Unlike the original posting, am not reassured by the results of the Searchlight survey. Far from convincing me that neo-liberal moderation and tolerance are healthy and strong in the UK, I am inclined to believe there is a rising level of bigotry and racism in this country.

More and more our newspapers and media lead with headlines accusing Muslims of extremism. Not sure about the rest of the readers, but my sole experience of Islamic extremism amounts to a friend of mine who goes ballistic if you put lemon juice on his salad!!!

Labour and the socialist left need to bring a perspective to the underlying racism in this country. Part of this will be to eduate and inform. perhaps Gordon Brown should not ‘stood down’ so readily when he accused ‘that woman’ of being a bigot. To my mind it was simple ….. he was right!

My argument is not that racism does not exist in Britain, Tacitus. My argument is that the Tories and Labour are reflecting it, and that UKIP (or worse) won’t be the beneficiary.

It depends I was just reading labour newer Welfare reforms and full employment which means labour stated all the disabled should be working but of course like most politician they talk about the 2.4 million on IB, they never ever talk about the eight millions on income support who will soon go to JSA. add that group you have 10.5 million when was the last time any government made 10 million jobs, thats without adding what about 5 million already unemployed.

It will take me time to cool down but if this was election day I think sod it Tories newer labour Liberals all battling agisnt me for being disabled I may well vote BNP

UKIP comes across as a bunch of colonel blimps. They have an image problem. No matter how popular their policies they will always be seen as a bunch of eccentric old men in Union Jack ties banging on about the EU.

The first two responses seem to miss the point of the new information.

Although I’m well aware it seems to be one of the UK’s great export success’s over the last half generation or so (helped along by the Labour partnership with the most right-wing of post-war US Neo-Con Governments), I cant say I’ve had too many incidents of witnessing Islamism at first hand, but as someone who lives on a council estate, I have to say the rise of white fascist views in the last half generation or so is palpable.

There are a few reasons for this.

Too many immigrants, in too small a period of time, and the main body of these dispersed through the poorer. disenfranchised, working class neighborhoods, the people & places that New Labour abandoned for the “Squeezed-Middle” vote if you will, those estates that most people drive through, the people that (falsely-termed) “progressive” brutes pretend don’t exist and idealistically hope whose ignorant views will just seep away into history. The people Labour didn’t rely on to get elected, millions of them.

This policy that Labour jollied along, combined with their brutish so-called progressive voter base shouting down anyone who wants to talk about multiculturalism or immigration as racist or bigots (rather than ignorant, or actually RELEVANT) left the likes of the BNP & more lately, EDL to take the issue, and make it their own, thereby skewing a genuine truth and expanding it to include their own genuinely bigoted views as fact. They were the only ones talking about all this without accusing every one of racism (the irony!).

Labour need a mea-culpa moment relating to this issue (and many other issues imo) if they want to take any kind of advantage from this Searchlight poll, as the Tories are very aware (See Cameron’s recent speech in Germany) of the significant numbers of voters who would return to voting Conservative, like they used to pre-Thatcher. Labour’s blank sheet policy is losing the impetus to a coalition who are not half as stupid as they may appear.

(My point being that a far-right party not led by a clown like Griffin or seen as the militant wing of the Tory Party could potentially be very successful if it ever got any traction)

The claim of this article is that supporting restrictions on immigration amounts to “prejudice” and “right-wing populism”. As pretty much every reasonable person in the UK supports some immigration restrictions, as has every government of the right and left, it’s little wonder that so many lefties like to imagine themselves surrounded by a sea of Sun-reading bigots, regardless of the facts. I suppose it’s a way of feeling better about yourself by elevating yourself above the common and unenlightened herd, right?

I have to start, as an ex-student of the Brandt Commission, that all of this was predicted in the 70s. However we have to deal with past failings now.

I am deeply suspicious of those who are inspired by God under any name. I met a muslim convert through a Liberal friend who was working for friends. He was nice enough, a good worker. Once onto Islam his enthusiasm knew no bounds, “It can cure all the troubles of the West: Drink, drugs, homosexuality…” There are plenty of religious bigots of all stripes, of course.

This isn’t enough to make any judgements on but it shocked me.

Visiting friends in London what strikes me is the pace of change and its scale. I have to sympathise with people who feel overwhelmed.

It’s all very well to cry, “Racists!” whenever anyone expresses concerns in this area, but it’s a mistake. The EDL may be inarticulate but they aren’t all NF or BNP, they represent real concerns of many people who are unrepresented by our bourgeous politicos. We should learn to listen to them and discriminate between the racist and the concerned liberal westerner (I risk a lot in this description but I think it’s what they mean when they call themselves Christian.)

Confused rightwing populism is more or less the default position for public opinion in this country.
I’d say that it is confused because of the way it is attacked by well meaning people on the left. I heard this just last night on Talk Sport radio, where the the talk host Duncan Barkes introduced this subject. He is quite liberal compared to some of the more lumpen listeners, and when discussing issues such as this, he fights and frustrates these callers to the point where it makes painful listening. People in the London area might have heard mid morning LBC radio host James O’Brien doing the same kind of thing.

I always find something dishonest and underhand about the necessity to beat up on these callers, who might have a point that is actually quite mainstream in the country, but isn’t deemed respectable by people running a radio show. So they are mocked and given a hard time.

When someone says something like ”But we were never asked if we wanted to become this multi-cultural mass immigration society” (in a suitably working class accent) the reply can only be to counter with something like ”why should that bother you? Why do you have a problem with that?” and imply that the person is a real idiot for saying such a thing.
I do find it all a bit disingenuous somethimes, and that over time it can increase resentment to the point where you get something like the EDL.

Yeah that’s right, the political system keeps control of opinions and policies that you don’t like, but over half the population wants. 1-0 to democracy there. Nice to see liberalism dressed up as facism once again.

“But as demonstrated by pronouncements by Jack Straw and (somewhat more overtly) by Phil Woolas, Labour has not always been immune from playing in the dirt.

Remember also the various attempts to talk up Britishness witnessed under New Labour. Thankfully, Gordon Brown’s flag-waved rhetorical calls for a ‘national day’ seem to have quietly been dropped.”

Don’t worry, Miliband senior has just written:

“We need a demanding pluralism with a common core of shared values. And what’s more, people believe that such local community building is an effective bulwark against discord.”

(Whatever that means.)

“The moral of the Searchlight survey is … that the political system as current constituted is doing a good job of containing such pressures as things stands.”

Do you think so?

The political system as current[ly] constituted and the vacuous commentariat that it has spawned is doing precisely nothing about “such pressures” apart from making a lot of vague and woolly pronouncements which mean nothing to the man (or woman – that woman?) in the street.

I think what the survey indicates is that there is a great deal of tension beneath the surface – hence, “half the population would ‘consider supporting’ an anti-immigration soft nationalist party” – which has not yet found any coherent expression.

That doesn’t mean it won’t.

After all, Hitler was derided as an irrelevance by the Weimar establishment, just years before his ultimate ascension to power.

By making only muted reference to nonsensical statements that mean nothing the political establishment abdicates responsibility for the underlying problems of globalisation and immigration in the 21st century – and ignores the consequences at its peril.

why do you say Jack straws comments”play in the dirt” adn the guardian article by Miliband (d) says that islam4the uk are fascists!

Good to see the Miliband Elect today blaming immigrants for low wages.

So much simpler to do that than to let people wonder if him and his comrades may have had something to do with that (or any) national problem.

How long until he works out that Islam caused the banking crisis or that asylum seekers are to blame for obesity ?

The reason some people start sentences with “I’m not racist but” is because that because many people are unable/unwilling to realise that there are plenty of non-racist, non-bonkers reasons for criticising culture or supporting a level of immigration control.

Oh… and some people start sentences like that because they are racist, but don’t want it to be too obvious!

@10. Baker
“Yeah that’s right, the political system keeps control of opinions and policies that you don’t like, but over half the population wants. 1-0 to democracy there. Nice to see liberalism dressed up as facism once again.”

Sorry but you seem to have missed the point of democracy. If the people want it why don’t they vote for it? Last time I voted I didn’t notice any members of the Stazi standing by the booths to check how people voted in the SECRET BALLOT and drag them off to be shot should they pick an unacceptable party.

How then exactly does the ‘political system’ keep control of people’s opinions, it can’t be by controlling the media if the two biggest newspapers in the country print little else but stories about immigrants, and the TV was running Panorama specials on ‘Is Britain Full?’. Perhaps it’s by thought control? Should we wear tinfoil hats?

The fact of the matter is people are perfectly free to vote for UKIP if they like. Mr Farrage is on t.v. quite frequently: on the Daily Politics, Question Time, and even Have I Got News For You. Considering how poorly his party does in the polls he gets plenty of exposure. He expresses his party’s views to people and they can chose to vote for him. Except they don’t. People may want further controls on immigration, and no doubt they have their own reasons and arguments, and can speak for themselves, most people may want that. Most people may want their bin emptied twice weekly but the voting record shows they’re really not that interested. People will say they want all sorts of things, but when it comes down to putting their money where their mouth is and casting a serious vote, they usually grow up.

By the way heard of Godwin’s law? Plus you’re wrong, there’s nothing incompatible between Fascism and democracy Hitler actually won the votes in 1939 (July) 37%, in 1939 (November) 33% and 1933 44%, and a further plebiscite in 1934 84% and that’s bigger majorities than than most of our PM’s are elected. I despise the rewritten history that claims Hitler was a dictator, he wasn’t people voted for him time and again.

The uncomfortable fact you’re unwilling to face up to is that there’s plenty of people who’ll vote quite happily vote for mass genocide. And the reason it doesn’t happen in this country is because liberalism is there to debunk the lies. Still nice to see racism rewriting Fascist history once again, and still being incapable of spelling.

edl!

I have some bloody concerns about the way this country is going, though, being in a low paying crappy job, I don’t get much attention, well you know what, maybe I should shout some racial abuse at members of the Asian community, or perhaps act like a football hooligan. Then people might start taking notice of me. Might actually go a bit further then the edl and start hurling bricks through windows, then when I get arrested I will just blame it on those dammed immegunts , muzzies and the PC do gooders who are stifling the debate on immigration, then they are sure to notice me.

If it bloody works for the EDL and BNP, its bound to work for me!!

As soon as immigration rears its ugly held the Labour Party always start to twitch and spasm. Let’s face it – we have never got it right. Those on the right-wing of the party want controls and those on the left want an open door policy. Meanwhile parties like UKIP can feed off working class fear and gain votes.

What scares me is a point alluded to by one psot. Imagine a far-right party led by a charismatic, Tony Blair-lik character, full of intelligence and good humour. He (or psssibly a “she”) would capture working class votes by the millions. Scary thought!

We need a more open discussion about these issues without fear of being called racist. If we don’t, we leave the door open to a potential threat.

I think articles like this in the Guardian do boost the far right though.

Migration is about economics, not politics
The racists’ complaint has always been the same: I’d have a great life if it wasn’t for that person over there

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/feb/28/working-classes-migration#start-of-comments

You can see the resentment towards it in the reader’s comments.
It’s such a polarised issue, that one side or the other making their case, does little to convince people who hold the other view.

[19] “Migration is about economics, not politics – The racists’ complaint has always been the same: I’d have a great life if it wasn’t for that person over there”.

Migration IS about economics in the main.

Migrants generally gravitate toward societies that are economically advantageous, be it a professional from a relatively affluent country seeking a better way of life, or those from less favourable economies seeking higher pay or better working conditions (as well as a means to support their families back home).

So far arguments around immigration have focussed on cultural factors because until recently the UK enjoyed relatively stable interest rates, low inflation, near full employment and so on – but I suspect the economic argument will take precedence as access to public services (housing, health, education, etc) becomes more problematic, while unemployment, interest rates, and inflation all take a turn for the worse.

It has already been claimed that Britain is the most densely populated major country in Europe and this has been attributed to rates of immigration.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/2967374/England-is-most-crowded-country-in-Europe.html

Obsessing about comedy outfits like the BNP or the EDL always seems to take precedence over the concerns of those fighting to survive in a world with rising unemployment, fewer public services, prohibitive Uni fees, extortionate property prices and an economy that will soon be feeling the effects of rising interest rates and inflation.

@ William (post 16)

You make some good points, however you fail to address one of the reasons why parties like UKIP and the BNP make so little impact on Westminster elections. Our archaic voting system means that even when (relatively) large numbers of people *do* vote for them, they don’t win seats anyway. UKIP and the BNP both won more votes than the Greens, SNP and Plaid Cymru.

@20. But while the ‘lumpen’ half of the country are sneered at for not getting this, the liberals who do sneer also don’t appreciate a point of view, that while accepting some of the deprevations and shortages of a capitalist system like ours, will have the view that adding unskilled and culturally different people into an already challenging environment, causes extra complications that many people never asked for.

Being from London, but now living in a city that is 99% white, with a history of working class solidarity (and sectarianism) in heavy industry and ship building, I sometimes wonder how it would look if it became like the most diverse areas of London. Like Wembley, Peckham and Newham. Where seeing kids going to and from school, white children are very much a minority sometimes.
It would obviously change this city beyond recognition, and would throw up all kinds of new challenges.

I get the idea that the liberal left is always just managing and controlling this issue.
In a somewhat dishonest and underhand way quite often.
Although I agree it has to be addressed and dealt with.

My argument is not that racism does not exist in Britain, Tacitus. My argument is that the Tories and Labour are reflecting it, and that UKIP (or worse) won’t be the beneficiary.

Oh well, that’s all right then… I mean, it’s not like racism is a problem in itself, as long as it’s not threatening the cosy stitch-up between the existing major parties…

Most of you will ignore this because it will make you ask a question you don’t want to answer.
Does supporting a racially prejudiced immigration policy make you a racist?
Open door to The European Union, while discriminating against the rest of the world has distorted the racial mix of this country.
UKIP may be poor at getting their message heard, but they are the largest non racist party in this country.

To be fair to many people, whether we like it or not, immigrants have ousted people from the labour market which has resulted in driving down wages, terms and conditions of those in work, seeking work or even quite frankly those who are unemployable. The problem is that the Left in general and Labour in particular have allowed the focus of that anger being turned on immigrants themselves and the concept of immigration. What the Left/Labour should have been doing was ensuring that that this anger was channelled into amending our lax labour laws.

We needed to look at those being chipped further down the economic ladder and looked at the underlying concerns of these people, instead of ignoring them and allowing them to fester.

We are now in the position were the unemployed, short term and, perhaps more worryingly, the longer term unemployed are increasingly expected to attempt to out compete most notably Polish immigrants, in a race to the bottom of the economic scale. Is it so hard to imagine that someone with long term, chronic illnesses who has just been declared fit for work without a reasonable work history having to compete with young fit, healthy immigrants with a CV that would choke a horse, would fall prey to the claims of the BNP? Are we really that stupid that we wouldn’t see that type of thing would lead to anti immigrant feelings? We have been here before people. We have seen what economic turmoil does to ‘race* relations’ among the disposed. If the economic Tsunami that we all expect will hit, don’t be surprised to see racial* tension and conflicts move to the fore.

Don’t blame Right Wing agitators and the Daily Mail, the blame lies entirely wit Left Wing compliancy.

*For ‘race’ read cultural, Nationality, Religious issues, it is all the same mindset.

This is vile and outrageous!

Dis be RACISM!

Britain needs at least 100,00 more Somalis and another 200,00 Afghans, more Kurds and a lot more Egyptians, Nigerians, Jamaicans, Cameroonians, Sri Lankans, Sudanese and Yemenis.

Kumbaya!

Why does an anti-immigration stance represent a “far right” platform? It’s entirely possible to have leftist social policies and simultaneously limit overseas immigration.

This presumption shows you have a sloppy thought process and have internalised tropes and cliches as though they were facts. Your world view is like a movie script complete with goodies, bad guys and cliches.

“Opposition to immigration – predominantly of the ‘I’m not a racist, but …’, variety – is an important component of the package, and that fact has not been lost on politicians.”

Source?

Or is that just how the world looks from a position of privelige, surrounded by Marxist fire-brands from comfortable middle-class families, pontificating leftist drivel over a latte. See, I can stereotype you as well.

Good thing you don’t need to try and get a job in a factory in East London to support your family eh? You might not be so smug about depressed wages and being at the back of a long queue of recent migrants to get the job in the first place.

In actual fact, your cynical stereotyping and smearing of anyone opposed to immigration is very poor journalism and one has to wonder if you have much capacity for critical thought.

Why does an anti-immigration stance represent a “far right” platform? It’s entirely possible to have leftist social policies and simultaneously limit overseas immigration.

This presumption shows you have a sloppy thought process and have internalised tropes and cliches as though they were facts. Your world view is like a movie script complete with goodies, bad guys and cliches.

“Opposition to immigration – predominantly of the ‘I’m not a racist, but …’, variety – is an important component of the package, and that fact has not been lost on politicians.”

Source?

Or is that just how the world looks from a position of privelige, surrounded by Marxist fire-brands from comfortable middle-class families, pontificating leftist drivel over a latte. See, I can stereotype you as well.

Good thing you don’t need to try and get a job in a factory in East London to support your family eh? You might not be so smug about depressed wages and being at the back of a long queue of recent migrants to get the job in the first place.

In actual fact, your cynical stereotyping and smearing of anyone opposed to immigration is very poor journalism and one has to wonder if you have much capacity for critical thought.

@Jim Crow: your argument would be a lot more powerful if you hadn’t chosen as your online handle two words that symbolise some of the most unjust laws any democracy has ever enacted against its citizens. That’s enough in my book to identify you prima facie as a racist and disregard you and your opinions.

Unless, of course, you’re actually called Jim Crow. Which would be wildly ironic.

“your argument would be a lot more powerful if you hadn’t chosen as your online handle two words that symbolise some of the most unjust laws any democracy has ever enacted against its citizens. That’s enough in my book to identify you prima facie as a racist and disregard you and your opinions.

Unless, of course, you’re actually called Jim Crow. Which would be wildly ironic.”

It was just a throw away, first thing popped into my head, don’t attach any meaning to it.

Interesting that you judge the merit of an argument based on the name of someone saying it.

Says something about you I think.

Most of you will ignore this because it will make you ask a question you don’t want to answer.
Does supporting a racially prejudiced immigration policy make you a racist?
Open door to The European Union, while discriminating against the rest of the world has distorted the racial mix of this country.
UKIP may be poor at getting their message heard, but they are the largest non racist party in this country.
Does able to ignore mean the same as ignorant?
Liblabcon’s immigration policy is racist.
Does this mean the majority of British people are racist, or are they misinformed by corrupt politicians?

Mr Eugenides, agree or disagree with what Jim Crow said, but your excuse for ignoring what he said was pretty poor I thought.
This website has a habit of giving up on threads just at the point where they get interesting.

I’ve altered my handle so that Mr. Disingenuous no longer has an ad-hominem excuse to cop out or arguments he can’t refute.

I wanted to expand a little on the point I was trying to make previously.

I dislike all this talk of “far-right” in any context of a debate regarding immigration as it’s clearly a misnomer. The left, or at least the traditional left, has more interest in this subject than this murky, and frankly inept, “far-right”. It seems to me that driving down wages and forcing economic growth by means of importing consumers from abroad is more the province of the capatilist “Right” than the party of trade unions and the welfare state. Emotive humanitarian appeals regarding asylum seekers aside, increased immigration benefits Right more than Left.

Mr. Osler’s article presents anyone opposed to immigration in terms of his own stereotypes, i.e. Sun and Daily Mail reading racists beneath contempt.

A certain level of breathtaking arrogance has to be attributed to him in this.

Demographic projections suggest that the Native British population is going to become a minority in this country within 50 – 60 years. Whether you think this is a good thing or a bad thing, or whether you even believe it to be true, there can be no doubting that the immigration policy in this country over the last 60 years has important social consequences.

And unlike other misguided social policies, this one can not be reversed. Mainstream politicians are beginning to make noises that multi-culturalism has failed and it is impossible to rule out the possibility that ten or twenty years down the line, it may be acknowledged to have been an unmitigated disaster.

What then?

This isn’t like a government setting VAT a couple percentage points too high or abolishing tuition fees, these policies can be reversed. Mass immigration can not.

Surely something as fundamentally important as immigration should be debated? When was the debate in the houses of parliament? There hasn’t been one.

Where is the popular mandate? I think we all know what referendums on the subject have said in the past.

Surely it requires some temerity to write off as “racists” opponents of a social policy which has huge ramifications for everyone in this country, has no popular mandate, and has never been debated.

Surely that is obvious?

This subject is important across the political spectrum and I fervently hope the Left will someday see that it has interests in this debate, and stop trying to straw man opponents as “far-right” boogey men, racists, Nazis, Sun-reading bigots, morons or whatever the invective of the day is.

Jim Eagle, I think you’ll find you are too late now. The thread is a couple of days old and people have moved on to WikiLeaks and more recent threads.

Personally I find what you say would be a better starting point for a discussion on this rather than the OP. Not that I wouldn’t disagree with some of the points you make, but this was just too tired and staid:

Confused rightwing populism is more or less the default position for public opinion in this country. I’ve always believed that lefties are making a mistake when they blame the Daily Mail and the Sun for that state of affairs; the reality is that these newspapers sell shedloads precisely because they articulate the prejudices they in turn help to sustain.

Opposition to immigration – predominantly of the ‘I’m not a racist, but …’, variety – is an important component of the package, and that fact has not been lost on politicians.

Starting off a thread with those words was really narrowing any possibility of open discussion IMO.
But I suppose if you don’t like it you might be advised … ”there are other websites” etc.
I think it makes clear though that there can be no meaningful discussion on the subject, as it’s an attritional ”debate” – not really a genuine one.

Society is naturally always evolving and I welcome change and diversity, but I would just like to see more honesty in supposid debates about demographic change.

“Starting off a thread with those words was really narrowing any possibility of open discussion IMO.
But I suppose if you don’t like it you might be advised … ”there are other websites” etc.
I think it makes clear though that there can be no meaningful discussion on the subject, as it’s an attritional ”debate” – not really a genuine one.

Society is naturally always evolving and I welcome change and diversity, but I would just like to see more honesty in supposid debates about demographic change.”

Well I agree, is immigration good or is it bad? Is displacement of the founding population good or is it bad?

I don’t know, there hasn’t been a debate, and anyone who brings it up gets tarred with exactly the kind of ad-hominem the OP advocates.

Concerned,

You rant on:

“Good thing you don’t need to try and get a job in a factory in East London to support your family eh? You might not be so smug about depressed wages and being at the back of a long queue of recent migrants to get the job in the first place.

In actual fact, your cynical stereotyping and smearing of anyone opposed….”

Interesting that the exporting of British jobs by UK companies to low wage nations is completely off your radar. You are the one who seems to have bought the stereotypes without any real depth of thought.

leticia olalia morales of 15501 pasadena ave #h tustin ca 92780 submitted fake documents and 5000 dollars to a person name sandman at the US embassy in manila. she also submitted fake employment records to obtain a work visa. Her husband carlos b. morales also submitted fake documents (land titles and bank statements) to obtain a tourist visa. Her son carlo iii also used such and helped 2 other people to obtain a US tourist visa.