Nothing is more annoying, said one voter on the radio, than mainstream politicians telling us why we voted UKIP.
But at risk of causing further annoyance, it is important to try to understand the UKIP vote, what it represents, and to what extent it is right to respond with appeasement, like Labour’s Sadiq Khan, and many others of left and right, or opposition. To be fair to Khan, despite the apology, he largely makes the same arguments Labour have been making for years.
Uniting the issues of immigration, Europe, and foreign aid is a concern that the government is being far too generous to foreigners when its first duty is to British citizens at home. In challenging this view it is important to recognise that public money belongs to voters and voters are right to express their view as to how that money should be spent. The mistake is in thinking there is any great generosity at work here. Membership of the EU is very much in line with the self-interest of Great Britain and her people. Asylum seekers face extremely difficult conditions in the UK. Foreign aid, certainly, has a charitable flavour, but also carries a great deal of enlightened self-interest, and perhaps less enlightened but still self-interested orders for British exporters.
At any time, never mind in uncertain and austere times, it is quite natural to be furious that our government might be funding the space programme of an economic competitor. Such stories often turn out to be less dramatic, but there should be more effort made to be transparent about where aid goes and what it is spent on. (Beyond the efforts of Lynne Featherstone on this site supporting vital initiatives such as this one to transform millions of lives for the better.)
Free movement of labour within the EU is in the interests of British workers and the British economy. UKIP challenges whether this really applies to workers from poorer Eastern European countries, but would we have got expansion of the EU without it? Expansion of the EU to Eastern Europe has advanced peace, democracy, human rights and the rule of law, more than any other foreign policy initiative I can think of. If there is to be a new Iron Curtain, it will divide Ukraine rather than Germany, and the populations in between will be in the free world, not its enemies. This is not easy to express as a bread and butter issue, but a larger and more united free world is so much in the interests of the British people that a little too much free movement of the wrong kind of labour would be barely significant in comparison.
Even so, this is our country and being a citizen means something and is worth something. We guard our privileges jealously, if not jealously enough for some. When British interests demand that we are a little more open, a little more engaged with the world than nationalism’s comfort zone would admit, it takes some brave political leadership to stand up and say so. Who could ever stop us doing that?
If you want to suggest another response to the UKIP success, write for us.
* Joe Otten was the candidate for Sheffield Heeley in June 2017 and Doncaster North in December 2019 and is a councillor in Sheffield.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Joe Jackson: It's Different for Girls
Trumps' White House thuggery appals the world including most Americans
The toxic legacy of Brexit
Could Hitler have won?
Say hello to the Act that successfully set rules 1,050 years into the future - Calendar (New Style) Act 1750
Alex Macfie
Steve Trevethan
Nick Baird
Peter Martin
David Le Grice
39 Comments
Paragraph 5: “Free movement of Labour. . .” — surely “labour” is meant?
[Thx. Done]
The fact is there are racist, xenophobic and homophobic voters supporting all parties and none. It looks like the bigger two have decided to dogwhistle to them in order to shore up their crumbling vote. I hope to goodness we never follow.
The rise of Ukip shows Britain is full of anger and must change
We need a political party that helps deprived areas, builds more houses, takes the question of the UK’s role in Europe seriously and shakes up Parliament
This is an article in today’s Telegraph by Allister Heath:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/10858452/The-rise-of-Ukip-shows-Britain-is-full-of-anger-and-must-change.html
This applies to all mainstream parties, including the Lib/Dems. Before the rise of UKIP the Party was sheltered from reality and could continue with its idiosyncrasies because the majority voting for the Party did not expect it to form, or be any part of, government.
That has now all changed and if there is a wish for the Party to be of any consequence it will have to start obeying the rules that other parties have to obey.
I am inclined to think that this idea does not appeal to the majority of members who would prefer that the Party retained its idiosyncrasies even if it has to sail off into obscurity.
(1) Make it policy to have a referendum on membership of the EU
(2) Be willing to protest more about jobs and red tape
(3) Select candidates who have rather more “real world” about them
(4) Above all, stop maintaining the party is right and telling people they just aren’t listening properly
Not really about left or right, but I bet it would get some votes back.
Mark Valladares. Brought welcome news early on Sunday night that our sister party is Austria had gained an MEP.
Later in the evening the BBC demonstrated that the rise of right wing anti-European parties had not been evenly distributed across the continent. In fact those economies other that GB where the economy had not been suppressed by the ECB’s restrictive monetary policy e.g. Austria, Germany, Latvia and others the righting vote had actually declined since 2009.
The great antidote to their kind of bigotry is growth shared across society.
Now we are getting modest growth from a switch by the public from saving (paying off debt) to spending – a one time boost to growth , but if this does not of it’s own accord boost investment, that growth will dwindle. Business wants to know that growth will be maintained, that they can rely on its continuance.
So, the cause of UKIP’s rise in many ways was down to Plan A with it’s accelerated deficit reduction, that actually increased the deficit, and the decision to delay changing that policy until two years into the Parliament. It has cost us heavily in terms of broken social cohesion, the effects of which will be with us for years to come.
Growth and prosperity has always been the way to defeat the forces of xenophobia.
We should instruct the Bank of England to ensure that gross domestic product in money terms remains growing steadily and steadfastly and predictably by 5% per annum. We should tailor fiscal policy to that end in co-ordination with the Bank.
Different people will have voted UKIP for different reasons any statement that starts “people voted UKIP because …” will annoy the majority of them as it won’t be the reason they did.
Breaking things down to “some people are concerned with…” and addressing each of these would be less patronising.
Certainly calling them “racist, xenophobic and homophobic voters” will not help when the majority will not be. There will be vast numbers of reasons people voted UKIP, perhaps a little more humility from those who profess to know why would be a start in reversing the trend.
Oppose or appease? Even if the two main parties weren’t already crowding out the appeasement option, I would say oppose.
UKIP sell a scapegoat as a strategy for change. Britain needs a party that sees the country’s role in the world clearly, that has positive ambitions for us to be a force for good in it. It also needs one that can see why the poor at home are suffering, and that can build the radical ideas needed to change it, without simply jumping on the bandwagon of hating on Romanians.
This is that party – even at our most battered and bruised, we’re still the ones with the courage to stand firmly against the populist hard-right rhetoric coming from Nigel. Now we need to set aside the market liberal orthodoxy of the past decade and come out fighting with a fresh programme.
Philip Rolle “4) Above all, stop maintaining the party is right and telling people they just aren’t listening properly”
That’s all very well, but what if the party IS right and they aren’t listening properly?
Tabman
“The fact is there are racist, xenophobic and homophobic voters supporting all parties and none. It looks like the bigger two have decided to dogwhistle to them in order to shore up their crumbling vote. I hope to goodness we never follow.”
I wonder if you’d describe the following as “dogwhistling”. Or was it just responsibile politicians talking about the legitimate concerns of voters (e.g. that foreigners might come and use up all our water)?
http://www.dailyecho.co.uk/news/politics/elections/election_2010/eastleigh/news/8102360.Huhne_calls_for_immigration_clampdown_in_the_south/
I think the readiness of Lib Dems to keep describing Ukip voters and others as “racist” is, ironically, helping to increase racism, and probably contributes to the alarming figures released today showing that the number of people who identify themselves as racist has risen to 1980s levels. When anybody who expresses a preference for, say, a controlled immigration policy is immediately labelled “racist”, the chances are they will shrug their shoulders and say “well, if that’s all it takes to make someone a racist, I guess I must be racist then. So be it.”
There is a third choice – which is about addressing peoples concerned. As Bill Le Breton says – The great antidote to is growth shared across society.
Just today I am reminded in Private Eye that footballers (like so many others) channel their money so they pay only corporation tax – no national insurance, no to rate of tax. So a lower marginal tax rate than people on minimum wage. This is your country. This is the stronger economy fairer society. Meanwhile I know of people being evicted for the want of £400, more than the cost of evicting them – my heart is breaking.
A perfect example of the problem.
You know what the problem is, you have experienced the results of ignoring the problem, but in the best traditions of sticking your head in the sand, your solution appears to be, not addressing the problem, but how you can convince the electors that your moral high ground should be their moral high ground as well.
Let me crystal ball the future. Today I have read that the Libdems will have the committment to the Overseas Aid payment of 0.7% of GDP in their next manifesto, despite the fact you know the vast majority of the people fundamentally oppose this position.
I will be campaigning over the next 12 months for UKIP to the effect that we would scrap the approaching £12billion aid budget , and limit aid to more or less disaster relief, spending the money at home or to pay off debt.
Your party in contrast will campaign on maintaining that 0.7% GDP and as our economy grows rub the public’s noses in it by letting them watch the amount in cash we give away, grow upwards, ever upwards. At the same time you will be trying to convince parents that we can’t afford to give the children of England a free university education, and that they will have to pay £9000 per year, which along with your comittment to seemingly open door immigration from the whole world, ensures we will be pushing at an open door.
I don’t know about appeasement or opposition, if your party on its current course to hack off the wider public was a vulnerable adult, it would be sectioned to protect it from itself.
When I started to read this article I thought it would be about the issues that UKip rasied during the election and whether we should accept their solutions or look for other solutions. So I have been disappointed. It is more of the same. A large proportion of the public just won’t vote for our position on these issues. Therefore we need to look at the issues afresh and come up with different solutions.
The article by Allister Heath linked to by John Roffey talks about deprived areas and more houses, people who have given up hope, a belief that immigration is reducing the resources available to those who are poorer and the decline of real wages. Bill le Breton states that “growth and prosperity has always been the way to defeat the forces of xenophobia.”
We should be able to identify that there are people who have the concerns set out by Allister Heath and telling them that immigration is good for Britain or they have a net increase on GDP in no way addresses these concerns. If someone is concerned that they can’t get a job it is no good saying isn’t it great we don’t produce enough engineers so we have to employ people not born here. If someone is concerned that they can’t rent or buy a house it is no good saying, isn’t it great that immigrates can find high paid jobs here so they can afford to rent or buy somewhere to live.
The answer for those who can’t find work to suit them is easy. The government should pursue policies that increase the number of jobs in the economy so everyone who can work is able to find a job. The government should also provide the necessary support so those who need training or need to gain experience before they can find a job get that training or experience with no barriers put in their way. The answer for those who can’t find anywhere to rent is to increase the number of properties for rent. The answer for those who have been priced out of the housing market is to build more houses to buy and/or increase wages so they can afford to buy.
I don’t understand how we can as Liberals reject providing these answers.
“Nothing is more annoying, said one voter on the radio, than mainstream politicians telling us why we voted UKIP.
But at risk of causing further annoyance…”
You aren’t annoying UKIP voters you are irrelevant to them until you listen to the message they sent you.
And since you all feel: “the party IS right and they aren’t listening properly”
That is never going to happen. You are lost to them, or rather they are lost to you.
Why don’t you quit the angst and agonising and go find some new voters more congenial to your tastes?
@Raddiy
“Your party in contrast will campaign on maintaining that 0.7% GDP and as our economy grows rub the public’s noses in it by letting them watch the amount in cash we give away, grow upwards, ever upwards.”
Eh? If the economy is growing, then the 99.3% of GDP NOT being spent on foreign aid will also grow and benefit UK residents. In what sense would people be “having their noses rubbed in it” if they’re getting better off? Would the average UKIP supporter be happier to see GDP stay the same, or even fall, so as to avoid spending more on foreign aid?
Your leader Mr Farage is fond of telling us how Britain is one of the richest countries in the world. He’s right – and that’s why we can afford a measly 0.7%. I’m not a Lib Dem, but full marks to them and even David Cameron for sticking to their guns on this.
@ Stuart Mitchell.
Just carry on then and be proud that they are sticking to their guns. This is not about UKIP, this is about your total disregard for what the majority of the British public want. What they want seems to be of no consequence for the handwringing fraternity, and is perhaps they reason why the public are turning away from you all.
For a measly 0.7% or in real money getting on for £12billion at current prices, we could put 500,000 English students through university each year for £4.5 billion and still have £7.5 billion left.. What do you think the British public would prefer, though as you seem not to give a toss what they think, you will likely just carry on and do a Mr Micawber.
Now Danny Alexander’s trying to tell his fellow Scots why they should stay in the Union. You’d do well to keep your party members out of it, they will only make things worse.
@Raddiy
You seem to have a strange idea that politics should involve simply finding out what a majority of people want and then offering exactly that to them. If all parties were to act this way, I’m curious to know how we should choose between them.
Perhaps you’d like to apply the same approach to UKIP – in which case your party should be dropping its policy to leave the EU, since polls consistently show a vast majority in favour of renegotiating our EU treaties and staying in, rather than getting out.
You suggest I’d rather spend money on foreign aid than on education for English students. That’s a false choice – I’d rather see it as a choice between foreign aid and the massively increased defence spending UKIP proposes. Funny how UKIP is happy to send more money overseas when it’s in the form of bombs.
UKIP came fourth in the council elections. They topped the European elections. Might I suggest that this is because the turnout was low and that the result was actually down to two factors.
UKIP voters really care about Europe so they were mobilized better. Most ordinary voters are in truth pretty apathetic.
UKIP receive a lot of the non of the above vote plus a lot of former BNP voters, a party that had done well in the previous European elections. and who’s vote collapsed this time round.
In my old marketing days, there were often two ways to win over customers.
One was to try and mirror what your competitors were doing – but possibly slightly better. And we will never be better at being a xenophobic anti-European party than UKIP.
The other was to focus on your customers and try and serve their needs better. And that means upping our game on policies like more secure jobs, more affordable housing and a more accountable, reformed EU.
… on policies that deliver more secure jobs, more affordable housing and a more accountable, reformed EU.
@Martin Tod
It seems to me that the figure of 75 (as the number of parties required) is way too high, given the collective blindness of the leadership to the danger. I wonder if 7 would be sufficient in future
Stuart Mitchell – Be careful there. The voters might go for the, ‘renegotiate,’ option – but that is basically, ‘in conditional,’ and not, ‘in.’ It is far from clear to me what if any conditions can be met. It might be that people want to renegotiate, but I’d be very guarded about seeing that as anything positive in itself.
Given current trends any 2017 renegotiation would almost certainly be out of date within 2-3 years and I worry that any referendum would simply be reopened at a later date.
Joe Otten
Thanks for this – an interesting piece.
You say at one point -“This is not easy to express as a bread and butter issue..”
I would suggest that there is much in this which in fact is very easy to express as a bread and butter issue. But only for someone who understands and speaks the language of bread and butter.
The problem is that many Westminster politicians nowadays have difficulty expressing anything in this way.
Those who spend an unheathy amount of their time inside that Westminster bubble often lose touch with the real world and the ability to express themselves in the language of real people.
It is possibly quite literally the case that many in the political elite do not get involved with bread and butterat all. Jon Snow of Ch4 News recently announced that he was on a bread free diet. An impossible concept to some of us. The highly subsidised restaurants in the Palaces of Westminster have some interesting menu choices not often available in your local branch of Greggs (sometimes the subject of parliamentary questions – so people can check this out for themselves).
For those who live in the world of high fibre, seeded, wholemeal little rolls that are served to you warm from a whicker basket by an underpaid but very polite waitress in a fashionable restaurant, it might come as a shock to learn that bread is something made in a factory, is white and comes sliced in a plastic bag, oh and the butter does not always come in an artistic twirly arrangement on a little plate.
When David Cameron not so long ago pretended to regularly eat Cornish Pasties it became quickly obvious that he did not know what he was talking about. Ed Miliband recently has been exposed as not having a clue about the price of bread or even how to eat a bacon sarnie. The TV advert about making a sandwich a Manwich is no doubt a complete mystery to many of the people who rule over us.
Some of our Lib Dem MPs are just as bad. Some of the defences of the bedroom tax coming from one of our MPs whilst no doubt entirely factually accurate were expressed in pure Mandarin ( that’s civil service Mandarin, not the Chinese that Paddy speaks). Whatever language it was it was not in simple bread and butter terms.
The First Minister of Scotland in contrast to the Westminster Bubble folk is rather good at expressing things in a way that ordinary people speak (sorry Caron and all you ‘better with heather’ people I know this is heresy at the moment but Salmond is an ace communicator). Until his recent diet he had quite obviously knocked back more than his share of bread and butter.
Nick Clegg on the other hand talks a language of wholemeal or ciabatta (which is bread not a hairy character in Star Wars). So when the TV debates with Farage came up, the entirely bogus Farage pose of ordinary bloke who likes a beer really worked for UKIP. We all know that Farage’s man of the people act is a completely cynical and false pose; he is a pubic school boy and City of London type just like Clegg. But Farage has made the effort to learn a few phrases in the language of bread and butter — or beer and fags – to be able to sound convincing. Nick Clegg in comparison sounds like someone out of a light comedy/romantic film, the sort that his trendy acting friends actually appear in. We are told that he taught himself Spanish to be able to propose to his wife but unfortunately Nick Clegg has never bothered to teach himself to speak the language of bread and butter.
I should stress that I am not suggesting that people like Clegg should adopt a mockney accent and pretend to a lifestyle that is not their own. That sort of Tony Blair deception is always so obvious that it makes you cringe.
I would suggest that people get out of the Westminster Bubble more often and work with and talk with ordinary people. I do not mean at carefully choreographed camera opportunities in the Job Centre in Thurrock where a fish on a bicycle would have looked more natural than our Deputy Prime Minister playing an obviously staged bogus game of pool to try and get across some sort of message that his “media advisors” thought would make up for the tears eyed disaster the day before.
The essence of community politics, working with people to take and use power, provides a clue. If you work with ordinary people you learn from them. Politicians who have the disadvantage of a posh public school background often have the most to learn. But instead of talking down to people, or putting on a false Farage-lite mask, people like Clegg should step aside from the traditional MPs Surgery approach and do a few hours a week away from the cameras and special advisors working with people who have just been sanctioned and had there benefits stopped. Not to act as super Mr Fixit to bully the bureaucracy or pull strings (although that can always be helpful as well) but to learn how people cope (or not) in such circumstances. Talk with real people, listen to how they speak, learn the language of bread and butter from people who cannot really afford the butter half of the meal. Clegg and other MPs would learn more that way than attending than any number of expensive courses in communication, or media briefings. I wonder if he ever talks to his bodyguard or his chauffeur? Maybe he does, but I see no signs of it in the way he expresses himself.
If Clegg has a bit more time on his hands in the next few weeks I am happy to share a mug of stewed tea and a couple of slices . He could think of it as a language class, a bit of self improvement.
In the meantime, Nick — use your loaf — stand down as leader.
John Tilley – “Jon Snow of Ch4 News recently announced that he was on a bread free diet. An impossible concept to some of us. ”
It may be an impossible concept to you, John, but several billion Asians seem to manage it ok.
There is a third way: go with the flow and push!
The EU wide effect of UKIP et al has been to get France (and others) openly saying that the EU needs to change – yes this isn’t the ‘reform’ that some are wanting, but isn’t out of step with what we in the UK have been wanting for sometime.
UKIP et al have suddenly made key elements of the EU slightly more receptive to ideas of change, the challenge now is to push to turn this receptiveness into a real bandwagon of change in the EU before 2017 … However, I suspect that Nick and Dave aren’t up to the task…
Would you do an emotionally and physically demanding job, working unsocial hours, with no real career ladder for, say, £7 an hour? I think few would want to and most who had to would get out quick as they could.
Say you were only working here a few months of the year and that £7 an hour had the buying power of more like £30 an hour back home. The job becomes more attractive.
British workers in sectors like social care, tourism, logistics and areas of agriculture have seen their wages kept low by the easy availability of labour from the EU.
Do a week in a care home and then say “a little too much free movement of the wrong kind of labour would be barely significant”.
There is a social justice issue here. It’s not about lazy Brits unwilling to work but about large numbers of people who can’t work their way out of poverty because wages are kept artificially low.
Dismissing legitimate concerns, writing off poverty as a price well worth paying. That’s not going to win back my vote and I’d hope it wouldn’t win any others.
Kevin, you have fair concerns about low wages, and there’s things we need to be doing about it, e.g. raising the min wage, reducing tax on the lowest paid, tax incentives for living wages, etc.
I think it’s disingenuous of UKIP (and other xenephobes) to lay the blame at the door of immigrants, especially as evidence shows that the relationship between immigrants and “native” employment opportunities is far from being so simple.
@ Daniel H
“I think it’s disingenuous of UKIP (and other xenephobes) to lay the blame at the door of immigrants, ”
UKIP aren’t xenophobic, and we don’t “lay the blame” at immigrants. We are against uncontrolled immigration. But you knew that and it was you being disingenuous really, wasn’t it?
Can you please explain to me how it makes sense to have a welfare system which rewards people to sit on the sofa all day, meanwhile sucking in hundreds of thousands of immigrants each year to do jobs we need doing, all the while not having enough hospital beds, houses, or school places for their children?
That has been the model of the LibLabCon for the past couple of decades, it has been a disaster and now we are reaping the consequences in social dislocation.
A bit easier to call anyone who points out this fact a racist and a xenophobe rather than facing up to it isn’t it?
Come on Simon, exacerbating fears about immigration has pretty much been UKIP’s central campaign:
http://www.electionleaflets.org/media/uploads/medium/863fb096-c897-44bd-99fa-63086068e245.jpg
I don’t consider giving people just enough to live on “rewarding” them for not finding work.
Also, government research showed that on the whole, EU immigrants were net contributors to the economy and public finances, due to the fact that most were young and working and were helping fund services for our aging population.
It’s not necessarily xenephobic to discuss or suggest tighter immigration controls.
It IS xenephobic to centre a political campaign around exaggerations and slurs around the effects of immigration.
Before the 2013 local elections I didn’t consider UKIP to be racist or xenephobic.
They changed my mind on that by the way they campaign.
There are two basic power groups in the UK
1. The City and financial services who support the Tories.
2. Public sector white collar clerical and managerial, including teachers who support Labour.
There is no party who supports tradesmen, craftsmen, self employed , small businesses who have an aspirational outlook and who believe in honest hard work.These people send children to schools, mostly comprehensives which vary from mediocre to good, as does the NHS and The Police. In some areas immigration has reduced the quality of schools ,NHS and available housing. Most of these people have a socially conservative and patriotic outlook on life and have had the last 50 years being sneered at by left wing middle class public white collar public sector types. If one looks at The Armed forces very few left wing middle metropolitan class type send their children to die for Queen and Country : the working class and Upper Middle Class Tories do.
A few labour MPs such as Frank Field and , Kate Hoey have raised concerns how immigration has reduced incomes of those on average and below average salaries. If one is on £250K/yr and employ good accountants, a reduction by 30% to £180K does not produce hardship: a reduction in salary of 33% from £25K to £18K does.
Most people believe that immigrants should fit in: therefore multi culturalism s wrong: if you do not like British culture do not accept welfare payments and leave. The life we have today has been built on blood , sweat and tears over a thousand years . People have died under torture to resist The Inquisition and during WW2, in order to protect liberty and free speech : we should not throw these virtues away. We are a sovereign nation and have the right to decide who lives here r: all foreign criminals should be deported. To come to live in the UK is a privilege and people have died to produce the quality of life we enjoy. The Human rights Act has basically increased the income of upper middle class, largely left wing lawyers: it does done nothing to protect the freedom from assault by foreigners. The ability to walk the streets free from the fear of assault is more important than the ability of foreign criminals to live in the UK. Violent street crime and burglaries has the biggest impact on the poor, especially those who cannot afford insurance. Most upper middle class homes are located in areas of lower crime and have sufficient security to deter most criminals and the owners can afford insurance. If one has below average income, cannot afford insurance and has goods stolen , then this may be a significant part of one’s capital.
The massive increase in employment in the last 17 years has been in white collar jobs in the public sector outside of London and gone to immigrants. The problem is that very LDs are tradesmen who work in the construction industry and have experienced salaries being undercut by immigrants. Consequently, there has not been the increase in salaries which occurred in 1980s construction boom.
In previous times,if governments and employers had imported foreign labour to undercut British wages there would have been massive protests. When it comes to foreign aid; incompetence , corruption and cronyism makes most people cynical. There needs to be an examination of all aid since 1945 to see who benefits. Apparently Fair Trade does not benefit the poorest workers but managers in companies – see Observer/SOAS report.
It used to be said there were two types of racism in the USA: in the south the whites did not mind how close the African Americans were provided they did not get too uppity: in the north the white did not mind how uppity were the African Americans provided they were not too close. I suggest the middle class white collar metropolitan types have a similar attitude to the white working class.
If one looks at who made Britain Great it was the freemen, franklins, yeoman farmers, merchants and during the Industrial l Revolution, the craftsmen. I would suggest the modern Britain is like the Middle Ages where the white collar clerical and managerial public sector are the clergy and the large business/The City are the aristocrats : both groups rest on the labours of the serfs, freemen, franklins and yeoman farmers.
Hi Joe,
I was going to reply to this the other day, but got distracted by Oakeshott’s letter. First of all sorry you didn’t get elected last week, but regardless I think you have a bright future. When it comes to the issue of appeasement I have realised there are two kinds of appeasement, one good and one bad.
Good appeasement is where you have been slow to notice a problem and you realise a group of people have a point. Bad appeasement is where you disagree with an action, but do it anyway because it wins votes.
There is obviously in between too, but we need to stay away from bad appeasement whilst recognising appeasement is not always bad. When it comes to UKIP good appeasement would be recognising the EU needs reform, whilst bad appeasement would be letting UKIP dominate the debate on Romanians.
Regards
Charlie
There is no party who supports tradesmen, craftsmen, self employed , small businesses who have an aspirational outlook and who believe in honest hard work.
So what do you propose in terms of policy?
I read carefully through what you wrote,but most that came across is that you were opposed to immigration.
I do notice that many of those from recent immigrant background do seem to be far more keen on self-employment and running small business than native Brits. One only needs to look at who’s running all the small shops to see that. Also they do on the whole seem to be far more aspirational. I’m involved in admissions for my university department, training people in practical skills which industry is crying out for – computer software development. The vast majority of our applicants are from an immigrant background. There are almost none from a white working class background. Do you have any practical suggestions as to how to deal with this?
You are ranting about the unequal nature of modern British society, and I have a lot of sympathy with you on that. But I see nothing from you on the sort of economic left policies that might do something to reverse that.
Matthew Huntbach. increase the number of f University Technical Colleges, which provide vocational technical colleges. Education in the the comprehensive /university sector has become dominated by the left wing middle class arts graduates . The working class wanted good vocational education not to send their children to ex-polys to read art subjects. In Germany there are Fraunhofer Institutes which support R and D. If we want a German manufacturing capability we need a German vocational/technical education system. Britain has been good at science research but poor at commercialising the work. Apart from Imperial, UMIST and Strathclyde it has lacked R and D in applied science and engineering. The Colleges of Advanced Technology -Aston, Salford, Brunel , etc, etc were never properly developed. I suggest reading A Sampson”s Anatomy of Britain -62, 65, 82 and 2002 also Northcote Parkinson for explanation of what went wrong and J Burke ” The Day the Universe Changed ” for what the UK did right in the C17-19 .
What each town needs is a UTC connected to a local poly.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fraunhofer_Society
Return poly’s to return to being vocational colleges offering evening and Saturday courses: this way people in work can obtain degrees and become middle class professionals. Poly’s would not be judged on research but training professionals and R and D with local companies. Degrees offered- engineering, physics, chemistry, biology, teaching, accountancy, law, banking , surveying, hotel management, fashion, retail. Many top engineers left school at 16, took up apprenticeships and then studies for degrees at night school – Mitchell/Spitfire, Chadwick/Lancaster and Wallis/Wellington, Bouncing Bomb/Tallboy/Grandslam/Sweptwing Technology.
In local government I would strip race equality jobs and many white collar/managerial jobs and spend the money on NEETS. I would offer 6 months labouring work for the council- street sweeping, litter collection, cleaning up graffiti, digging allotments and labouring with tradesmen. The individual would receive 2 hours Maths and English training per day plus job skills. After 6 months if the individual passed the selection they would be offered an apprenticeship. During the 6 months clothing , travel expenses, lunch and a nominal 10 £ per week would be offered and prizes for those who did well. Within inner city areas there are many run down areas which need cheap labour to clean up. To bring costs down in the public sector reduce sick leave to the private sector, suggestions include no pay for first day and doctors certificate for more than 2 days off. The aim is to educate every Briton to NVQ level 3 as a minimum. In Germany, the percentage is very low. A main reason why most countries cannot replicate Germany’s manufacturing capability is that they lack enough adequately people trained to advanced apprenticeship/technician level.
I would also bring in a points system for immigrants plus looking at a minimum salary qualification. If Thatcher had brought in East European workers during the steel, coal or railway strikes in the 1980s there would have been unrest and rightly so. Immigration has kept down wages for those earning less than the average salary in sectors such as the construction, service and , agricultural which provide entry into employment for the un skilled and semi-skilled. Outsourcing takes jobs outside of the of the UK:immigration brings outsourcing into the UK by using cheaper labour.
If we imported well educated Indians from Kerala or Goa to replace labour and Liberal MPs and pay them a total, including expenses of £25K/year, I am sure they would complain. My experience of some people from Kerala is that they would far more erudite and literate than many MPs.
Immigration may increase the GDP of the UK but it reduces the GDP per capita. During the 1980s construction boom there was massive increase in wages of the unskilled and semi-skilled and average salaries in general but over the last 14 years such salaries have been kept down. If immigration is to be allowed it should improve the quality of life on those of below average incomes not those of above average incomes who benefit from cheaper labour. As the saying goes ” The rich get the pleasure and the poor the pain”.
I believe being in the EU is beneficial to the UK but have come to the conclusion that to lance the UKIP boil we need a referendum. It is forty years since the last one and I was only just old enough to vote. Most voters will not have had that chance.
If as I believe staying in wins then what use would UKIP MPs and MEPs be. They would not disappear but they should become sidelined. If the vote was lost and we left then their raison d’etre would disappear.
I was glad to red the post by the UKIP member on overseas aid. It reminded me as a Christian and Lib Dem how reprehensible are the views of little Englanders are on this matter. I believe the people of Mali are as important as the people of places in England. The 0.7% is one of which we should be justly proud. Of course the aid needs to be give wisely not thrown away but I don’t want to see more pictures, as last night, of young women being sold in Africa because of the terrible economic circumstances of families.
Charlie
Matthew Huntbach. increase the number of f University Technical Colleges, which provide vocational technical colleges. Education in the the comprehensive /university sector has become dominated by the left wing middle class arts graduates . The working class wanted good vocational education not to send their children to ex-polys to read art subjects
So why don’t they send their children to degrees in applied science and engineering? I’m involved in admissions at an engineering department in a UK university which, despite its very long history in this area, you did not mention. Our doors are open to the working class if they would choose to apply. Mostly they seem not to. There is no point in opening more such departments if no-one is interested in taking their degrees. Sadly, other engineering departments on my university institution have closed down because they cannot recruit, and my own is heavily dependent on earning from a joint programme with a university in Beijing, which is where I am right now, teaching Chinese kids because British kids aren’t interested.
@Matthew Huntbach
I’m with you on that one. Although me, I would be looking to change the way we fund university degrees in applied science and engineering because I suspect that the problem goes like this:
As a potential student, you look at options, talk to teachers and employers and discover that many jobs now require you to have a first-class degree. Well, thinks the potential student, you can get one of those in applied science or engineering if you are really, really good. Especially you need to be really, really good at maths, and the English are by and large not particularly comfortable in this domain. Alternatively, you can get a very good degree in many humanities subjects by being… pretty good, and reasonably industrious. So, do you take the chance and study the very hard subject despite the risk of failure, or do you study the easier subjects and increase your chances of walking off with a first? (Not being rude about the humanities here. I have degrees in both areas, though, and have taught in both, and so I am aware that there is a cultural divide between the two.)
People aren’t going to get a second chance any more, so they have to get it right the first time. Ultimately that means that the sanest choice is to go for something in which you are confident you will succeed. My distance-learning students are also like this: many/most of them already work professionally in comp sci, in which they are gaining a qualification. They are studying to gain the ability to move within their profession. It is essentially a rubber stamp, so for many it is fairly joyless.
Even the USA does better, because it allows you to major and minor, so you can dabble in engineering and then run for the hills if it turns out to be likely to drag down your grade-point average. Here, not even the Open University will let you do that any more. No frivolous learning-for-the-sake-of-learning for you, English students!
Matthew Huntbach.
The aristocratic right was contemptuous of industry and this attitude became common amongst middle class socialist from the 1960s. As Freeman Dyson said “There was a competition between commerce and academia for status amongst the middle class in the second half of the 19C and academia won”. Many middle class teachers consider it is a failure to work in a factor;: the arts are more creative and one does not need to know facts but to think: all these attitudes mitigate engineering.
The decline in income of agricultural estates post 1870 turned the aristocracy against industry. Those upper classes who did not enter Army, Church become barrister went into The City NOT industry- see Northcote Parkinson for satirical look
Amongst most people engineering is seen as greasy rag occupation. The engineering in the UK is largely high value and fairly limited in the distribution around the country. Many comprehensives do not do single science GSCEs and only 60% offer Further Maths A Level. Companies and teachers in comprehensives give poor careers advice. Many schools have boosted GSCE and , A Level level league tables by offering soft subjects.
Historically many professional engineers came from the Royal Engineers and Royal Artillery who were educated at Woolwich Academy which does not exist. Historically many engineers
a. went to grammar school,
b. took apprenticeships from 16 ,
c. studied at evening school,
d. sat exams of engineering institutes -civil, mechanical , electrical, at evening school- Part 1= HND, Part 2 = degree( and was considered than most B.Sc exams)
e. undertook London University External Exams which were taught at local polys( e.g B Wallis).
Now, public school pupils take twice as many maths and science A levels as those at comprehensives : the gap with Additional Further and Further Maths A levels is even greater.
What is needed to be added to UTC is high level education in maths, physics, chemistry and biology- the old S levels.
The decline in family owned engineering firms has resulted in a decline in children of owners taking up engineering degrees.
The decline in engineering and industry since the 1870s is due to a mixture of aristocratic snobbery, left wing middle class snobbery and thuggery from unskilled and semi-skilled unions in the period of 1918-1192 ( strikes were usually called by un/semi=skilled unions). The 1960s under Wilson was golden opportunity for Britain to replicated Germany’s technical and vocational education/training. Allowing polys to teach sociology , media studies or cultural studies does not increase the country’s skill base: enabling electricians to study at evening school so they become Chartered Electrical Engineers, does.
As has been stated, the UKIP voters I canvassed all told me different reasons and they came from all parts of the political spectrum so it would be impossible to appease them even if you wanted to.
What I did notice is that nobody decided to move from Lib Dem to UKIP. Instead, many were turned off the Lib Dems (as they were with other parties too) for a variety of reasons and wouldn’t have voted if UKIP hadn’t attracted them. So there isn’t a group or UKIP/Lib Dem undecideds we can target as there is with Tory/Lib Dem or Labour/Lib Dem undecideds.
But what we can do and need to do is to address the number of people who are unhappy with the way we (and the other main parties) do politics. We need fewer career politicians and more candidates with work experience, our leaders need to keep in touch with the voters and we need fewer of them who have been to public school. And all our representatives need to speak to people in normal language and get out of the habit of trying to spin everything. Whatever else you think of him, Simon Hughes has always been good at this and would be a good role model for many of our spokespeople to copy (in terms of delivery and how he engages people I mean).
We have spent 4 years in Government supporting the ‘Stronger Economy’ part of our slogan. This still needs to be continued, but now the emphasis has to be on the ‘Fairer Society’ part. Simples.