The UK has become racist and science denialist overnight. Bugger.

The UK has become racist and science denialist overnight. Bugger. May 3, 2013

So there were local elections yesterday, these for councillors for the County Councils (broadly speaking, States in the US). Councils are run by a number of councillors, and overall majorities mean that certain parties control whole counties (again, broadly and simply speaking).

Here is the table of the 34 counties which  were up for grabs:

Capture

So, mid term, you would always expect the party in power to lose seats – this being a coalition of Conservatives (right wing) and Lib Dem (centre-left).

But holy shit, we weren’t expecting the shit-storm of protest votes for  the UKIP (UK Independence Party). This party started a s a break-away party to the Conservatives when they started moving to the centre.

The issue is that, in reality, the UKIP is the middle class acceptable face of racism and science denial. Here is the BBC rundown of what they astand for, my emphasis:

 

  • EUROPE: Nigel Farage says he wants an “amicable divorce” from the European Union. Britain would retain trading links with its European neighbours but would withdraw from treaties and end subscription payments, adopting a similar relationship with the EU to Norway or Switzerland.
  • IMMIGRATION: An end to the age of “mass uncontrolled immigration”. It wants a five year freeze on immigration for permanent settlement – and any future migration must be strictly limited to those who can “clearly be shown to benefit the British people as a whole and our economy”. Immigrants would not be able to apply for public housing or benefits until they had paid tax for five years. In order to achieve these goals Britain would have to leave the EU because there are no restrictions on other EU citizens moving to the UK while it remains a member.
  • TAX: UKIP favours a flat tax – a single combined rate of income tax and national insurance paid by all workers. It claims this would end the complexity of the current system and allow people to keep more of the money they have earned. It would also lead to a major shrinking of the size of the state, which would revert to a “safety net” for the poorest. The party has yet to decide the rate at which the flat tax would be levied. Its policy at the 2010 election was 31% but a recent policy paper suggested 25%. It is having an internal debate about whether there should be two rates.
  • EDUCATION: UKIP backs selection by ability and would encourage the creation of new grammar schools. It would give parents vouchers to spend in the state or private education sector. It also advocates the return of the student grant system to replace loans.
  • HEALTH: UKIP says it has no plans to fundamentally change the NHS – it would, however, shrink the Department of Health and hand control to locally elected County Health Boards. It would also restore “traditional” non-university training for nurses.
  • DEFENCE: According to a recent policy paper, UKIP would increase defence spending back to 2010 levels. It would build more warships and carry out an urgent review of the case for replacing Trident, including the option of a new British-built nuclear missile system capable of launch from air, sea or sub-surface vessels.
  • ENERGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE: UKIP is sceptical about the existence of man-made climate change and would scrap all subsidies for renewable energy. It would also cancel all wind farm developments. Instead, it backs the expansion of shale gas extraction, or fracking, and a mass programme of nuclear power stations.
  • GAY MARRIAGE: UKIP supports the concept of civil partnerships, but opposes the move to legislate for same-sex marriage, which it says risks “the grave harm of undermining the rights of Churches and Faiths to decide for themselves whom they will and will not marry”.
  • LAW AND ORDER: UKIP would double prison places and protect “frontline” policing to enforce “zero tolerance” of crime.
  • THE ECONOMY: UKIP is proposing “tens of billions” of tax cuts and had set out £77bn of cuts to public expenditure to deal with the deficit.
  • TRANSPORT: UKIP says it is the only political party to oppose the High Speed 2 (HS2) rail line arguing it will destroy countryside for little economic gain. It also opposes a third runway at Heathrow, arguing instead for an expansion of Manston airport, in Kent.
  • SOCIAL ISSUES: UKIP has been vocal in its opposition to what it sees as “political correctness” in public life. It also argues that multiculturalism has “split” British society. It would legislate to allow smoking in pubs, in designated rooms, and hold local referendums on repealing the hunting ban.
  • DEMOCRACY: The party wants binding local and national referendums on major issues.

 

Now, just read some of those bullet points. Climate denialists. Anti-gay rights. Pro-fricking hunt! Man, the British public have sent our country backwards. This is truly worrying. Don’t people realise who they are voting for? A protest vote is one thing, but this is fucking stupid. Have you seen the number of candidates gained? From single figures to three figures. As soon as states start having trouble, as soon as recessions hit hard, the right wing raise their ugly heads. Golden Dawn in Greece, UKIP in the UK.

I am SERIOUSLY pissed off. We might as well import the fucking Republicans.

 

[EDIT – A more reasoned analysis comes from a reaction to this frustration which I linked to on a group on facebook:

It’s all the more insulting because we live in an age in which virtually unlimited amounts of information is instantly available to us on our phones, much less PCs (for those that have them). So people are either wilfully ignorant, or agree with UKIP.
Sadly most of the people I spoke to who were pro UKIP were very simply bigots. I’ve heard all sorts from the good old days of when black people and white people were segregated, to wanting people out because they make London smell of curry(!).

As some people have commented, even voting UKIP as a protest vote is idiotic, if not dangerous, as it leads to the other parties trying to take ‘tough’ stances on various issues, which by extension is seem to legitimise the arguments UKIP make. 

Sadly I was very much of the opinion that UKIP getting support comes at a very high price to the Tories. However I can’t help but to have nightmares about a 2015 coalition between Labour and UKIP (or the unthinkable: Conservatives and UKIP). 

UKIP taking second place in a strong Labour seat is very disturbing, not least because they didn’t even run a candidate in the last election there, and so have managed to build that up from virtually nothing.

Ironically it seems the less people that vote (very understandably) the easier it becomes for big swings like this to happen. 
That means encouraging people to take an active interest in voting for parties they have no interest in or respect for. 
By comparison it’s probably very easy to get people to vote UKIP.]

"Yep. Increasing volatility. Thanks. Put more heat into the pan of water and its starts ..."

The Australian Bush Fires and Climate ..."
"By three million votes, if I recall correctly..."

The US Political Landscape Crumbles; Consequentialism ..."
"Oh, yeah. I'm just kinda thinking that it'd be that much easier if it wasn't ..."

The Australian Bush Fires and Climate ..."
"The fact that you're too stupid and willfully ignorant to understand what people are saying ..."

Abiogenesis

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment
  • f_galton

    Looks like a solid, sensible agenda.

    • At first I was wondering if you were Poe joking, but then I checked your other activity and you support apartheid. So I guess this agenda fits nicely.

      • f_galton

        Windmills and high speed rail are an impractical and inefficient use of resources.

        • Andy_Schueler

          Wind farms are neither impractical nor inefficient and the opposition to the HS2 is not exactly one of the key points for which the UKIP is criticized…

          • Guest

            I thought they were bad because they were fascist, and now you say it’s because they oppose wasting money on high speed rail.

          • Andy_Schueler

            and now you say it’s because they oppose wasting money on high speed rail

            I actually did say the exact opposite by stating that this is not what is being criticized.

        • UKIP are an inefficient use of morally benign vote.

    • Andy_Schueler

      Looks like the fascists start crawling out of the sewers to celebrate.

      • f_galton

        None of the above agenda is fascist, unfortunately.

        • Andy_Schueler

          You might want to look up “fascism”. Hint: it has more than one meaning in contemporary politics and the label “fascist” indeed does fit parties like Golden Dawn in Greece or UKIP in the UK.

          • f_galton

            You should take your own advice.

          • Andy_Schueler

            You should troll somewhere else.

          • f_galton

            You should stop being a comment Nazi.

          • Andy_Schueler

            I first thought of asking you what a “comment Nazi” is supposed to be, since the Urban dictionary definition:

            Comment Nazi: When fbr_t mods decide that innocent bystanders are responsible for their periods and decide on freezing the replies of anyone who doesnt do as they say. Cunts.
            ohnoezlolhan: lets talk about me in dis post okay.
            anon: lol ryna is a sif now lololololol forever lol.
            anon: -replies frozen-
            ohnoezlolhan: hur hur hur im a comment nazi hur dur dur.

            – hardly makes any sense in this context.
            But after browsing your recent comment history, which is 90% racist one-liners about “Obongocare” and Apartheid being totally awesome, it is more than obvious that you are just a racist troll with nothing interesting to say.
            So, kindly fuck off and go die in a fire.

          • f_galton

            Try making a comment that has something to do with the topic we are discussing.

          • Andy_Schueler

            We are not “discussing”. And, based on browsing your recent comment history, you don´t seem to ever “discuss” with anyone.

  • pboyfloyd

    Welcome to the West!

  • Andy_Schueler

    LAW AND ORDER: UKIP would double prison places and protect “frontline” policing to enforce “zero tolerance” of crime.

    THE ECONOMY: UKIP is proposing “tens of billions” of tax cuts and had set out £77bn of cuts to public expenditure to deal with the deficit.

    Ok, I don´t blame them for the “let´s make huge cuts in public spending to deal with the deficit, because that is totally not based on refuted assumptions about the way real-world markets behave and totally did not make matters infinitely worse in Greece and Spain and pretty much everywhere else where this has ever been tried out” – part, because politicians all over europe are not one iota smarter than that.
    But this tough on crime Bullshit and doubling(!!) prison places? Did these morons look at the US prison industry and thought to themselves “jee, sending thousands of young and poor people to prison for minor offenses has worked great for the yankees, I wants me some of that!”

  • Guest

    A fantastic combination of precise information and personal disturbance and frustration.

    It’s
    all the more insulting because we live in an age in which virtually
    unlimited amounts of information is instantly available to us on our
    phones, much less PCs (for those that have them). So people are either wilfully ignorant, or agree with UKIP.
    Sadly
    most of the people I spoke to who were pro UKIP were very simply
    bigots. I’ve heard all sorts from the good old days of when black people
    and white people were segregated, to wanting people out because they
    make London smell of curry(!).

    As
    some people have commented, even voting UKIP as a protest vote is
    idiotic, if not dangerous, as it leads to the other parties trying to
    take ‘tough’ stances on various issues, which by extension is seem to
    legitimise the arguments UKIP make.

    Sadly
    I was very much of the opinion that UKIP getting support comes at a
    very high price to the Tories. However I can’t help but to have
    nightmares about a 2015 coalition between Labour and UKIP (or the
    unthinkable: Conservatives and UKIP).

    UKIP
    taking second place in a strong Labour seat is very disturbing, not
    least because they didn’t even run a candidate in the last election
    there, and so have managed to build that up from virtually nothing.

    Ironically it seems the less people that vote (very understandably) the easier it becomes for big swings like this to happen.
    That means encouraging people to take an active interest in voting for parties they have no interest in or respect for.
    By comparison it’s probably very easy to get people to vote UKIP.

    • spartacus

      Anyone who thought that the UK did not have a significant racist component has never walked down a suburban street looking or sounding like the wrong kind of foreigner.

  • Unreal X

    “Golden Dawn in Greece, UKIP in the UK.”

    Don’t forget Jobbik in Hungary. That’s a frightening fascist party, right there.

    I agree about protest votes for extreme parties mainly legitimising their agenda, but I wouldn’t worry too much at this stage because these kinds of elections are “second order”, i.e. considered less important by the electorate. Which means that people are less likely to turn out, which tends to mean in of itself that extreme parties tend to do better, they will still find it difficult to get into parliament especially with a plurality electoral system. If they get into parliament, would there be a coalition? depends, because sometimes parties will choose minority government over a coalition with an extreme party, and in some cases all parties can agree to exclude a particular party as a pariah ‘uncoalitionable’ party. (For a concrete case, see the CSSD (social democrats) in the Czech Republic, they refused to go into coalition with the KSCM (Communists – basically the Marxist-Leninist era ruling party) in 1998 (minority government) and 2002 (unstable CSSD, US-DEU (liberals) and KDU-CSL (Christian democrats) coalition).) It depends how much political capital they would lose from going into coalition with UKIP, or otherwise. That said, a Conservative-UKIP coalition would be possible ideologically. I don’t know, however, if such a group could get enough votes to actually win. The problem for the Tories, I think is that despite the unpopularity of Labour in 2010, the Tories did not win the election outright. If UKIP takes votes from the Conservatives this is not going to improve things, but make them worse for the Tories. Liberal voters are likely to turn from the Lib Dems, but this is because they are unhappy with the Tory coalition and voted for Liberals due to stuff like student fees etc. Could they turn to UKIP? Possibly, but the more socially liberal ones would be more likely to turn Labour or Green. Labour voters – well if they stuck with Labour in 2010, then I would imagine that most of them would stick with Labour now.

    • Thanks.

      Some interesting analysis. I think it is interesting to see where the LID Dems voters will defect, assuming (and I think many will) that they do so. Depends how much scaremongering the media does. Perhaps Greens will pick up the liberal protest votes, UKIP the right. Labour need strong leadership which they don’t appear to have. Conservatives seem to be going back to the right and pissing a lot of people off at the same time (eg those in education – Gove is a tool).

      It will be fascinating, for sure.