to the point in hand. What we do see is that the right don’t give a flying feck about racism – why would they? It creates division among people and if they can utilise a sound byte – they will.

How is it that Dave and his group of nutters are pulling away in the polls – they were all involved in the expense scandal – more so than others, people are now conditioned to blaming everything on the government.

Where we can blame them is for not building more social housing, but you can guarantee that facts will not get in the way of winning the next election – that is all that is on Tory minds at the minute.

You can say ’til you are blue in the face that there is 94% of the population of the UK who are NOT immigrants, it matters not – and if the Tories can make people believe that immigration will mean that the British Isles will become over run by Martians over the next year – they will do it if it means an election victory.

The right DO understand racism – that is where I have to disagree with you, and that is why they use it subliminally.

Here’s what I think Sunny is arguing, and if so I agree with him:

- In trying to formulate a “non-racist” anti-immigration position, the centre-right have developed a narrative which says immigration is not bad because there is something intrinsically bad about people from other countries but because various services can’t cope with a rapid expansion in population.

- In making this stick they over-egg both the extent of immigration and the extent to which new migrants use these services. They don’t challenge myths about (for example) the levels of support asylum seekers get, or who gets council houses and who doesn’t because that would damage their core argument.

- By allowing these myths to go unchecked, they aid the BNP who feed off these kinds of myths. This may not be a deliberate/intended effect, and there are clearly very big differences between the centre-right and the BNP, but nonetheless the centre-rights’ behaviour thus helps the BNP.

“I didn’t express my views, idiotic or otherwise. Have I touched a nerve sally?”

Yes you did express your views.

“So the BNP share common ground with traditional socialists and Gordon Brown.”

After contiuing the tory policy of deregulating the banks, and the city, and pushing more PFI, the idea that the current govt is red socilaist is idiotic , and shows that you are getting your talking points from troll central.

30 – tim

There is supposed to be an unwritten common policy between all the main partes on those lines.

Yet – you will hear many a Tory condemn racism and then in the next breath say something along the lines of ‘…and then we come to the wholeheartedly expansion of immigration in this country that we, as a country, cannot sustain…’, then the usual blah, blah.

councilhousetory:

You are one of the many here not reading the post and then inventing arguments to have, that was my point but you seemed to have stopped doing it, apart from daft analogies regarding the BNP and Labour. You are clutching at straws, stick to the article at hand.

I also agree with tim f regarding the odd racist comments left in this thread, any chance of getting rid of them?

30 Tim f nails it.

But don’t expect the trolls to understand. Their eyes light up at a post about racism. Which is exactly how the bnp would react.

Okay, time for Logic.

Sunny is claiming that ”You can’t be anti-racist while furthering the very talking points that racists want to push.”

councilhousetory says that because the BNP want to socialise industry by supporting the socialisation of industry you can’t be anti-racist and ‘further the very talking points that racists want to push.’

councilhousetory is wrong because: The failure here is equating the of nationalisation of the hieghts of industry and pandering to popular misconceptions about immigrants. One has nothing to do with racism, the other everything.

If you cannot see the difference between the two, and if you want to argue that racism and immigration are not inexorably linked (not that I argue that one causes the other, but they are subjects to be discussed together), then I am very confused.

”Gypsies are taking all your GP appointments!!”, “The Poles are taking over”

Two things I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone on the right say. They’re actually things that Lefties say as ‘examples’ of what the right say.

Have you ever read The Mail?! or News of the World</a<? Seriously, I'm flabbergasted.

Poles maybe not (but probably yes), at least I can't find an article to link to, but the headline Threat of up to two million Muslim terrorists, warns community leader kinda implies a Muslim take over.

I know, you may not want the Mail on the right (why would you?), but it is.

“. And the number of asylum seekers and immigrants in the UK is still way, way below popular perception”

Unquantified assertion.
Proof required please.

“That involves building up a victim mentality amongst poor whites and giving the impression that their housing and public transport is rubbish is because of immigration – not because their local / national government hasn’t invested in them (the real reason).”

So the OP is arguing that immigrants coming into the UK place no demands on the state finances?

One of the reasons why the Government has not invested (say) in social housing is a lack of money.

Somehow I think the bases for the original argument are flawed…

One of the reasons why the Government has not invested (say) in social housing is a lack of money.

If they can borrow billions to bail-out banks they can borrow millions to build houses!

So the OP is arguing that immigrants coming into the UK place no demands on the state finances?

Are you arguing that immigrants do not contribute to the states coffers too? As you are so quick to ask, evidence please.

“And the number of asylum seekers and immigrants in the UK is still way, way below popular perception”

Unquantified assertion.
Proof required please.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/prejudice-and-ignorance-skew-public-view-of-asylumseekers-1699213.html there you go.

For example: “Nearly a quarter of people believe there are more than 100,000 asylum applications every year – about four times the annual figure of 25,670, and just 5 per cent of Britons know to within 10,000 how many refugees come to the UK every year, according to a survey carried out for the [British Red Cross].”

Before you read, DONT LOOK! how many immigrants do you think are in the UK, a number or percentage?

How many asylum seekers?

What percentage of the world’s refugees do we hold?

What’s the difference between a refugee and an asylum seeker?

Just want to see whether you know what you are talking about.

Popular concerns about immigration are wrong. The government’s job ought to be to tell people when they’re being stupid.

“Popular concerns about immigration are wrong. The government’s job ought to be to tell people when they’re being stupid.”

Except that’s not what the government are saying is it? They have reduced the amount an Aslyum seeker has to live on a week form just over £40 to just over £30.

They have passed 5 immigration acts in the last 12 years, each more restrictive than the last. Each time rights of immigrants have been reduced. That is a fact.

People on the left, people who are liberal and some on the libertarian right have been saying “Popular concerns about immigration are wrong because…”

People do not know the true number of migrants/refugees/illegal immigrants/refugees in the country.

People believe untrue things about immigrants, like that they take housing.

People believe untrue things about immigrants, like that they are “scroungers.”

People discuss immigrants today in exactly the same way they discussed West Indies and Indian immigrants 40 years ago, Jews 100 years ago, Catholics 200 years ago, Huguenots 400 years ago. The same language and the same lies. I don’t think it’s a coincidence.

Excellent, excellent stuff Left Outside but I do agree with Chris that any government and where this government has failed, for the reasons outlined in the post, is in communicating the reality of immigration in the UK.

The BNPs best friend is BJ4BW. You can thank Gordon Brown for that.

Now you’re going to tell me Gordon is Centre Right.

Again CHT, you’re just going off on one with no connection to what is being discussed, are you alright old bean?

DHG

I’m fine mate. Are you finding it hard to accept that the BNP benefit from Gordon’s words? That their economic policies are socialist?

No, I’m finding it hard to fathom what the fuck you’re going on about.

45

Really? This discussion is about why the right (ie tories) are helping the BNP. I’m pointing out that Labour have done more to help the BNP than anyone. Simple.

Oh and BNP economic policies are very left wing. Or should I be whispering that.

CHT:

It’s clear you’re only purpose here is to distract attention from what the post is about, which is the Tories’ part in fuelling the flames that the BNP dance around like mentalists.

It’s clear you don’t accept that premise, which is fine, but then don’t comment.

For example, all this nonsense about the BNP’s policies meaning that Labour must be racist is odd to say the least and smacks of desperation.

As for the policies of the BNP being left-wing, this old chestnut has been dealt with before, clearly you think you’re on to something new here whereas in reality, its a tired old riff that is all played out.

@33

I also agree with tim f regarding the odd socialist comments left in this thread, any chance of getting rid of them?

Yes. Let’s not allow them to express their views.

That’ll work.

Pagar, we’re talking about comment 12.

No, you’ve got you’re head in the sand. I never once said Labour were racist, I said Gordon’s words are manna to the BNPs ears.

The BNP are economically left-wing. I don’t know how anyone with even a superficial knowledge of political theory could pretend otherwise.

Now for the serious point. To defeat your enemy, you must first know them. That means being honest about the nature of the enemy.

Goodnight.

Aha! I have it.

http://tabloid-watch.blogspot.com/2009/07/once-again-positive-immigration-story.html

Immigrants give more in taxes than they take in benefits. Can we move the discussion on now?

I think Sunny raises some pretty important points. I want to point out first that Labour have been every bit as xenophobic as the Tories in the last 15 years.The important thing to realise is that we are already a very reactionary country when it comes to immigrants, we’re no Italy but we are definitely no saints either.

When sunny says that the “BNP is not necessarily focused on gaining national political power. Its aim is to get their agenda and talking points into mainstream conversation. The rise of “respectable fascism” in other words.” He is talking about something which has already happened.

Why try to ban Gurkha settlement? Because they are scroungers

Why reduce asylum seekers benefits? Because they are scroungers

Why do they have to claim benefits at all? Because they are here to steal our jobs, so we have to ban them from working until their claim is settled.

Why are immigrants discussed in “floods” and “influxes”? Because some people irrationally hate immigrants, using words like flood and influx (and million!!! oh the horror) is exactly what the Mail did when it was an explicitly racist paper, or Enoch Powell, Oswald Mosley or Major Evans-Gordon.

People who are pro-immigrant have been fighting and losing the same battle for a long time. There have been some victories like kindertransport, but there have been too many people who have been happy to use immigration as a political football, Montgomery and Brown included.

Pagar, we’re talking about comment 12.

And?

You’re talking about censorship.

CHT:

This post is about Tories mis-use and perpetuating of immigration myths feeding the BNP, all you are doing is basically saying: “LOOK OVER THERE AT WHAT LABOUR DO” which is ducking the issue somewhat.

As for the BNP being econmically left-wing, the terms left and right are broad, broad churches with little value in assigning set criteria too and esp, trying to draw conclusions between, which you are trying desperately to do with the effect of, I presume in your imagination, of making ;the left look bad.

Again more “LOOK OVER THERE” nonsense and flannel with nowt to do with this thread. As for the BNP’s economic policies being termed left-wing, not really but they are unworkable bollocks that will lead to the UK becoming an International laughing stock.

Pagar, it’s a racist bit of nonsense that serves no purpose in the debate, or are you one of those who thinks that all opinions are of equal value?

Please don’t tell me you’re going to go on a censorship ‘run to the hills’ rant.

And the comment policy is pretty clear here, crap gets deleted.

Pagar, it’s a racist bit of nonsense that serves no purpose in the debate, or are you one of those who thinks that all opinions are of equal value?

The value of the opinion is determined by the view of the reader. To say that a view may not be expressed is illiberal. End of story.

If right wing means an atomised society where the value of things is decided by the market and everything is for sale and…

If left wing means a situation where the state decides where all resources are directed and…

You draw a line between the two… I still have no idea where to put the BNP. Yes their “social” policy is incredibly repressive, deportion et al, but they do propose nutty state intervention.

However, most on the right would propose a respect of tradition and a recognition of the sanctity property rights that means the state should not intervene in the affairs of citizens, actually best signifies what they believe.

Similarly, most on the left would argue that traditional forms of society have repressed those traditionally repressed and that a fetishism of property ignores the exploitation that millions experience every day.

Again, drawing a line between these two, it is hard to see where to put the BNP too.

So can we move on?!

In fact pagar that something should not be allowed to be said, for fear of violence etc. is well enshrined in Liberal thought.

I am of the let everyone say what they want brigade. But you can be a liberal and want that foul stuff deleted. Especially when it is a privately run blog which is doing it, not the state.

Pagar: oh you are fucking kidding me? Do you really want to argue about this?

If that’s illiberal then sign me the fuck up you pompous ass. Not all opinions are equal and tolerating all opinion is idiocy, for example, I have no toleration for people who say the earth is flat. Simple as that.

you can be a liberal and want that foul stuff deleted

Not in my view. Liberty of thought and expression is absolutely fundamental.

If I believe the moon is made of green cheese and you believe it is made of spaghetti bolognese we may both br wrong.

But once you take away the right to believe what we want, we are both fucked.

The ability of Tory trolls to misread an article – either deliberately or on purpose – never ceases to amaze me.

Sunny has written a very clear, very straightforward article, making very good and clear points. Yet he is accused of having “no point” or of conflating things which he is at pains to keep separate.

Looks like the British right is learning from the Birther movement: facts don’t matter; just keep saying your line over and over again until everybody else is drowned out.

sign me the fuck up you pompous ass

I’ll report you for that.

“In fact pagar that something should not be allowed to be said, for fear of violence etc. is well enshrined in Liberal thought.”

Quite, for example:

“An opinion that corn dealers are starvers of the poor, or that private property is robbery, ought to be unmolested when simply circulated through the press, but may justly incur punishment when delivered orally to an excited mob assembled before the house of a corn dealer, or when handed about among the same mob in the form of a placard”

On Liberty, pg 55.

Generally considered a seminal text in the Liberal tradition.

Perhaps pagar knows better?

Ha Ha.

You just took my quotes out of context, two inches (depending on resolution) from what I just said!

To repeat: I am of the let everyone say what they want brigade. But you can be a liberal and want that foul stuff deleted. Especially when it is a privately run blog which is doing it, not the state.

No one wants it illegal, or at least I don’t. Be as stupid as you want, somewhere just don’t make it here.

“The value of the opinion is determined by the view of the reader. To say that a view may not be expressed is illiberal. End of story.”

Both statements here are, in my opinion, true. But the second does not follow from the first. To wit:

Premise 1: Pagar’s opinions are generally rather low in value (in my view)
Premise 2: Pagar should, however, be allowed to express his views, because the free expression of views is important to a healthy, functioning democratic society where human beings are able to flourish

P1 is completely compatible with P2 (but note, it doesn’t follow from it)

pagar:

You’re a pompous ass, people can believe what they want but beliefs have consequences when shared with others and ignorance is to eradicated wherever it is found.

Report me to your mum.

Paul:

Agreed, much mis-reading going on, glad I’m not alone in thinking that.

“Looks like the British right is learning from the Birther movement: facts don’t matter; just keep saying your line over and over again until everybody else is drowned out.”

Excellent point.

Pagar,

Your exchange with LO is highlighting my point at 61: LO is manifestly not saying that you should be banned from having certain opinions or from expressing them…although he is suggesting that you should push off this site and do it elsewhere.

So why are you trying to make out that he is saying your opinions should be banned? Why can’t you meet the debate head-on where it actually lies, rather than misrepresenting your opponent?

This reminds me of the freedom of speech chats I have with racists, they talk about their freedom to say stuff like “all black people are criminals” and that they should not be censored from saying it and I say, fine, have your freedom to be an asshat but don’t expect that opinion, when shouted out loud let’s say in Camberwell Green on a Sunday afternoon, not to have serious consequences.

And why the holy fuck are we talking about this, oh yeah cuz Pagar got on a tedious and ugly high horse.

“In fact pagar that something should not be allowed to be said, for fear of violence etc. is well enshrined in Liberal thought.”

It’s not enshrined in my thought. It is possible to try to deny me a platform to express my thoughts but I defy you to stop me thinking them.

Indeed, the impulse to do so is the definition of the fascist.

Pagar sounds just like the racists I debate, now he is starting to throw around the term fascist, alarm bells are ringing…

@Paul Sagar

I’m outraged, but in a mildly amused way. You could never get away with what pagar just did. It’s all written down on the same web page!

Grrrrrr

And to be clear Pagar, you’ve had no thoughts in this thread related to its content, aside from to defend a racist comment, the rules are clear:

” We have a tight comments policy aimed at fostering constructive debate.
We believe in free speech but not your right to abuse our space.”

You dig?

@Paul Sagar

I’m outraged, but in a mildly amused way. You could never get away with what pagar just did. It’s all written down on the same web page!

Grrrrrr

No more responses to pagar. I’ve clocked that he’s just getting some mild amusement out of annoying us. There’s no constructive debate to be had, so I’m going to stop giving him any more satisfaction.

I CAN GET NO…SATISFACTION…A NO NO NO… THAT’S WHAT I SAY!

“It’s not enshrined in my thought. It is possible to try to deny me a platform to express my thoughts but I defy you to stop me thinking them.”

I don’t want to stop you thinking it. I just said that!

Your on a blog run by Sunny (and others??) he faces ultimate responsibility for what happens here, therefore he has a right to moderate anything on here. Because it is his arse on the line.

If you are a liberal what about the enforcement of contacts. By posting here you implicitly agree to the comments policy, you break it, you get removed. That is liberalism 101…

An individual doing something on their website, or their home is ruled by different rule to what a state can do.

@Paul Sagar

It’s a deal

” We have a tight comments policy aimed at fostering constructive debate.
We believe in free speech but not your right to abuse our space.”

You dig?

Is that a threat to try to stifle debate? Who is deciding what is abusive? Who is deciding what is constructive? (Though I agree the last twenty posts have not been illuminating)

But don’t you see how much you degrade yourself by such a comment?

councilhousetory “I’m pointing out that Labour have done more to help the BNP than anyone. Simple……..Oh and BNP economic policies are very left wing. Or should I be whispering that.”

Oh dear, that is rather at odds with what you said earlier……

“I didn’t express my views, idiotic or otherwise.”

Make your mind up troll.

I love seeing sally really laying into someone

WHEN I’M DRIVING IN MY CAR, AND A MAN COMES ON THE RADIO, HE’S TELLIN’ ME MORE AND MORE, ABOUT SOME USELESS INFORMATION!

Left Outside:

I was about to say exactly the same thing and although many times I think she gets it wrong and over reaches somewhat, her attack dog mode is a useful tool to ward off trolls.

Pagar:

You degrade yourself with every vomit that springs forth from yuor mewling gob, to repeat: “We have a tight comments policy aimed at fostering constructive debate.
We believe in free speech but not your right to abuse our space.”

It’s written in black and white rudeboy JUST ABOVE THE BIT YOU DROOL IN!

Yeharr!

SUPPOSED TO FIRE MY IMAGINATION!

I CAN’T GET NO, OH NO NO NO

“It’s not enshrined in my thought. It is possible to try to deny me a platform to express my thoughts but I defy you to stop me thinking them.

Indeed, the impulse to do so is the definition of the fascist.”

Nothing funnier than when the brownshirts start demanding the freedom to shit everywhere.

GO SALLY! WE LOVE YOU!

Dow du du duh, duduh dududuh

Dow du du duh, duduh dududuh

I CAN’T GET NO, OH NO NO NO

This all really needs to be deleted. in line with: “We have a stringent comments policy. We welcome constructive scrutiny of our views but will deal harshly with off-topic, diversionary or trollish comments.”

Hopefully it will all get culled (OMG! HOW WILL I SURVIVE WHEN MY COMMENTS ARE REMOVED! I HAVE RIGHTS!) but I am having a large amount of fun here messing about.

Your mum degraded herself when she sprung you>

What were you saying about the banning of abusive comments? Please point to mine.

Sorry Daniel, I’d love to stay up all night and point out the defects in your thesis but, unfortunately, I’ve got a life to lead in the morning.

Sweet dreams.

Oh yes and everyone knows Sally is really a Tory troll.

Can’t you see?

WHEN I’M WATHCIN’ MY TV, AND A MAN COMES ON AND TELLS ME, HOW WHITE MY SHIRTS CAN BE, BUT HE CAN’T BE A MAN CUZ HE DOESN’T SMOKE, THE SAME CIGARETTES AS ME…I CAN’T GET NO!

YEAH YEAH YEAH!

(except I’m not supposed to listen to the Rolling Stones on account of their being filthy, egregious and unrepentant tax avoiders )

pagar:

HOW DARE YOU QUESTION MY FREEDOM OF SPEECH RIGHTS!?!?!

ARGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!

Take care ballbag.

“GO SALLY! WE LOVE YOU!”

Well sometimes you do.

Joking apart, I do think this site does suffer from a too tolerant policy to tory trolls. They offer nothing , they don’t, despite their pleading offer anything to the subject matter and are mostly here to recite talking points they have picked up at troll centre.

But this is not a popular view, and and people will be along in a minute to tell me that I must be more understanding of these idiots.

Do lefties troll conservative home or iain dale’s diary?

I don’t really read the comment threads on those sites, so I don’t know…

Not to my knowledge but no doubt some fools do, the only time I go over to Dale’s hellhole is when Tim Ireland of Bloggerheads flags something particularly horrible, mostly I stay away from right sites as I have a life and don’t want to be dragged into flame wars.

Liberals have more sense than to troll on their sites. Tory trolls are quite inadequate people. That is why they need to come on here and wave their imaginary dicks around.

Can I just say, as a dyed-in-the-wool leftie and daily reader of LC that you lot (and yes I mean DHG and PS as well as Pagar) sound like the cretins you find on Biased BBC. Seriously. Sunny sort it out and get this back on topic. (and delete this one in the process!)

Dear Sunny H,

You’re correct. But it’s not only the political right that doesn’t understand racism; racism is becoming endemic in ways that have not been evident since the 1960s.

Here in Devon, a rural county in the South West of England, there is a growing and worrying movement that not only celebrates xenophobia but uses the convenience of the affection that those who live here have for the county as a veil to hide and promote some extremely dangerous views. My current observations are informed by my connection with the county that goes back to 1964 when my family moved here from rural Essex. Since then, I have witnessed profound changes in the way in which the county’s demographic has altered and the ways in which a previously liberal, Quaker-inspired body politic has gradually been replaced by a neo-conservative power-elite to which the white side of my own family pledged its allegiance. In recent times, the neo-fascist British National Party (BNP) has targeted the county as ripe for exploitation and the less extreme but nonetheless racist United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) managed to convince the West Country electorate to vote them into powerful positions in Europe. Roger Knapman MEP (Member of European Parliament), UKIP’s former leader, and UKIP’s Trevor Colman MEP were two out of 7 MEPs representing the South West electorate’s views in the European Parliament; both are based at Heathfield, a few miles from my home in South Devon. Roger Knapman has, since the last election, now been replaced by The Earl of Dartmouth.

Across the country, UKIP polled 16.5% and the BNP 6.2%. In the South West those figures are 22.1% and 3.9% respectively. Combine the two parties and one gets an impression of the size of the racist vote. In The South West, that’s 29% of the vote. In my view, the EU elections represent the values held by the electorate while the national and local elections are more likely to represent tactical, social and cultural loyalties.

Nationally, fears concerning immigration and expressions of nationalism have broadened the appeal of xenophobic values beyond the discredited (though growing) far-right movements and have begun to take route once more in popular culture and popular political expression. For non-white people, the creeping institutional racism that is reappearing and re-establishing itself, having been embarrassed to the naughty corner in the more politically correct 1990s, is more difficult to deal with than is popularly expressed by both left and right wing political commentators. Not only are ordinary people encouraged to feel ‘brave’ by expressing racist views in the face of ‘political correctness gone mad’, we are faced with more expert and subtle strategies for exclusion.

Racist attacks and homophobic attacks, both driven by fears of otherness, are on the rise and fewer people are prepared to risk their careers in order to respond sympathetically to complaints of racism within our institutions unless clear cases can be made; usually this means overt racism against a particular individual involving violence or overt hate. But while overt, violent racism is the most horrible to have to experience, it is at least obvious and easier to take to court. Indirect, institutional racism is, however, grossly under reported and when it happens, even the Equalities and human rights Commission (EHRC) and local Race Equality Councils (REC’s) are loath to take on cases. Not because the law isn’t constantly infringed (it is) but because there is not the political stomach to be seen to be politically correct or to stand up for minority inclusion as a principle. Narrowly defined Britishness carries more votes.

Here in the rural areas, there are few support networks and no real support for addressing the issues. Devon is large county with only 1.1 million inhabitants. The non-white population is only 1.5%. In terms of votes we are invisible but there are 16,500 of us living like second class citizens. In the small towns and cities across the UK it’s the same story; only in the metropolitan areas is racism being tackled with anything vaguely resembling enthusiasm.

I had hoped that on this site there would have been greater enthusiasm for a topic like this but many of the posts on this thread seem to be made more for their entertainment value and theoretical one-upmanship. A great shame – it’s not only the right wing that doesn’t understand or seem to give a shit. Racism isn’t just fostered by those who profess it, standing idly by is just as effective

Best wishes

Nick

MarkM @14:

I’ve heard both things (or rather, I’ve heard the first said about several nationalities and two religions, and the latter said about at least five different “races”, three religions and at least two private organisations. I run a pub in a working class area of London, and trust me, right-wingers say all of these things. Some are working-class right-wingers, some are extremely wealthy upper-middle class right wingers. It doesn’t matter if you read the Sun or the Mail, you’ll still have fucked up views on immigration, race and social services which bear no resemblance to reality.

Nick @99:

It was noted by a number of commentators on the recent Euro- and Bye-elections that the success of far-right parties in Britain correlates very well with extremely poor/generationally disadvantaged areas which are virtually or entirely white. It’s much easier to foster xenophobia and racism when people are not buying their milk from a nice Turkish lady at the corner-shop and their barman at the pub isn’t French Algerian. If you deal with a person every day (who happens to be foreign, brown-skinned, gay, etc) it’s much harder to get you to believe lies and propaganda about that person than if you know of such people only as a class of anomalies that are constantly in the press. Ghetto thinking is easier to arrange in situations where differing populations are not integrated.

As you will well know, the rural areas devastated by Foot and Mouth following so close to BSE are pretty disadvantaged and have been stuck in the financial death-rattle for very nearly a generation. They are very likely to be 100% white; no surprise the BNP are moving in.

One reason I mean to move to the country before I have children is precisely to engage in some mimetic engineering there. I don’t think the bigots should have it all their own way.

Dear John Q.

I entirely agree. The memetic transference is at the moment all in the direction of ‘blood and soil’ nationalism at the moment and it seems that all the major political parties are trying to cash in on it. As you point out, in rural areas the farming community has been hit hard by BSE and other issues and have been completely screwed by the food industry – at one point here in Devon the price of a sheep fell to 50p (for the whole sheep!) at market while lamb and mutton in the shops was as expensive as ever.

I think you’re right that gradual and ordinary exposure to otherness does result in the normalisation of behaviour. But such behaviour can go in either direction – towards equality and acceptance or towards bigotry and in metropolitan areas I have experienced both. In rural areas, the balance is tipping fast towards bigotry and I’m seriously thinking about moving to a large city for my own safety.

The biggest problem I find is that left-leaning liberal white people here in Devon simply refuse to believe that non-white people are attacked and assume most personal stories, and the subsequent analysis, by non-whites are exagerated and the right wing rather hope the problem (and the non-whites) will all go away.

Am writing a long piece about all of this at the moment and will put it on my web-site in a few weeks.

Best wishes

Nick

I think you’re right that gradual and ordinary exposure to otherness does result in the normalisation of behaviour. But such behaviour can go in either direction – towards equality and acceptance or towards bigotry and in metropolitan areas I have experienced both.

As have I: I first lived independently quite near Eltham, not long after the Stephen Lawrence case. The area is a known concentration ground for the BNP and fellow travelers, with a quite high and quite long-standing immigrant population. But: the populations in that area are relatively ghettoized. You don’t tend to get skinheads from Mottingham Village (where maybe a third of the houses have second or third generation immigrant families in them); but you do from the all-white estates in Sidcup and the all-white regions of Bexley. They live near enough to victims that it’s worthwhile to organise and go attack them, but they are never brought into the kind of natural contact that allows a community to escape from parochial bigotry.

Contrast with the area of North London that I live in, which is a heavily inter-mixed community dominated by people of Turkish, Lebanese, high- and low-caste Indian, Polish, Egyptian, West Indian, West African and British extractions. The communities are constantly in contact, the level of ghettoization is nil and the level of racial tension is very, very low. Where it exists, it tends to be (for example) Turks who don’t like Egyptians rather than the BNP. Yes, I get charged about 2.5 times the price at the Halal butcher that a Turkish or Lebanese person would get charged; but that’s fine as I’m still paying less than I would at Sainsbury’s.

John Q. Publican, what a liberal you must be to say that about being overcharged at the butcher’s. (But ‘liberal’ is good isn’t it?)

If it becomes common knowledge that the halal butchers are charging diferent prices to people according to their ethnicity or background I think there could be grounds for a little bit of resentment.
I certainlty felt it in a little cafe in a back street in Toledo Spain a while back (which was full of locals) and ate standing at the bar, (presuming a bit of tapas and a glass of beer would be pretty cheap), but when I went to pay, the guy really screwed me for being a tourist. (I was p’d off as I walked out).

I agree that north London is far better than places like Eltham, Sidcup and Bexley for integration, but Green Lanes, Finsbury Park and Tottenham also have a certain amount of seperatism. And I’m sure half the guys who work in those halal butcher’s are illegal.
(Or maybe they aren’t. Some will have refugee status or indefinite leave to remain).
Should a good liberal (like I hope I am) even have such thoughts?

And to Nick Nakorn @ 101, about ”gradual and ordinary exposure to otherness does result in the normalisation of behaviour”.

I’d hope that’s what happens. But I’m not sure how much fraternization takes place in Southwark council blocks like the one that had a fire just recently.
http://thenewspark.files.wordpress.com/2009/07/camberwell_1439938c.jpg

It’s my opinion that the far right gain from some people’s idea that the left and liberals ”spin” how life is actually like in poorer very multi-cultural places like Camberwell or Deptford, Edmonton (or even Southall).
I’ve read articles about how extreme diversity can lead to a lack of trust amongst communities that thrown together.
(Though how valid are those opinions, I can only guess at).

Perhaps the lack of large factories employing thousands with people of different backgrounds, has increased separation? When the cotton and wool mills existed, thousands of whites and Asians worked together, which would have broken down barriers. Work requires teamwork. It would would apear there are far fewer places of employment, particularly in the run own former industrial areas, where the BNP is growing in suport. It is much more difficult to stigmatize a work colleague than someone one does not know.

Robert Putnam of Harvard did the REAL research on homogeneity / diversity and community trust.

No time to give a link now but you can check him out on Wikipedia or American Renaissance vdare.com.

A contributor made some interesting points about Devon; the Devonians aren’t daft, they simply detest the prospect of an influx of those ‘communities’ who are over-represented in the U.K. prison population.

And you all know who we mean! Racist comments will be deleted, so like good PC-goodthinkful sheeple we will make none.

Here is Putnam on trust and diversity:

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/070701_diversity.htm

Celebrate Diversity! Kumbaya!

NOSOTROS LOS GRINGOS UNIDOS JAMAS SERAMOS VENCIDOS!

SECOND TRY TO SUMIT:
++++++++++++++++++++++++

Here is Putnam on trust and diversity:

http://www.vdare.com/sailer/070701_diversity.htm

Celebrate Diversity! Kumbaya!

NOSOTROS LOS GRINGOS UNIDOS JAMAS SERAMOS VENCIDOS!

And here is :

http://www.vdare.com/Sailer/diversity/htm

Enjoy!

Over egging the pudding Stoat.