UKIP and the Culture War
I was surprised to find that Godfrey Bloom, the UKIP MEP for Yorks and Humber had been running his re-election campaign on the basis of climate change denial. This seemed odd to me. I thought that UKIP were a party promoting withdrawal from the EU. But then you should never judge a party by its name. In fact it is often difficult to see any link between the name of a party and its position. In fact UKIP want not independence for the UK, but to hand over sovereignty to a few wealthy individuals, many of whom are not UK domiciled.
So why are UKIP running campaigns on climate change?
Well, there’s a phenomenon in US politics called the Culture War. This functions by dividing people on political issues other than class. By creating a divide on the basis of issues like abortion, gun ownership and attacking the separation of church and state, a small group of very wealthy Americans committed to a neo-liberal programme have been able to win a consistent majority over the past 30 years.
This runs contrary to the pattern of politics in the US before the 1960s, and in much of Europe, where the determining factor in politics has been class. This is linked by parties to the economic interests of their voters. So the British Labour Party, the German Social Democrats and the French Socialist Party have prioritised policies that have focused on the economic interests of their voters.
This has recently broken down in the US. By aligning on socially conservative issues with working Americans, the very wealthy have been able to get those people to vote against their own economic interests. By creating a culture war where gun control, promotion of religion and other issues unpopular with large numbers of Americans and aligning
This is why poor Americans more often oppose the Democrats’ healthcare proposals than would be the case in Europe. By creating a political culture that aligns economically progressive measures like healthcare, or better welfare with policies such as gun control or secularism Republicans have been able to win over poor people to their economic policies.
This is important in the UK because it is becoming clear that the right are seeking a culture war. While UKIP have jumped on this bandwagon, they have relatively little to lose. And they are joined in this by their working class equivalent, the BNP. There is real tension in the Conservative party between the David Cameron led efforts to move the party to the centre and the party grass-roots, who are champing at the bit to privatise the NHS, stop immigration and plunder what remains of the state for the benefit of a very small, already very wealthy minority.
The widely publicised climate change denial of all of the top 10 Tory bloggers shows how Cameron’s attempt to move the party to the centre could very easily fail. It will be replaced by an aggressive attack on a whole variety of progressive policies. This will be exacerbated if UKIP votes are seen to have lost the Conservatives seats in the forthcoming election.
The direct antecedent of the culture war was the economic coup perpetrated by the Thatcher and Reagan governments in the 1980s. This used the failure of the post-war social democratic consensus on welfare and economy to make the rich richer at the expense of the poor. It has been difficult for the right to generate that level of support recently as the polarisation of income makes it harder to have broad appeal. This is why culture war is important. It allows the right to align themselves with a majority.
The media colludes in this by focusing on ‘benefits cheats’ while ignoring massive tax avoidance. The press is obsessed with crime and punitive responses to crime. There is little attention to the causes of crime. While terrorism can be used to justify almost any infringement of human rights or civil liberties, the threat posed by climate change has only recently been acknowledged, and is again under attack. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions will die as a result of climate change many more than as a result of terrorism. It is a distraction from the real issues facing the world.
It’s not all bad news. The campaign by papers like the Guardian timed to coincide with a crisis in public finance to encourage government to crack down on tax avoidance. The work done by the Equality Trust on promoting the rigorous assessment by Kate Pickett and Richard Wilkinson that inequality is the driver of social dysfunction is excellent. It has been picked up across the media, and promotes policy solutions totally opposed to those championed by Tory bloggers.
The reason the culture war has been so successful for the American right, and for Republicans in particular is because there has been no resistance. Democrats and progressives have failed to appeal to the middle income Americans who would be so damaged by Republican economic policy, but approve of their social policy.
There are another range of moral issues that the Democrats can appeal to. They must do this to prevent a permanent majority for the right. This is also the case in the UK.
Pickett and Wilkinson’s work can form the cornerstone of progressive resistance to the right wing culture war in the UK. It is, unfortunately, an approach that will not be taken by the other parties of the left. While the Campaign Group and others on the very left of the Labour party may wish to fight back, their party leadership is totally unwilling to. The Greens are perfectly positioned to resist a move to the right in British politics. They can argue for a justice system that aims to prevent crime, not punish criminals. They believe in equality and human rights for people in the UK and around the world. While the SNP are similarly placed, their record of pandering to the Catholic Church on issues like HPV vaccinations is problematic in building a progressive coalition.
I was horrified by the responses of other parties to Nick Griffin’s demands for a halt to immigration on Question Time. Even the Liberal Democrats were suggesting that this was right, but that the BNP ‘go too far’. Progressives must fight this implicitly racist approach. It’s time to build a coalition to stop the creep of mainstream parties toward a racist immigration policy. Both SNP and Greens can provide the political dimension to this. But they must be brave in doing it.
The lesson for progressives and greens is that a culture war is coming. We must fight back now, before a coalition in favour of repatriating immigrants and their children and in favour of a punitive justice becomes rooted. Appeasement has never been successful in dealing with fascism and the hard right. While Tories, Labour and Liberal Democrats appease the BNP on these policies it is vital that progressives build an alternative based on equality, human rights and solidarity in Britain and abroad. Otherwise we’ll be facing a future of racist governments acting in the interests of the very wealthy, and against the interests of the majority.
Immigration is tricky however I heard a very interesting argument that by offering economic migrants a revolving door, long term work permit then you allow people to return home in the knowledge they can come back to the UK to work when it suits them and when there is work available.
As things stand the system is quite restrictive and pushes non EU citizens to seek citizenship because it offers security whereas work permits don’t.
If we made citizenship a different issue by reforming work permits, one where it’s more a statement that people want to join our society and contribute to it, then perhaps we’d have a more ‘honest’ situation.
The key thing is that the values that we expect people to implicitly subscribe to if they’re to become citizens shouldn’t be designed to exclude – however it would allow us to stress, for instance, that British (or Scottish and English and Welsh and Lundy Islander after 2014) values include respect for people regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, age and ability.
Likewise a better structured work permit should again be designed not to discriminate on race, gender, age etc but could reflect skills needs.
As far as open door immigration is concerned there are dangers in that approach unless it’s multilateral, for instance applying one standard across the whole of the EU. Ideally one would have a more open policy globally, however it’s hard to see that happening any time soon.
A few negatives:
1. You couldn’t get past that a Political Party’s name isn’t their only policy – I mean when was the last time Labour cared about the labour force.
2. The unqualified assertion that UKIP somehow fascist “sovereignty to a few wealthy individuals” rather than say Parliament (I appreciate the humour that this is technically a “few wealthy individuals” but it’s also democracy).
3. The claim that cultural issues have allowed “a small group of very wealthy Americans … to win a consistent majority over the past 30 years” forgetting that everyone who voted Republican or Democrat also “won” said election. To many in America other issues in elections are more important than class/ economic interests. Your assertion that they shouldn’t be is patronising to the extreme. I’m sure everyone can name 1 “social” issue more important than general economic policy to them, it’s just the case that in the UK so far relatively few of these issues are on the table.
4. Ukip are “working class”, at least as much as labour. NB. Neither have working class leadership teams admittedly.
5. Ukip are no more an equivalent of the BNP than the Greens are the equivalent of Marxist Communists – tangible links on very few policies and some crossover in voter pool does not an exact copy make.
6. Talking about immigration or specifically wanting to lower net levels or halt it, partially or fully is not racist. “Immigrants” are not a race, nor is the debate (largely) about race, it’s about the tangible impact of globalisation here in the UK and supply side economics. No one will ever talk about this however because of people who shriek “racist” at anyone who disagrees with them on it.
I am not accusing you of racism Ian – rather I am arguing that national borders are inherently racist.
Working from first principles –
A person born outside the UK has equal worth as someone born inside the UK and should be trated equally
Discrimation along grounds of nationality or race is is wrong because it is racist.
National borders are a social construct that institutionalise discrimination along these grounds – for jobs and movement and access to services
National borders are therefore inherently racist.
It should be added that every new immigration restriction since the aliens act, through the commonwealth immigration act and so on came as a direct result of fascist agitation.
As I said before – these first principles are important and should not be subsumed to other arguments.
However – as outlined above there are other secondary arguments for freedom of movement.
Freedom of labour would help balance out freedom of capital, and enrich working people. Indeed if controls were put on capital this would be even more the case.
Freedom of movement is compatible with the goal of building welfare states everywhere, not just in the UK. It would also incentivise this and give a greater sense of global responsibility.
Global population will be equally high wherever people live.
and there are thousands of uninhabited homes in the UK – as the super-rich own two or three while the majority own none.
People who come to the UK as economic migrants have every right to do so. I myself moved from Scotland to England for a job and rightly so. My office has many EU citizens in it, because they are the best people for those jobs. This has not caused disasters. If they can work in the UK, then so should Indians, Africans, Chinese or whoever else wants to. Freedom of Movement universally will also mean more Brits moving abroad.
So. Bit of an essay. But I think the trend is inevitable. All it would require would be the AU, ASEAN and other regional blocs to properly liberalise migration, then the US, ASEAN, AU, EU etc to do a deal. Sorted. Universal freedom of movement. And the world will be better for it.
Tim,
Your inference is that I would say yes to the first statements but no to the last, and therefore I am racist. I find your inference insulting and insist that the post is removed.
I cannot understand how you can infer from what I have written to imply I think that someone cannot do a job simply because they are born in India.
Your second post raises a number of questions. Why is the ‘what if we don’t need their skills?’ argument false? How can an open borders argument be reconciled with one which supports a welfare state? How do we avoid a surplus of unskilled workers driving down prices (without reverting to a Soviet style government)? “Hardly falling into the sea” could equally be applied to global population, yet we all acknowledge it is a problem; thousands of unoccupied houses – really? then why the need to build on every patch of ground (until the recession) and the homeless? Sorry Tim, I think you need to think this out a good bit more.
Also, I think these blogs should be addressing these questions rationally rather than as outlets for ultra-left rants – I am in favour of free movement of labour but see real issues which need to be addressed rationally rather than by inferring anyone who disagrees is a racist.
The ‘what if we don’t need their skills?’ argument is a false one. Who is ‘We’? It is a fundamental Human Right to have the Freedom of Movement.
All other arguments are secondary to the Human Rights argument,
however as it happens, innovative, economically active migrants create jobs. If there is a perception that immigration drives down wages (which is questionable anyway), the culprits are the people exploiting them.
As for our dense population – we’re hardly falling in to the sea, and there are thousands of unoccupied houses.
Besides, I don’t want to live in the UK for ever. If other countries scrapped immigration controls we’d see plently of people who feel the same moving to their favoured climate or job.
No Borders, No Nations
Should the best person for the job get the job?
(My guess is you would answer yes)
Regardless of age, race, class, orientation etc?
(My guess is you would answer yes)
Even if they were born in, say, Wales?
(My guess is you would answer yes)
What if they were born in, say, India
erm…
Yes, saying someone from Britain can do a job but someone from India cannot is indeed racist.
Alastair, I don’t think the mainstream parties do accept the BNP’s premise. A free flow of labour is of benefit to all, as is a mix of cultures for various reasons, and I think they all accept that. However, to argue that we rely on immigrants’ skills begs the question ‘what about sectors where we don’t need their skills?’ or if unskilled, is a surfeit of unskilled labour driving down wages? We all believe world population is too high, and as England is the most densely populated European country after Holland, should we not be dispersing population rather than concentrating it? These are the questions I would like addressed if we are to present a positive argument for immigration. Simply saying that anyone who questions immigration is “implicitly racist” is ranting and not adding any value to the argument.
Sorry Peter, you’re ranting again. As I recall, none of the other parties, apart possibly from UKIP, demand a stop to immigration, but they do call for some kind of controls. This is not an “implicitly racist approach”. There are 3 options – 1) Stop immmigration (with possible repatriation add-on), 2) controlled immigration and 3) open borders. Leaving aside ‘1’, which most reasonable people disagree with, we’re left with ‘2’ and ‘3’. Which do you support? Open borders bring their own issues of sustainability and an immense strain on the welfare state. If you support open borders, I’d be interested to know how think this would work.
I don’t really see what’s ranting about Peter’s post Ian? A culture war of the type Peter identifies, that links economically regressive policies with socially conservative morals to encourage working, and middle, class voters to vote against their own economic interests very clearly exists within the US, and to an extent in Europe. The issue of immigration was only a part of that.
That said, I think you’ve missed the point on that issue somewhat. The “implicitly racist approach” was to accept the BNP’s premise that immigration is a problem and something we’d ideally like to limit but that we’d be nicer about the than the BNP would. Immigration is not a problem for this country, it benefits us, it enriches the country and if the rules and system were fairer would benefit us even more. Our public services often rely on immigrants. To present otherwise is to pander to the far right and we’ve seen only this week what happens when you adopt that approach. A huge jump and resurrection for the FN in the French regional elections. What we also saw, more positively, was that when a progressive party like the Greens (Europe Ecologie) run a positive anti-racist campaign they can make big gains too. That’s the lesson we need to learn and one labour and the liberals seem to have completely missed.
Valentine:
UKIP’s Lord Monckton, who previously described climate activists as “Hitler Youth,” launched your party’s climate policy last month.
It reflects the party’s position, opposed to that of the scientific community, namely that “Our [UKIP’s] conclusion is that there probably isn’t a problem.”
The policy promises that UKIP, if elected, would:
– Build new fossil-fuel power stations,
– End all support for wind power, and
– Ban public authorities like councils from fighting climate change.
Not to mention, just for the LOLs, banning An Inconvenient Truth from being shown in schools – because we know how UKIPers like free speech.
Sorry to rain on your parade folks, I am a UKIP PPC for a rural constituency and totally committed to protecting the environment as most UKIP members are. We don’t see it in terms of the old left right polemic and certainly not a class issue. Basically it’s too important to be left in the hands of a politically too narrow band of people. We will need to make some very difficult decisions over the next few years and increasingly restircting unfettered immigration to wherever in the world, and population control will need to be part of the answer. Even the simple things will need to be looked at. How many middle class people in the UK are perhaps quite rightly proud of how their offspring have decided to live and work in the USA or Australia or elsewhere and how much fun it is to visit them once or twice a year. Marvellous and enervating, but ultimately just in the UK responsible for hunderds of thousands of long haul flights each year. We have put the Earth in this precarious position and I’m afraid only tough love will fix it. I am a member of an ethnic minority who has suffered from racism, but that is secondary to this issue, the future of the planet affects us all.
“Otherwise we’ll be facing a future of racist governments acting in the interests of the very wealthy, and against the interests of the majority.”
Um…how is this different from what we have now?
MB: Basically, the Catholic Church is opposed to Human Papilloma Virus immunisation because the virus is sexually tansmitted and the Catholic hierarchy opposes anything that makes sex less dangerous, believing that young people should be as scared of sex as possible.
They toned down their objections on the proviso that girls recieving the jab would not get any accompanying information on how to protect themselves from other STIs – i.e. by using a condom.
Note that this gag order applied not only to girls in Catholic schools but to all girls getting the vaccine.
See the rightly shocked report in the Scotland on Sunday, not usually a paragon of sexual liberalism.
Interesting piece, although the analysis of the US overlooks the all-pervading American Dream, their particularly individualist historical inheritance, and seems to come with an underlying understated assumption that economic interests should be paramount. I’d also say the Democrats did reach the middle income voters between 2006 and 2008, but have since put that in peril. The other thing we should remember is that for all the perception of the culture war and ‘rich, Hollywood liberals’, the exit polls do still have Democratic strength strongest in lowest income groups (although probably that would fade statistically if you controlled for racial background).
Very good summary of the UK though.
My question is – how exactly did the SNP “pander” on HPV? I can think of a few other issues that have been targeted by opponents of the SNP in this way, but not that one.
Great post, thanks,
this reminds me of the way the Conservativs appealed to working classes by allowing them to buy council houses. This was not in anyones long-term interest but seemed appealing.
It’s a tactic to assert hegemony, tempting with one hand whilst bringin about fundamental, lasting, structural change with the other.
“New Labour’s ‘balancing act’, its two-step shuffle – and the way it has become mired in endless ‘spin’ in order to square the impossible circle.” Stuart Hall, Soundings, 2003
Stuart Hall discusses this phenomenon best in this peice, so I’ll leave it up to him
http://www.lwbooks.co.uk/journals/articles/nov03.html
This was touch upon by the R4 documentary ‘turkey’s voting for Christmas’, but you say it better.