That's a pretty odd question? I can't answer without knowing what you mean by "stronger"? Or, alternatively, what are you getting at with the question? Electorally strong, politically strong (not the same), numerically strong, idealogically strong? More forceful, more committed, harder working, more united?
Stronger or not they are certainly more reasonable, which is why they've played a pretty solid part in UK governance in recent years. As a thought experiment, imagine there were 8 far right MSPs, what would they be doing? Answer, sitting in the house and booing and looking like idiots and being generally ignored. 8 greens? Supply and confidence agreement to form a government.
Meanwhile, FPTP has allowed minority parties to become majority governments and enact right wing policies that never had majority support, over and over again. So another thought experiment, take your best guess at what result we'd get in a UK PR election today, and then ask yourself how right wing the government that formed would be, and what the extreme right wing members of parliament would be doing.
By ‘leverage’ I meant the ability to influence the views of the voting public. The far right have always been better at that than the greens.
Yes, look at what types of people the two parties appeal to for the answer. What politics really needs to be is honest and any dishonesty and bullshit needs to be clamped down on by a regulator of some sort so the propaganda that appeals to the less intelligent doesn't get broadcast.
It is not so much having far right views, which some will have no matter what, but not getting those views wrapped in lies and delivered as propaganda and bullshit policies
The actual government have been blatantly lying now for years (yes politicians always lied a but but tat has clearly changed over the last decade or so. Brexit may not have even happened without the complete lies around what it would achieve
Which is pretty daft because the money for all this stuff is very easy to acquire. If the govt wants to spend money on something all it has to do is decide to do it.
sorry, I meant profit. It’s all about the profit.
If someone can propose a model of PR which doesn’t dilute decision making and empower the far right then I’ll vote for it
I have read it all now Dazh - you can't seriously be asking for a form of democracy, but one that only gives the people you like a voice. 🙄
I'd prefer the far right of the political spectrum to have no power either, but if a proportion of the electorate want that, then they do deserve a voice.
They dont deserve a voice but they are unfortunately entitled to it.
Just for the record, I would also like a form of democracy that only returned representatives I mostly agree with.
In theory, my preferred form of democracy would be FPTP. However, I don't think it works in an era of mass media. It probably started to not work with the advent of national newspapers, got worse with national TV broadcasters, and is now completely untenable in today's world of targeted social media.
FPTP would be best if MPs were only able to attract votes by campaigning locally. Each MP would be primarily answerable to the 10 to 15 thousand people who they represent. It's simply not the world we live in anymore now that the vast majority of views are consumed via national and international outlets. Local candidates simply can't compete by knocking on doors and putting up posters.
They dont deserve a voice but they are unfortunately entitled to it.
They used to make that claim on behalf of paedophiles, which is why Harriet Harman supported paedophile lobbyists :
I don't think that paedophiles have a right to be heard, nor anyone who preaches hatred and violence.
No problem with far-right if they preach loving-kindnes though.
I have read it all now Dazh – you can’t seriously be asking for a form of democracy, but one that only gives the people you like a voice.
No not at all, there are plenty of people and parties in parliament who I disagree with. Since the 1930s we've had a long tradition in this country of shutting down and shutting out the forces of far right hate, and for bloody good reason. Marginalising and silencing the Black Shirts, The NF, Combat 18, The BNP, EDL et al, sometimes with justified violence, is one of the few things this country has got right over the past century. But now you want to invite them into parliament and give them a legitimate platform to spread their hate? No thanks. If the price of that is not having a handful of green MPs then it's a price worth paying IMO.
Dazh you don't half talk some shit.
Care to point out the myriad far right MSP's we currently have under STV?
Exactly.
Once again, people are confusing elections with football games.
It really doesn't matter who wins an election. What matters is the resultant direction of the country.
The far right actually has more influence on the direction of a country outside of power than they do in power. Numerous examples of right wing and populist parties gaining power and then losing credibility and popularity once people realise they were talking shite the whole time.
The difference is that in FPTP the effect is amplified massively because of the massive majorities afforded to parties elected on a minority of the vote. With FPTP the problem is there is little restriction on the damage the nutters can do once in power.
Even if Wilders manages to form a government, his influence on the overall direction of the Netherlands will be far far smaller than the influence UKIP/Reform have had on the UK.
And yes, if PP means the far right gaining seats is inevitable then where are the far right parties (other than the Tories) in the Scottish Parliament?
@brucewee not being an arse but why do you use PP rather than PR? Feel like I'm missing something here.
Care to point out the myriad far right MSP’s we currently have under STV?
As if Scotland is an equal comparison to the whole of the uk. Besides to Scotland’s credit it’s never really had much of a far right movement, unlike its very much more white supremacist neighbour. Give them an inch they’ll take a lot more. You’d think we’d have learned that by now but it appears some still don’t get it. 🤷♂️
@brucewee not being an arse but why do you use PP rather than PR? Feel like I’m missing something here.
Do you know what, I honestly don't know. I would say it was a typo but I'm pretty sure I've done it more than once and didn't notice until you pointed it out.
Hope it's not the first sign of a brain tumour or dementia.
Hi all, I'm a long time lurker but first time poster on here so thought that I'd jump in at the deep end.
I'm interested in how people on here would classify 'far right' in the UK today? For example if I was to say that I think we should tighten border security in an attempt to stop illegal immigration while also vastly reducing legal immigration to say tens of thousands rather than hundreds of thousands would this be considered a 'far right' position and if so why?
Besides to Scotland’s credit it’s never really had much of a far right movement
Oh how I wish that was true. It's one of the myths that many Scots tell themselves. Perhaps the far right or hate based groups in Scotland are mostly connected to anti catholic sectarianism but they do exist and they usually bring a whole lot of other prejudices along with them . I give you the Orange Order.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-58586533
There's also this Scottish government investigation into extremism in Scotland.Link to key findings
However I fully support our PR system in Scotland imo it reflects popular opinion very accurately, and if it did result in extreme right wingers being elected they would find that they have to make concessions to have any impact in parliament at all. T
I give you the Orange Order.
I nearly mentioned that in Scotland far right activity is mostly connected with the sectarian stuff but didn't because beyond hatred of catholics they don't really care about much else so it's something of a parochial issue, and mostly localised within one city.
For example if I was to say that I think we should tighten border security in an attempt to stop illegal immigration while also vastly reducing legal immigration to say tens of thousands rather than hundreds of thousands would this be considered a ‘far right’ position and if so why?
Depends on your reasons.
Why do you want to keep foreigners out?
Individual policies aren't necessarily far right (many far left groups share the same immigration policies). The far right aren't really about policies. They are about identifying scapegoats and then gaining popularity by convincing people that the chosen scapegoats are the cause of all your problems. They push the idea that all that's needed to fix the country is to just really punish these sub-humans and then all will be well.
Er no Orange Order bollox was alive and well on the West Coast when I lived there, pubs only showing Rangers or Celtic games, people being thrown out of pubs being pissed singing sectarian songs. I was quite surprised and thought all that crap had disappeared long ago. This was about 15 years ago.
Interesting, seems reasonable.
So what if my reason was that I believed that there's a limit on how many people can enter a country over the course of a year and be successfully integrated into that country, that if the population demographic changes too quickly you run the risk of creating more problems than you solve?
For example if I was to say that I think we should tighten border security in an attempt to stop illegal immigration while also vastly reducing legal immigration to say tens of thousands rather than hundreds of thousands would this be considered a ‘far right’ position and if so why?
Yes it would. Most immigration is legal, and the big numbers from last year was due to visas given to staff the NHS and social care. Tightening border security would only make a small difference in immigration numbers. Making working conditions better for nurses and care workers, improving their pay and job security would make a far bigger impact, so that current staff are retained and the work becomes a more attractive career option for new entrants. Just not issuing visa's would cause the NHS and social care to collapse.
But that would mean investing in the nation and not just running the country for the benefit of the asset classes, so the far right is financed to create a narrative of the nation being overrun with small boats to distract from the real problems that should actually be solved.
@dazh I appreciate that my edit to add the second link came after your edit. However the Scottish government paper talks about "mixed unclear and unstable ideologies " . So it seems that those who are members of sectarian organisations may also hold other extreme views. I also disgree with your comment about sectarianism being confined to Glasgow. I am from Ayr where if anything there appears to be more Orange walks than when I was a child in the 60s and 70s
I would certainly agree that the small boats are a distraction from the real problems MSP. I think the point I'm trying to get at is that there must be a maximum number of people that is desirable as a country and that it's currently impossible to have the discussion because anyone who tries is automatically labelled as racist or far right.
Really? Every single political party in the UK is in favour of “controlling” immigration, none are suggesting letting anyone and everyone in unconditionally.
The “Far Right” element comes in when you get into language dehumanising immigrants and blaming them for the unrelated struggles in peoples lives.
Sectarianism is still alive and well in Scotland, but not the blatant head-banging stuff I remember from the 70s and 80s. We have a local group of Ranger’s Supporters Club whose members don’t see anything wrong of sharing their photos of ‘holiday’ visits to Northern Ireland bonfires and marches in July on FB. The Labour Party continues to support candidates with Orange Order ‘credentials’.
Also is the hatred of the English in Scotland I've encountered far right politics or just bants over sport?
Kelvin you make a good point and that's the way things should be, personally I don't see it as a left/right issue. I do stand by my statement that it's difficult to have the conversation without terms like far right being thrown around though. Just a few posts above yours MSP said that the position I layed out would be considered far right
If someone can propose a model of PR which doesn’t dilute decision making and empower the far right then I’ll vote for it
the Scottish system. It just works. Highish thesholds at around 6% keeps fringe parties out.
Also is the hatred of the English in Scotland I’ve encountered far right politics or just bants over sport?
Hatred? Very very rare. Not had an incident for decades and I am very English sounding with a very English name
Just a few posts above yours MSP said that the position I layed out would be considered far right
I agree with the reasoning and sentiments in MSP’s post.
I do stand by my statement that it’s difficult to have the conversation without terms like far right being thrown around though
IMO the laws on immigration are already tough enough, in fact in some cases too tough. The framing of the argument that something needs to be done about immigration is pandering to racism. Immigration is a symptom of an economy badly run for the majority of the people in the country. More people need to think about why they so readily believe the lie that immigration is causing the problems and perhaps focus their attention on the real causes.
I never encountered any prejudice as an English-born kid moving to Glasgow as a 6 year old (of Scottish parents) nor again when moving back 3.5 years ago, the same for Mrs DB who is from Kent. My abiding memory as a kid was whether you were a Rangers or Celtic supporter and often the resulting smack for giving the ‘wrong’ answer. Anti-Englishness is often mistakenly assumed when it’s the prevailing loathing of Westminster politics and English-centric media. BBC Scotland News is particularly worthy of ridicule for its blatant bias.
successfully integrated into that country
This is your first bit of bollox, there's no such thing as integration, the UK is a massive multicultural melting pot and has been for some centuries.
What's the quote from the video that's always doing the rounds? Being British is driving your German car to an Irish pub, drinking Belgian larger then deciding if you want to have an Italian, Indian or Turkish meal on the way back to your Scandinavian furnished house.
Oh and there's a lot of countries that have a far higher population density than the UK and they don't have a problem with it.
Interesting. So would you say that 750k net immigration is fine? (I presume you would but don't want to put words into your mouth) If so would you say there's an upper limit on how many we can take, 1m, 2m, 5m etc and would putting a number on it make it 'far right'?
thepodge please point out the rest of my bollox. Can you clarify what you mean by 'multicultural melting pot for centuries'?
I think the point I’m trying to get at is that there must be a maximum number of people that is desirable as a country
If that's all you're bothered about then why focus on immigration? What's your opinion on limiting childbirth, or restricting health care for life threatening conditions? Governments trying to control population levels is a very dangerous business which always has unintended consequences (eg the imabalance between genders in China). Who decides how many is desirable?
Indeed. the UK needs immigrants to do the service jobs. Without them the economy will collapse. the economy could be rejigged to reduce the "pull" factors but they would still be there - along with the "push" factors that basically are because we effed up their countries
Its a part of the low UK birth rate and aging population. Without immigrants we have no one to do the service jobs
Dazh by maximum number of people I meant maximum number of immigrants per year not total population, apologies if this was unclear. As I'm sure you know we have declining birthrates which is often used as a reason for immigration, I could perhaps argue that government policy of importing people to make up the shortfall is an example of as you say 'governments trying to control population levels is a very dangerous business which always has unintended consequences'
I'm not particularly trying to focus on immigration it was just an example I thought of to try and understand what is meant by 'far right' in the UK in 2023
What a stupid question, if everyone that moves here is a positive asset then why does the number matter?
Can you clarify
Ever heard of the term History book?
"the Scottish system. It just works"
... as we can see from the fantastic, trouble-free, government you have there at the moment. Controlled by the Greens - who don't seem interested in any Green policies, the Scottish parliament seems to be doing its best to make Westminster look good.
Tories and Labour had a 22% share of the vote each. Tories got 31 mps, labour 22. Greens got 1.3% vote share and got 8 mps and a role in government. Yep, all seems great
thepodge I have indeed heard of a history book. Why would you presume that everyone who moves here is a positive asset?
Dazh by maximum number of people I meant maximum number of immigrants per year not total population
Do we need a maximum number of immigrants?
it was just an example I thought of to try and understand what is meant by ‘far right’ in the UK in 2023
Being anti-immigration isn't far right, but it's definitely right wing. Far right is the combination of irrational hatred of minority groups with an authoritarian mindset and acceptance of violence as a means to exercise that hatred.
If you don't understand what far right means then you're probably better off googling it than signing up to a cycling forum.
I think we do yes. Surely you wouldn't argue that letting in say 10 million immigrants per year would be desirable?
I think your definition of far right is pretty good, I'd argue that nothing I've said falls under that category which is why I posted on this thread. I'm not trying to troll or anything like that, I'm just genuinely interested what far right means in the UK right now.
I'm not trying to troll
lolz
thepodge this is exactly the point. As I understand it (and I'm more than happy to be corrected) the definition of far left/right is the extreme of each position. This depends on where and when we're talking about. The far right in 1930s germany looks very different to the far right in 1960s soviet russia.
My concern is that if everyone with (IMO) genuine immigration concerns is labelled as far right this normalises the 'far right' as a position which could lead to a resurgence of genuine racist fascist thinking
Surely you wouldn’t argue that letting in say 10 million immigrants per year would be desirable?
Talk of boiling the limits down to a single number points to an over-simplified understanding of immigration. Or another agenda.
Why don't you lay out exactly what you think this problem with a lack of integration would look like?
Brucewee you make a valid point about boiling it down to an over simplification, I was responding to the point dazh made saying do we need a maximum number of immigrants. The point I was trying to make is that whether you're for, against or somewhere in between there must be a max amount that a country can take.
I feel like I've derailed the thread somewhat, this wasn't meant to be about immigration more about what the far right looks like in the uk today.
I'd be happy to answer your question but maybe it would be better in it's own thread.
I think we do yes.
Why? What should the number be?
Surely you wouldn’t argue that letting in say 10 million immigrants per year would be desirable?
That's a massive straw man argument though, because we will never have 10 million immigrants. If your objection to immigrants is the lack of services to support them or lack of housing, then the solution to that is fairly obvious, expand our services and build more houses. So why focus on numbers? Why is immigration a problem?
there must be a max amount that a country can take.
Similarly there must be a maximum number of children the country can take. So why are you not proposing limits on the number of kids people can have? There's also a maximum number of old people we can 'take', so why don't we have a policy of forced euthanasia?
because we will never have 10 million immigrants.
I wouldn't bet on that. In a decade or two those will be the sorts of numbers arriving here with billions arriving in Europe as climate change makes large parts of the planet uninhabitable
There’s also a maximum number of old people we can ‘take’, so why don’t we have a policy of forced euthanasia?
I'm all for Logan's run but based on a "but who's fault is it really?" questionnaire instead of age.
It most certainly is a straw man dazh, you're correct. You ask what the number should be, the answer is I don't know. I think less than current levels though. 10 million is obviously over the top, however if current trends continue 1-2 million entirely possible.
As you say lack of services to support them and lack of housing is certainly a concern. I believe (again happy to be corrected) that 50% of our social housing is occupied by people not born in this country, this IMO is a huge concern. As a country we should look after our own citizens first.
I wouldn’t bet on that.
Obviously I'm talking about under normal conditions. When climate change proplerly kicks off we'll have much bigger problems to worry about than mass migration.
50% of our social housing is occupied by people not born in this country, this IMO is a huge concern.
The problem here is a lack of social housing to meet demand, not where those in social housing were born.
As a country we should look after our own citizens first.
Why? People are people, where they were born is a completely random accident. What rational and objective reason is there for a govt to prioritise people who were born in a particular place? If you're going to discriminate on location of birth then why not give Londoners more priveleges than Mancunians? Or maybe you could discriminate on other criteria such as age? There is no rational or logical basis for discriminating between people by the location of where they were born.
Edit. I'm not gonna dance this dance again.
Quack.
dazh you make a very interesting point and I completely agree that people are people, I strongly believe that all human life has value. Where I think we might disagree is that if was to follow your logic to its conclusion no country would have borders and people could move wherever they wished. Would you agree with this or have I misrepresented you?
As you say lack of services to support them and lack of housing is certainly a concern. I believe (again happy to be corrected) that 50% of our social housing is occupied by people not born in this country, this IMO is a huge concern. As a country we should look after our own citizens first.
I thought it would come to this as soon as your said that we need to have a conversation about immigration without calling people racists, it would inevitably come to you spouting racist lies.
That is a complete and utter lie, and you are a racist.
And if you don't like being called a racist, then you need to change your thoughts and behaviour.
no country would have borders and people could move wherever they wished
What a genuinely good idea.
(even though on here I would imagine it's possibly only me and daz who might think that?)
I can't kind the data to back up my claim about 50% of social housing being occupied by people not born here. I'd like to retract that statement, apologies
no country would have borders and people could move wherever they wished.
Yup, I'm 100% supportive of free movement of people. Countries would still have borders, but if it was down to me they would not be barriers to movement.
“When climate change proplerly kicks off we’ll have much bigger problems to worry about than mass migration”
when climate change kicks off I think mass migration might be the biggest problem we’ll face. When it becomes impossible to live in particular areas the people there are going to move. I think we might see the biggest population movement in history.
This is an interesting idea, in theory it seems great but I struggle to see how it would work in practice
in theory it seems great but I struggle to see how it would work in practice
It already works in practice, you have to look no further than your own doorstep and ask why people from one city in the UK are allowed to freely move to another city.
You correctly asserted that I'd presented a straw man argument earlier, I'd argue that this is also a straw man.
That is a complete and utter lie, and you are a racist.
The 50% comment is possibly true in London although almost certainly untrue for the rest of the country, I would have thought.
40% of Londoners were born outside the UK so it seems reasonable to me that 50% of social housing in London might occupied by people born outside the UK. After all those arriving in London from overseas are the most likely to struggle finding affordable housing.
There is no reason to see it as a "problem" though.
Btw any chance of challenging someone's point of view with a little more decorum?
As you say lack of services to support them and lack of housing is certainly a concern. I believe (again happy to be corrected) that 50% of our social housing is occupied by people not born in this country, this IMO is a huge concern. As a country we should look after our own citizens first.
Dafuq? Did you get your data from a tiktok?
Ethnicity
The majority of households in the social rented sector had a white HRP (81%), Headline Report Annex Table 1.3. Households with an ethnic minority HRP were more prevalent among social renters (19%) than owner occupiers.Local authority tenants (23%) were more likely to have an ethnic minority HRP than Housing Association tenants (17%). Social renters (9%) are more likely to have a Black HRP than private renters (6%) and owners (1%).
Nationality
The majority of social renters (92%, 3.7 million households) were from the UK or Republic of Ireland. Social renters were more likely than private renters (74%) to be UK Nationals, and less likely than owners (96%), Annex Table 1.7.
Data from here: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/english-housing-survey-2021-to-2022-social-rented-sector
I’d argue that this is also a straw man.
Of course it's not a straw man, it's reality. There are no barriers to movement between cities and regions in the UK. Just as local authorities serve the people living in their jurisdiction, rather than those who were born there, national governments could do exactly the same.
As above - what are you folk going to do when refugees in billions turn up in Europe because their countries are now uninhabitable? The scale of th eissue now is nothing like what is coming. Barbed wire and machine guns?
Btw any chance of challenging someone’s point of view with a little more decorum?
No, I won't react to the spreading of racist lies with the pretence of politeness. I prefer to lay my cards on the table instead of the passive aggressive "decorum" that many of the forums members use to wind people up.
Barbed wire and machine guns?
I think we all know the answer to that question.
But across the UK people have, generally speaking a similar culture and income. There's not much difference between someone living in manchester and london. There's a massive difference between someone living in Manchester and say Syria.
I think your idea could work if there were no inequalities between people around the world but the reality is there are. If we were to adopt your strategy surely everyone in the LEDC as it was termed when I was at college would move here where the standard of life is much higher?
To me it would be better if we helped poorer countries get richer rather than allowing everyone who wants to to move here.
As a country we should look after our own citizens first.
I'd like to know what this actually means. Because British citizens do get looked after more than others. They have more access to healthcare and education services, the automatic right of abode, the right to work, pensions, social security etc.
I believe (again happy to be corrected) that 50% of our social housing is occupied by people not born in this country
I's also really like to know why you believed that (past tense now that nonsensical claim has been easily debunked by just looking at some actual stats). Because it's exactly the sort of thing that the far right make up to spread hatred and resentment amongst the ignorant and vulnerable. Why did you have that belief?
My concern is that if everyone with (IMO) genuine immigration concerns<br /><br />
Please explain; what exactly are 'genuine immigration concerns'?
dazh - to say nothing of the national boundaries in the UK 🙂 all these english folk moving up here for the better governance and land access and stuff - errmmmmmmmmmmmmmm 😉
cough* sealion *cough
Tories and Labour had a 22% share of the vote each. Tories got 31 mps, labour 22. Greens got 1.3% vote share and got 8 mps and a role in government
It looks like you have only used figures for the constituency vote there. It's a mixed system in Scotland where each voter has one vote for their constituency msp and a number of votes for regional list msps. Both Labour and Tory polled just under 22% on the constituency vote but the Tory vote went up on the regional list vote while the Labour vote went down to 18% hence the difference in number of msps. The green vote went up to 8% on the list.
No, I won’t react to the spreading of racist lies with the pretence of politeness.
Why not? How does allowing yourself to get angry make your case any stronger?
Edit: relapsed_mandalorian's response seems both more appropriate and more effective.
But across the UK people have, generally speaking a similar culture and income.
really? Have you been round the UK much?
Yes I have and I disagree
Furthermore I'm more than happy to change my position. I don't claim to be the most knowledgeable well informed person out there, I try my best to have an informed opinion hence me posting on this thread. I want debate and to have my position challenged.
