By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Great thread. I didn't click on for a week as seemed to be going down familiar lines but it's a really positive conversation. Hunter and Disco in particular have been a joy to read.
"The opposite of love, after all, is not hate, but indifference."
Paul Nuttall new UKIP leader on 19:15 - Nov 29 by Hunterhoop
Disco,
Always been fascinated by your take on things politically. From what you've said about your life, career history, background, current job, etc, plus your extremely well worded posts, you are clearly intelligent, aware, and not a racist. Many of the points you are making, whilst shrouded in exuberant metaphor, do get to the heart of a few issues.
I think I understand where you're coming from in your support for UKIP and it's very interesting to hear Nuttall's first speech; it plays to exactly what you are saying, or at least I think some of it does. It is also where I see UKIP's biggest political opportunity: the working man.
Whilst you know I'm not a UKIP supporter, I'm intrigued to get your take on a few things UKIP. As you probably know I am a liberal - in the John Stuart Mills sense, ie, social liberalism, but economically tend to sit nearer Keynesian economics than neoliberal economics.
Am I right in saying you are coming to UKIP as a former Labour supporter, because you feel none of the major parties are truly looking out for the working man, whether than be a steel worker in Port Talbot or a delivery driver in East Ham, or a nurse in Brixton, etc, etc? I tend to agree that all major parties, have shifted too far towards neoliberal economics, have failed to facilitate integration alongside immigration, and have done too little to help out the "losers" from globilisation (which I'm broadly in favour of, I should note).
I completely agree that politicians from across the political spectrum don't really know/understand the working man. I agree that many in the media do fit the wonderfully verbose descriptions you come up with, save for your unjustified and inaccurate use of the the word "liberal".
However, without getting into all that, what I'm interested, is whether you think UKIP truly are, can become or even truly want to become, the party of the working man?
For me, they appear to have two incongruent strands.
On the one hand much of UKIP's support comes from low income, working, white, males, many of whom actually come into little contact with immigrants. This was true of their 3.8m votes at the last election. It's similar to Trump supporters in the Rust Belt. I truly believe their fear of immigrants and "globalisation", which in some instances is justified, but is, in the in the main, misguided, drives this support. Fear driven by media owned by extremely wealth, white establishment men.
On the other hand, UKIP were a party founded, led and funded entirely (until now) by very wealthy, private school educated, white men, who favour neoliberal economics, a reduction in the size of the state and a return to the days of "Great" Britain. They utilised rhetoric which was anti immigrant in order to gain the support of those I mentioned in the first strand....As a result, this attracted some people to their party who are actual racists. That does need to be acknowledged.
Now, clearly, these two strands clash. As far as I can see it, UKIP have a choice. These are:
1) Become the true party of the working man (whilst Labour and the north Islington set pissball about with socialism, which helps few about from those governing, just like neoliberalism), supporting local workers, engaging and trying to woo the trade unions, opposing the EU, opposing immigration, espousing protectionist economic approaches, etc. However, at the same time, they need to drop the neoliberal economic aspects several in the party espouse; they need to champion the NHS and welfare, not criticise it and they need to leave behind the former old school Conservative "Jag and Gin" set they have historically courted, because the "Jag and Gin" set are entirely opposed to the concept of the supporting the working man.
I think this is what you want. Tell me if I'm wrong. If so, I think this is absolutely fine, They would, in effect, become the true "labour" party. Not socialist, not liberal, and not conservative. A country should have a political party representing this demographic.
Option 2) They pander to the "Jag and Gin" set who made their money in the 70s and 80s and want to hark back to that country where there were TV shows openly racist, where Britain was great and Johnny Foreigner should be kept out, and where money could be made (especially if you had money in the first place!). In this instance, they are really going after the right wing aspects of the Conservative vote. For me, this is really where Farage sits and comes from.
This I'm less fine with. I consider it regressive, broadly rascist and self serving.
At present, they are trying to woo both strands, but I simply don't think they can put forward a credible narrative by trying to be both. There is some cross over (albeit for different reasons) that both strands have, notably immigration, hence why they play so hard on it. But it isn't really a road to electoral success, especially when either (or both) of the following happen: 1) Britain regains total control of its borders (post Brexit taking effect). 2) An economic impact is felt, in terms of increased cost of living, which worsens livings standards, which isn't offset by improved national salaries/employment, after Brexit takes affect.
What's your take?
As I've said I'm broadly in favour of globilisation (most economic studies show it has a net improvement on a country's standard of living), but only globalisation with a conscience, where governments put far more effort and money towards retraining the minority who lose out (in the job sense) from globilisation, and the globilsation serves people (through jobs, living standards, opportunity and choice), not big corporations' shareholders. A "John Stuart Mills" globilisation, if you will, albeit that's a horribly crude concoction of political theory.
I'm in favour of immigration. I believe it is not just necessary, but desired, to improve and develop any developed country's economy and living standard (and society, frankly!). But I think governments should do a lot more to invest in infrastructure to handle additional migrants, without worsening the infrastructure available to their citizens, and to ensure social integration. Again, this has been a huge failing from recent governments. Huge. Both Labour and the Tory's are at fault here.
I broadly favour investment in infrastructure during economic downturns (money is so cheap, why not borrow to create work, disposable income, etc, which will all flow cyclically around the economy), but believe countries gains more from having people employed by profitable private companies than employed in needless state sector roles, it drives the economic progression of a country in comparison with other countries, thus improving living standards.
And I'm broadly in favour of some small redistribution of wealth, albeit I am no socialist.
But with your background and political views, do you really think UKIP are or will be a party that matches your political views? And, if they don't fully go down that strand....what then?
In my view, the demographic you (possibly rightly) feel have been forgotten and ignored for too long, would actually be best served, in today's political climate, by the Lib Dems. Not saying they are the party of the working man. But neither do I truly believe UKIP are, ever were, or ever will be. Labour haven't been since Foot, and are a mess at the minute. Socialism, whilst supposedly being in the interests of the working man, almost always leads to a worse standard of living than capitalism and I don't think the people you often refer to in your posts as having lost out, actually really want this. And in my view, one I think you share, Labour today are a Champagne Socialist group who's lack of competence would mean everyone would be worse of. Workers benefit from successful business. They provide jobs, disposable income, and opportunities. However, unfettered capitalism, that neoliberalism I refer to, vastly favours those with capital already. Globalisation with a conscience, social liberalism, investment in public services, and a little redistribution of wealth....would this not be in the interests of the working man?
I think politics in the UK and globally needs tweaking, a rebalancing if you will...not a complete overhaul and harking back to authoritarian socialist, neoliberal OR closed borders "lock 'em out, everything bad is their fault" politics. People are forgetting, that at the highest, broadest level, we are all liberals today (historically speaking). I don't think we want to forget that now and throw the baby out with the bathwater. And I do wish you'd stop misusing "liberals" when putting together your great streams of lexicon.
"Become the true party of the working man "
Used in this context (as it often is), it's implicit that you're talking about white working men, no? Or some kind of "indigenous " man?
(That's overlooking the absence of women here too!)
0
Paul Nuttall new UKIP leader on 21:27 - Dec 4 with 1823 views
Paul Nuttall new UKIP leader on 12:34 - Dec 1 by stevec
And that, Disco and Hunterhoop, is how to conduct an argument.
Not a single accusation of 'cnt'' twt', 'need a doctor' 'racist' or 'fascist'. I salute you both.
Cannot agree more stevec.
Can see why Disco's views are now resonating far and wide, can say I could never bring myself to putting my x against a UKIP candidate but the politicians leading the main parties have done nothing to try and resolve any of the real issues facing so many of the ordinary folk taken for granted except when an election is at stake.
Culteral issues are splitting this country in half, Farrage imo has used this to a great advantage,a move that Corbyn has done absolutely nothing to address and will never do as it goes so much against the 'cuckoo land' that is his 'paradise'
I am so much a very very dissilusioned 50 year Labour Party man that cannot ever see our country being led by a party from a man that get his kicks from using illogical mantras, the one faint hope of the 'working man' getting at least a bit of a boot into the 'establishment' well and truely stuffed.
There wil be no wonderment from me that UKIP may well get away from the 'Out of Europe' single policy tag now they are starting to make inroads into so called heartlands of 'Labour.
Lets add a bit more fuel to the fire from the report I have linked to below, no doubt their will be plenty of gnashing of teeth from the'Islington Set'
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
