Why are the UKIP considered racist?

mollymosfet

RandomName2 wrote: »

What you are saying, in effect, is that racism against white people is grand because they have the dominant position. Although when you say 'racist' you actually mean it as a discriminatory umbrella term. So "racist" means.. er... being against any minority for any reason. Which.. um hey.. is um bad.

The funny thing is that I agree with the core of what you're saying; that racism is not necessarily black and white (no pun intended), and that cultural ossification is a bad thing to happen. But you are doing a disservice to discussion on the matter because counter-intuitively you are making it less touchable: broadening the scope whilst saying that all opposition to multiculturalism is an anathema (and then, to add insult to injury, attempting to discriminate against the majority population by extending this blanket cover only to those who might claim to be part of a minority).

You are waving the standard of multiculturalism without really examining what it involves.

Many racists and extreme nationalists from the 1930s were deeply opposed to jazz (as weird as it now seems) not only because it seemed to be artistically radical, but principally due to the fact that it became identified with African-Americans. Seems crazy; and blatantly detrimental to one's country to be opposed to art ffs! Or, as some Nazis after the war grudgingly admitted, perhaps they should have used the Jewish scientists instead of persecuting them into exile.

Of course cultural amalgamation is a positive thing; as is cultural appropriation. Most Islamic art that you see stems from Byzantine Art (the Orthodox Christian Church) - the Ottomans grabbed whatever culture they could and made it their own. The Hagia Sophia, one of the most sacred Christian Churches had minarets placed around it and made into one of the most impressive Mosques in the world. More foolish people would have destroyed it.

But there; even now I'm examining the incorporation of other cultures into one's own - but that's not what you are arguing for; you could as easily be arguing for the separation of cultures: for distinct separate cultures to be present within the same country. This can easily be a meaning of multiculturalism: many cultures, no unity; indeed, sometimes little or no communication between these separate communities. Could you perhaps see how this might be a negative thing? Ah, wait, saying that it might be negative about would be racist, so we better not talk about it at all.

I'm saying it's not the same thing, which it isn't, and a lot of racism "from" minorities is a direct reaction to racism against minorities, part and parcel of the same issue.

Please don't tell me I don't know what multiculturalism "Involved". Most right wingers use the term very selectively.

The "Multiculturalism" you're describing later in your post is closer to segregation, which if anything is far more the result of right wing policies rather than left. I believe in integration without assimilation, and frankly, so should you.

Scofflaw

In fact, I think we've generally had enough of the resort to stereotypical language to describe posters' positions in the discussion, by everybody. Try to respect each others' positions a little better, and nobody has to get infracted.

And a reminder to SeanW not to do FYP.

moderately,
Scofflaw

old hippy

TheLastLazyGun wrote: »

According to Section 3.2 of their policy document Restoring Britishness: A policy document for an independent Britain, the UKIP “promotes uniculturalism, a single British culture embracing all races, religions and colours”.

So, basically, you are wrong.

And, anyway, I have no problem with British groups which believes in the notion that Britain should be predominantly white and Christian.

After all, Britain is, traditionally, a predominantly white and Christian country and has been predominantly Christian for almost 2000 years and predominantly white for countless millennia.

I don't see why that should be purposefully changed.

There's been immigration in Britain for all that time and many, many religions too.

There's always room for more than one culture. Myopia ain't no utopia.

old hippy

TheLastLazyGun wrote: »

To stop the rapid rise of UKIP, Cameron needs to give us the EU in/out referendum in which the British people will almost certainly vote to leave the EU. If he doesn't give us the referendum and our chance to vote to leave the EU by 2015 then many people, including me, will vote for UKIP in 2015.

I agree that the UK needs the referendum but will be saddened that it may be adopting an isolationist approach to its neighbours. We'll see how it goes.

TheLastLazyGun

Rascasse wrote: »

Funny how a little editing makes a policy about repatriating lawmaking from Brussels sound more like a Nick Griffin speech.

Going by your logic, then, we can assume that the Irish were being Nick Griffin-like racists when they wanted independence from Britain.

TheLastLazyGun

greendom wrote: »

You agree with people who believe Britain should be predominantly white ?

Britain has been predominantly white for millennia. Why should we deliberately change that and suddenly make it predominantly black? Why?

SeanW

mollymosfet wrote: »

I'm saying it's not the same thing, which it isn't, and a lot of racism "from" minorities is a direct reaction to racism against minorities, part and parcel of the same issue.

Ah, so it's all evil Whitey's fault. Even racism "from" (in quotes for some reason) minorities.

Please don't tell me I don't know what multiculturalism "Involved". Most right wingers use the term very selectively.

I've had multiculturalism explained to me by various sources both right and left. Neither paint a really nice picture.

The "Multiculturalism" you're describing later in your post is closer to segregation, which if anything is far more the result of right wing policies rather than left. I believe in integration without assimilation, and frankly, so should you.

Except that some cultures make it a point to isolate themselves and to despise their host country when they're allowed to continue in a "multicultural" scenario. This is tolerated by the Left.

greendom

TheLastLazyGun wrote: »

Britain has been predominantly white for millennia. Why should we deliberately change that and suddenly make it predominantly black? Why?

Things change - why does it need to be kept white ? - the UKIP voice is suddenly sounding very BNP

Nodin

TheLastLazyGun wrote: »

Britain has been predominantly white for millennia. Why should we deliberately change that and suddenly make it predominantly black? Why?

.....has anybody suggested that?

TheLastLazyGun

SeanW wrote: »

In other words, anyone who points out that racism isn't a one way street is themselves RACIST?

Yes, the word "racism" to be so broad as to be meaningless. Then lefties can throw it at anyone they disagree with so as to slander them, regardless of whether anyone would even dream of discriminating against or thinking poorly of someone because of their race.

So far we've "learned" from the left that:

1. Libertarians/objectivists are racist.
2. Anyone who dares mention that racism isn't always one way is racist.
3. Only white people or European natives can be racist.
4. Anyone who is in the least bit skeptical of multiculturalism in any form whatsoever is racist.
5. Anyone who opposes quota systems such as affirmitive action in the U.S. is racist.
6. Anyone who feels the need to use stereotypical language (like "lefties" is racist).
7. Anyone who a lefty disagrees with on any issue related to culture, religion or race whatsoever or howsoever arising, is racist.

Thanks for the refresher, but I think I'll stick to the normal definition of racism which is defined as discrimination or distrust of a person or people based on their race. Which is why its called "rac"ism in the first place.

I agree. The word "racist" is used by the Left for anybody who disagrees with their bizarre worldview, even if they have not actually been racist. It's sort of like some sort of strange vocal reflex action that the Left has. The word "Racist!" is the very first thing they utter when someone disagrees with them and, half the time, I don't even know they are saying it.

A perfect example of this was highlighted by Daily Mail columnist Peter Hitchens. He was once called a "racist" by, surprise surprise, a Guardian columnist just because he opposes the legalisation of cannabis.

Another Lefty weirdo took to Twitter to complain that Hitchens rode his bicycle in a "racist manner".

Another good example is that of those Labour councillors who took foster babies from a Rotherham foster couple because, as UKIP voters who support a party who, like the majority of the British people but unlike Labour, oppose unlimited immigration, they were seen by those Labour councillors ar "racists".

TheLastLazyGun

old hippy wrote: »

I agree that the UK needs the referendum but will be saddened that it may be adopting an isolationist approach to its neighbours. We'll see how it goes.

Britain outside the EU will not be isolated. It will be one of the 83% of the world's countries who are NOT in the EU.

TheLastLazyGun

greendom wrote: »

Things change - why does it need to be kept white ?

Why change it?

I find it very disturbing that there are people out there who find a country "too white and too Christian" and are trying their best to socially engineer the ethnic make-up of the population to change that.

If I said that Pakistan is too brown and too Muslim I would be accused of being a racist. So I can't see why it can't be considered racist to say that Britain is too white and too Christian.

the UKIP voice is suddenly sounding very BNP

In opposing unlimited immigration UKIP are only echoing the concerns of the vast majority of British people.

Polls show time and time again that, alongside the EU and the economy, immigration is a major concern for the British electorate.

Remember this: Gordon Brown lost power, and Labour lost at least one voter, when he was overhead calling a nice old lady in Rochdale a "bigoted woman" after she asked him what his party, who had a lamentable record on immigration, were going to do about the probklem of unchecked immigration in the run up to the last election.

jjpep

Just caught with this thread from yesterday. It seems kinda weird in one way that this has become a right vs left discussion but I guess it's understandable too I guess in that ukip being a right wing party then folks who see them as being on the left will want to attack and folks on the right will perhaps want to defend.

It's a pity though because I think there is an interesting conversation to be had about mono vs multi culturism but once it becomes part of an overall idealogical debate I think it becomes diluted and less interesting.

Maybe it's idealistic/stupid of me but I really wish interesting topics like weren't over simplified into you 'think that cause your a lefty/righty' and my side is better. Anyway that's probably off topic so I'll bow out.

greendom

TheLastLazyGun wrote: »

Why change it?

I find it very disturbing that there are people out there who find a country "too white and too Christian" and are trying there best to socially engineer the ethnic make-up of the population to change that.



In opposing unlimited immigration UKIP are only echoing the concerns of the vast majority of British people.

Remember this: Gordon Brown lost power, and Labour lost a voter, when he was overhead calling a nice old lady in Rochdale a "bigoted woman" after she asked him what his party, who had a lamentable record on immigration, were going to do about the probklem of unchecked immigration.

Because things change/evolve naturally. To keep Britain "White" is a racist sentiment no other way of explaining that.

You're telling me that Gordon Brown lost the election due to his unguarded comments ? - he was already well beaten at that point. And surely UKIP should have benefitted more from such comments rather than the Tories/Lib Dems.

Nodin

TheLastLazyGun wrote: »

Why change it?

I find it very disturbing that there are (.............) election.

As far as I know, the vast majority of immigration into Britian was from 'white''christian' European states.

greendom

jjpep wrote: »

Just caught with this thread from yesterday. It seems kinda weird in one way that this has become a right vs left discussion but I guess it's understandable too I guess in that ukip being a right wing party then folks who see them as being on the left will want to attack and folks on the right will perhaps want to defend.

It's a pity though because I think there is an interesting conversation to be had about mono vs multi culturism but once it becomes part of an overall idealogical debate I think it becomes diluted and less interesting.

Maybe it's idealistic/stupid of me but I really wish interesting topics like weren't over simplified into you 'think that cause your a lefty/righty' and my side is better. Anyway that's probably off topic so I'll bow out.

Unfortunately, the thread is called "Why are the UKIP considered racist?" Not really the place for a debate on multi/uniculturism.

Anyway I think we have the answer to the original question.

jjpep

greendom wrote: »

Unfortunately, the thread is called "Why are the UKIP considered racist?" Not really the place for a debate on multi/uniculturism.

Anyway I think we have the answer to the original question.

True. It just the conversation seemed to go in that direction last evening. For me racism is a fairly understandable area. By that I mean its easy to understand. But culture to be is a different subject with a lot more nuances to it and I was interested to see why folks thought mono/uni/one culture was a better set up for a society than a multi/many culture.

But as you pointed out this is perhaps not the exact subject matter of this thread.

walshb

greendom wrote: »

i don't think any of their policies are racist per se. They would clearly appeal to racists however.

I'd agree with this.

I guess they're being as subtle and delicate as possible.

southsiderosie

jjpep wrote: »

Maybe it's idealistic/stupid of me but I really wish interesting topics like weren't over simplified into you 'think that cause your a lefty/righty' and my side is better. Anyway that's probably off topic so I'll bow out.

MOD NOTE:

You are not the only one: per the previous moderator warning, this thread should not boil down to a "you think that cause you're a lefty/righty" kind of debate. Those posters who are not mindful of this will not be with us much longer.

mathepac

TheLastLazyGun wrote: »

Going by your logic, then, we can assume that the Irish were being Nick Griffin-like racists when they wanted independence from Britain.

I guessed this might surface. A people's right to self-determination, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of speech and self-government cannot possibly been seen as racist, not by any stretch of the imagination. It was native majority -vs- brutal occupying minority.

Nelson Mandela and the ANC's struggles against the White Sumpremacists in South Africa were never in my experience classified as "racist", or is your explanation for that because is was (primarily) black -vs- white? Strangely that was also native majority -vs- brutal occupying minority.

RandomName2

mollymosfet wrote: »

I'm saying it's not the same thing, which it isn't, and a lot of racism "from" minorities is a direct reaction to racism against minorities, part and parcel of the same issue.

Please don't tell me I don't know what multiculturalism "Involved". Most right wingers use the term very selectively.

The "Multiculturalism" you're describing later in your post is closer to segregation, which if anything is far more the result of right wing policies rather than left. I believe in integration without assimilation, and frankly, so should you.

I am starting to come to the view that it isn't useful, generally, to use the terms left wing and right wing, because they have no fixity of meaning. If one is underpinning arguments with words where the meaning isn't a constant then...

But I didn't say you didn't understand "multiculturalism" - I said you didn't examine. This goes back to my point above, and why I was getting at you for your shifting of the goalposts about what constitutes "racism", because people have to be able to work from the same standards when discussing something - particularly a political hot potato.

So you say "I believe in integration without assimilation" but what is that? No, really: integration. Describe, perhaps, how something may be integrated and not also assimilated?

The segregation which you are talking about tends to happen organically. Its most benign form is something like Chinatown in New York. (Although one may note that ethnic enclaves in New York... the Irish being no exception... by practising omertá managed to create societies that were subject to internal rules rather than the laws of the land.)

southsiderosie

RandomName2 wrote: »

So you say "I believe in integration without assimilation" but what is that? No, really: integration. Describe, perhaps, how something may be integrated and not also assimilated?

Integration and assimilation are generally not considered the same thing. Assimilation usually refers to adoption of social and cultural norms, and is measured by variables such as adoption of the majority language, inter-marriage, etc. Integration is more civic: people accept the 'law of the land' and broader civic norms, but they may maintain vestiges of their own culture: the use of their native language, maintenance of ethnic enclaves, etc. This is why assimilation became a dirty word for a long time: the implication is that immigrants give up all forms and expressions of their previous identity. Integration allows people to maintain their cultural identity, particularly in the private sphere, as long as they respect civil law. The traditional distinction make in the US is the Chinese: first generation Chinese immigrants in the US are often poorly assimilated, but very integrated.

rumour

Manach wrote: »

Just from looking at the weekend's media headlines, it looks to be an overreaction from an over-zealous council department. The foster-parents in question seem to been acting in a manner in the best interests of the children and so the decision to remove them was in error.

Can't wait until that starts in Ireland..now that the courts have the decision of what's in the best interests of the children in secret court's.

mollymosfet

RandomName2 wrote: »

So you say "I believe in integration without assimilation" but what is that? No, really: integration. Describe, perhaps, how something may be integrated and not also assimilated?

Assimilation would mean multiculturalism, only accepting other races in the context that they drop any cultural markers, which is generally what Nationalist groups want if they don't outright hate immigrants in the first place.

Whereas integration means not doing this, not cracking down on other culture's customs except where they are directly harmful(I don't believe in any tolerance for some of the "witch hunts" practiced by some african cultures for example, though ironically that's down to western influence gone wrong in the first place). Integration would be mean retaining multiple cultures along with the mainstream one, but still accepting and integrating individuals into the wider society that is comprised of these cultures. Any good society is comprised of more than one culture in the first place. One of the problems with Ireland is anything is that we're far too monocultural, we have this sort of pub culture and that's it for the most part.

I'm not sure exactly what the difference is in terms of legislation, but I think that's something those who are against multiculturalism need to clarify.

View

SeanW wrote: »

That's culture (assuming it's to be taken as an extremist viewpoint) not race.

Show me the evidence that UKIP has a problem with people based on RACE, i.e. physical ethnicity.

Under UK law, 'race discrimation' occurs when someone is discriminated based on their 'race'.

So what, is 'race'?

‘Race’ includes colour, nationality, citizenship and ethnic or national origins.

Using any of those grounds to abuse someone and/or make decisions is therefore 'race discrimination'.

old hippy

TheLastLazyGun wrote: »

Britain outside the EU will not be isolated. It will be one of the 83% of the world's countries who are NOT in the EU.

Why change it, though?

TheLastLazyGun

View wrote: »

Under UK law, 'race discrimation' occurs when someone is discriminated based on their 'race'.

Only if they're non-white.

TheLastLazyGun

old hippy wrote: »

Why change it, though?

Because we'd be better of outside the EU than in it.

greendom

TheLastLazyGun wrote: »

Because we'd be better of outside the EU than in it.

Yes then you'd be a country still very dependent on the EU area for trade etc and having absolutely no say in its governance. Good luck with that. I'm sure the EU wouldn't mind come to that. The UK has been nothing but a PITA to the EU movement ever since it joined.

southsiderosie

TheLastLazyGun wrote: »

Only if they're non-white.

Why are you ignoring the second half of their post? It is clear from the link they provided that from a legal standpoint, 'race' is not solely based on color in the UK - hence Poles - who are overwhelmingly Christian and caucasian - can be victims of racism under UK law.

SeanW

View wrote: »

Under UK law, 'race discrimation' occurs when someone is discriminated based on their 'race'.

So what, is 'race'?



Using any of those grounds to abuse someone and/or make decisions is therefore 'race discrimination'.

It doesn't say anything about culture.

View

SeanW wrote: »

It doesn't say anything about culture.

So what?

So you have no problem if the "Irish" in the UK are deemed to to be a "culture" and therefore to be forced into UKIP's "British" cultural box?

Try explaining that to the people in Northern Ireland for starters - even the dopiest Unionist might spot the flaw in their plan.

RandomName2

View wrote: »

So what?

So you have no problem if the "Irish" in the UK are deemed to to be a "culture" and therefore to be forced into UKIP's "British" cultural box?

Try explaining that to the people in Northern Ireland for starters - even the dopiest Unionist might spot the flaw in their plan.

No, the definition you provided was correct, but I have to agree with... the definition you provided and mention how it doesn't mention culture.

Didn't realise there were so many people in After Hours racist against North siders, hippes, and Gaelgories. Don't forget the race of Limerick-ians, etc.

*sigh*
UKIP could call me Tibetan for all I give a flup.

RandomName2

greendom wrote: »

I'm sure the EU wouldn't mind come to that.

Yeah, right. :rolleyes:

Between the PIGSS, and explosive nationalist tensions across Europe (Belgium and Catalonia, to name just two) I think that it would be such a blow to the EU that it would be possible that the EU would fragment altogether.

It would certainly be disastrous for Ireland. :pac:

old hippy

TheLastLazyGun wrote: »

Only if they're non-white.

So, Irish, Central Europeans and Eastern Europeans aren't discriminated against?

Typical bizarro correctness from the non-black brigade! :rolleyes:

old hippy

TheLastLazyGun wrote: »

Because we'd be better of outside the EU than in it.

Why? And don't lump everyone in with this "we" business.

View

RandomName2 wrote: »

No, the definition you provided was correct, but I have to agree with... the definition you provided and mention how it doesn't mention culture.

Try reading the thread title. It refers to people who engage or believe in 'racial' discrimination not 'cultural' discrimination.

You can of course play the pedant and try and maintain their is no link between 'culture' and 'nationality, citizenship and ethnic or national origins' but most people won't be fooled by it.

Certainly, I doubt the Irish in either Northern Ireland or Britain will agree with such pedantry should the time come for them to set aside their Irish culture in favour of UKIP's "British" uni-/mono-culture.

Lemming

I go down to vote in the Rotherham by-election shortly. Among the list of those running, is a prominent member of £UKIP; Jane Collins.

Ms Collins is the regional organiser for UKIP in Yorkshire and was the party's candidate for Barnsley Central at last year's by-election.

She said: "Rotherham has many problems that are not being addressed either by Labour or by the coalition which makes promise after promise which it cannot keep".

Ms Collins said youth unemployment is a major issue in Rotherham, and that it "has been made far worse by the number of new migrants from Eastern Europe."

Source: BBC

Bold emphasis is mine. So, rather than look at the Labour party's short-changing the locals for years, corporate & government mismanagement of the national economy, and combating malaise against breaking free of welfare dependency, £UKIP take a cheap and easy dig by pedalling fear & pandering to xenophobic b*ll**** in the run-up to the local election. There are eastern Europeans in Rotherham, but no more so than any other nationality (myself included) that live here. To single them out is vile & disgusting intellectual dishonesty at its worst.

If people want to argue that one person's views do not equate to £UKIP being a racist party, I say this: this woman is a fairly prominent member of the party and is speaking on behalf of the party in running for election. The party have not censured her (unlike the guy making some dodgy gay adoption comments) and in their silence tacitly approve her message to the citizens of Rotherham.

I believe someone already cited the definition of "racism" according to UK law. I would not put £UKIP on the same pedestal as the BNP for example, but they as a party have strong undertones of racism in almost everything they say and do.

SeanW

I guess Ed Milliband is also guilty of "vile & disgusting intellectual dishonesty," because in a recent speech he admitted that Labour "got it wrong" on immigration.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ed-miliband/9348844/Ed-Miliband-Labour-got-it-wrong-on-immigration.html

Let's be clear about one thing: the immigration of large numbers of unskilled workers is NEVER in the interests of the low paid, young or low skilled workers. EVER. But it's good for middle class PC lefty multiculturalists who read the Guardian and can get their house replummed or a conservatory built, or staff their shops real cheap because of immigration and then wag their fingers at the little people whose livlihoods are threatened and say "you little people shouldn't be racist for opposing uncontrolled immigration"

But there is nothing "racist" about recognising that adding large numbers of new unskilled labourers to the labour market when there is already a shortage of unskilled work, can only be to the detriment of existing unskilled/semi-skilled workers.

It's just basic supply-and-demand.

So you have no problem if the "Irish" in the UK are deemed to to be a "culture" and therefore to be forced into UKIP's "British" cultural box?

Irish and UK cultures are (as have been pointed out in other threads) very similar, so that's unlikely, there's also the issue of Northern Ireland were mono-culturalism will never be possible even if the BNP won the Westminster elections by a landslide, or for that matter if the North were brought into the Republic there would never be anything resembling mono or uni culturalism in Northern Ireland.

A previous posted complained that Ireland has only a "pub culture and little else." Yet from what I understand about "Boozy Britain," the average Briton could drink the average Irishman under the table twice over and still be thirsty.

I also know that there are many people in the UK from an "Irish" background that are for all intents and purposes, fully British.

You can of course play the pedant and try and maintain their is no link between 'culture' and 'nationality, citizenship and ethnic or national origins' but most people won't be fooled by it.

There are some cases (people from Saudi Barbaria for example) who I sincerely hope are capable of separating "culture" from "nationality."

southsiderosie

SeanW wrote: »

Let's be clear about one thing: the immigration of large numbers of unskilled workers is NEVER in the interests of the low paid, young or low skilled workers. EVER. But it's good for middle class PC lefty multiculturalists who read the Guardian

OK, stop right there. Do you really think Guardian readers are the only people who benefit from immigration? These kinds of lazy characterizations are exactly why most debates around immigration go nowhere.

dsmythy

Lemming wrote: »

I go down to vote in the Rotherham by-election shortly. Among the list of those running, is a prominent member of £UKIP; Jane Collins.


Source: BBC

Bold emphasis is mine. So, rather than look at the Labour party's short-changing the locals for years, corporate & government mismanagement of the national economy, and combating malaise against breaking free of welfare dependency, £UKIP take a cheap and easy dig by pedalling fear & pandering to xenophobic b*ll**** in the run-up to the local election. There are eastern Europeans in Rotherham, but no more so than any other nationality (myself included) that live here. To single them out is vile & disgusting intellectual dishonesty at its worst.

If people want to argue that one person's views do not equate to £UKIP being a racist party, I say this: this woman is a fairly prominent member of the party and is speaking on behalf of the party in running for election. The party have not censured her (unlike the guy making some dodgy gay adoption comments) and in their silence tacitly approve her message to the citizens of Rotherham.

I believe someone already cited the definition of "racism" according to UK law. I would not put £UKIP on the same pedestal as the BNP for example, but they as a party have strong undertones of racism in almost everything they say and do.

The difference is clear. BNP types irrationally blame the immigrants themselves. UKIP blame immigration policy. In this case membership of the EU taking away their ability to regulate inter-EU migration, which fits in neatly with their headline 'pull out of the EU' message.

It's up to UKIP to find the figures behind their claims, I'm sure they exist.

Lemming

dsmythy wrote: »

The difference is clear. BNP types irrationally blame the immigrants themselves. UKIP blame immigration policy. In this case membership of the EU taking away their ability to regulate inter-EU migration, which fits in neatly with their headline 'pull out of the EU' message.

It's up to UKIP to find the figures behind their claims, I'm sure they exist.

They [£UKIP] are just a bit more sophisticated and more media-savvy in how they put across what is ultimately the same net-effect regards immigration as the BNP and others spout off. £UKIP blame pretty much everything on everybody else; ostensibly those outside of, or having come from outside, UK borders. Being a fringe party, it's easy to say what you like and not have to get called to account on it of course ...

In a country where currently over one million (iirc from a newspaper headline about six months ago) under-25s are currently unemployed, and in an area (Rotherham) that has an unemployment rate above the national average - somewhere slightly south of 7% according to the BBC a couple of days ago - and that has in past decades relied on unskilled/semi-skilled industrial labour, immigrants are not the root problem, nor is the EU.

Lets take a look at the figures. The ones £UKIP hasn't produced in blaming all of Rotherham's youth unemployment woes on Eastern Europeans.

Taken from an interactive map (data: ONS) super-imposed over google maps, Rotherham has the following:

• Total population estimate of 253,900
• British, white: 92.596%
• Irish, white: 0.433% (go me!)
• Other, white: 0.788%
• Mixed: 1.024%
• Asian, or British Asian: 3.466%
• Black, or British Black: 0.866%
• Chinese: 0.394%
• Other: 0.354%

Dividing 253,900 by 100 gives me 2539 as 1%, so lets look at those figures again:

• British, white (92.596%): 235,101.244
• Irish, white (0.433%): 1099.387
• Other, white (0.788%): 2000.732
• Mixed (1.024%): 2599.936
• Asian/British Asian (3.466%): 8800.174
• Black/British Black (0.866%): 2198.774
• Chinese (0.394%): 1000.366
• Other (0.354%): 898.806

There are no additional qualifying remarks about the figures provided from the map, so one must assume that those figures include the total population, i.e. those of working age, those outside of the working age, in higher-level education, & disabled, etc. So the working-age total would be lower again in each of those figures.

Regardless, the figures speak volumes for Jane Collins & the £UKIPs xenophobic innuendo regards Rotherham.

Edit: Related article to the above census data, albeit at national level figures.

The white British population has stayed the same since 2001 - because even though there has been an increase in births, there has also been a similar number of people migrating. The non-white British population has grown by 4.1% a year, or a total of 2.5m over the whole period, or 37.4%.

In fact, the only group to actually shrink is the white Irish population, down from 646,600 in 2001 to 574,200 now due to falling birthrates and migration. A rise in the "other white" population from 1.4m to 1.9m is not simply due to Eastern Europeans moving to the UK, said the ONS statistician responsible for the report, but also people from the old Commonwealth - countries like Australia and New Zealand.

Bold is my emphasis.


On an aside; just to clarify something for SeanW as I get the impression he thinks that I am advocating wide-open borders. Not at all; no country could cope with such a policy. What is objectionable here is £UKIPs portrayal of all of Britain's problems as originating from outside (everything is the fault of strange foreigners) and if the borders could just be closed (they want an immigration lock for five years for example) everything would suddenly be ok. Oh, and that's on top of ceding from the EU but retaining all of the free-trade benefits ....

SeanW

Lemming wrote: »

On an aside; just to clarify something for SeanW as I get the impression he thinks that I am advocating wide-open borders. Not at all; no country could cope with such a policy. What is objectionable here is £UKIPs portrayal of all of Britain's problems as originating from outside (everything is the fault of strange foreigners) and if the borders could just be closed (they want an immigration lock for five years for example) everything would suddenly be ok. Oh, and that's on top of ceding from the EU but retaining all of the free-trade benefits ....

Firstly, according to some posters on this thread, opposing an open door immigration policy in any form makes you racist.

They have never claimed that "everything is the fault of strange foreigners" that's false, they blame most of the UKs problems on the European Union.

Like the fact that the UK has almost no control over its own borders.

As for "retaining all the free-trade benefits," the UK imports more from the rest of the EU than it exports to them. So it would be in the EUs interest to make sure it had a free trade agreement with the UK in any UK leaving the EU scenario. A protectionist/tarriff war would be in no-ones interests, especially not that of Germany.

Nodin

SeanW wrote: »

Firstly, according to some posters on this thread, opposing an open door immigration policy in any form makes you racist.

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

Could you please quote those posts and link back to them please?

Scofflaw

SeanW wrote: »

Firstly, according to some posters on this thread, opposing an open door immigration policy in any form makes you racist.

They have never claimed that "everything is the fault of strange foreigners" that's false, they blame most of the UKs problems on the European Union.

Like the fact that the UK has almost no control over its own borders.

As for "retaining all the free-trade benefits," the UK imports more from the rest of the EU than it exports to them. So it would be in the EUs interest to make sure it had a free trade agreement with the UK in any UK leaving the EU scenario. A protectionist/tarriff war would be in no-ones interests, especially not that of Germany.

Um, that the UK imports more from the EU than it exports to the EU wouldn't necessarily mean the UK can better afford a trade war with the EU than the rest of the EU can. What would be important to the other countries would be what share of their imports the UK represented, which cannot be determined solely from the UK's balance of trade with the EU as you have attempted to do.

Nor is it a simple case of net importers being able to afford trade wars, because slapping tariffs on imports is highly unpopular too.

cordially,
Scofflaw

mollymosfet

southsiderosie wrote: »

OK, stop right there. Do you really think Guardian readers are the only people who benefit from immigration? These kinds of lazy characterizations are exactly why most debates around immigration go nowhere.

This is why I'm not bothering with this argument anymore. All this **** about PC Multicultural lefties in an argument where there are inherently a myriad of different groups involved. This is the sort of dishonesty I'm talking about, misrepresenting an issue to make it easier to take down.

SeanW

I'll let two of the posters speak for themselves.

greendom wrote: »

What makes them illegal ? Being from a different country ?

mollymosfet wrote: »

it does also raise the point of why some people "deserve" a better home than others.

Nodin

SeanW wrote: »

I'll let two of the posters speak for themselves.

Theres nothing in those posts that mention racism and you're clutching at straws with the secone on all counts.

regi

One thing I'd like to say, accusations of racism (which I don't personally believe) aside, I think its amazingly refreshing and compelling for a mainstream political party to say that their ethos is:

We believe in the minimum necessary government which defends individual freedom, supports those in real need, takes as little of our money as possible and doesn’t interfere in our lives.

That's taken from http://www.ukip.org/page/ukip-history

I'd be hard pressed to define the central policy of my ideal political party better than that.

SeanW

Nodin wrote: »

Theres nothing in those posts that mention racism and you're clutching at straws with the secone on all counts.

Not directly ...