Editor’s note: Robert Henderson recently sent me a link to his article, “British Future report says 25% of British adults want all immigrants repatriated” which discusses a survey showing a great deal of hostility toward immigration in the U.K. The question then is why are we reading that Ukip is losing ground in the polls and not expected to get more than a handful of MPs. The most recent poll, published in the Telegraph, has Ukip at 13% and 3 MPs for the May 7 election. Given that Ukip rankshighest of all the parties in the popularity of their immigration proposals, the question is why. Many of his points apply also in the United States and elsewhere.
1. Political inertia. The first past the post system makes it immensely difficult for new parties to get established as a real political force because most British constituencies have large in-built majorities for either the Labour or Conservative Parties. This is because the nature of the populations in those constituencies are such as to make a winning vote for the Conservatives or Labour candidate very likely, for example, Labour safe seats will lie at the centre of major cities and towns and old industrial centres where thy continue to capture the White working-class vote and those of ethnic/racial minorities. Safe Conservative seats will tend to be in the suburbs and countryside. In many constituencies people will think there is no point in voting for anyone but the almost certain winner and often will not bother to vote if they do not support the party of the probable winner.
In the years since the Restoration in 1660 and the formation of the Whigs and Tories only one entirely new party (Labour) has every formed a government in the UK , although the Whigs transmuted into the liberals and the Tories mutated into Conservatives during the 19th century. The fate of the Social Democratic Party formed by four dissident leading members of the Labour Party in the early 1980s is instructive. It managed to win by-elections and in alliance with the then Liberal Party managed to gain 25% of the vote at the 1983 General Election. That gained the alliance a paltry 23 seats out of 650. By the next general election the SDP was a dead duck. The problem for the alliance was that their vote was spread much more evenly across the country than the vote of Conservative and Labour parties. The same applies to Ukip.
2. The fear of being called a racist runs very deep in Britain. This is unsurprising because almost every week there are stories in the media about people, normally white Britons, being involved in a “race row”. These incidents will frequently result in the person losing their job, and increasingly people accused of racism are being sent for criminal trial. The police also have a regular practice of investigating people for “hate crimes” without any real intent to prosecute — the intention being to intimidate individuals and, by their example, the general population.
3. People are subjected to incessant politically correct propaganda on race and immigration. Those under the age of 35 will have had it blaring at them all their lives, including hard-core indoctrination at school. [Editor’s note: Today, listening to BBC radio while driving through Scotland, there was a comment on the drowning of 400 African “migrants“ off the coast of Italy. The comment managed to discuss the Holocaust based on survivor accounts (the Nazis came to our farmhouse and shot our dog in sight of the child) and the British involvement in the slave trade in the 18th century (where slaves were huddled together in overcrowded ships), both of which she recalled from her school days; the message was that the U.K. must be open to such people. Endless empathy and compassion needed.]
This propaganda produces a strange state of mind in many . They do not agree with the propaganda but they f eel that opinions which go against the propaganda are somehow beyond the Pale. Fear lies at the root of it but it manifests itself not in a conscious focused fear but as a general sense that something should not be done or said.
4. The mainstream media in Britain give far less time to Ukip in general and immigration matters in particular than they do to other parties and political subjects. When Ukip speakers get onto television and radio they are almost invariably face a more hostile questioning than those from other parties. If they appear on panels with other politicians or commentators they are invariably in a minority, normally a minority of one with chairman who is biased against them. If there is an audience the audience will invariably be packed with people who support the politically correct view of the world. As for the written media, they get much less opportunity to publish their views than the parties who oppose them.
5. Ukip send mixed immigration messages because they try to fit what they propose into a politically correct envelope. They advocate a points based system such as the Australians have. Unless the numbers are severely capped this could mean more immigration than we presently have. Ukip are advocating a cap of 50,000 per annum on skilled workers (which would be far more immigrants more than the British want), but are saying nothing coherent about immigration through family reunion, students and asylum claims which forms the major part of immigration to the UK from outside the EU.
Then there is the rhetoric. Ukip claim constantly that race/ethnicity does not matter. They say that that their scheme for “ managed migration” shows they are not racist because they want everyone in the world to have the same chance of coming here if they meet the skilled worker criteria. The idea that Black, Brown and Yellow migrants are to be substituted for White European migrants is unlikely to appeal to the British public.
6. Ukip also embrace the free trade mania. As a prime justification for leaving the EU, Ukip place alongside control of immigration the idea that we should leave because this will allow us “to trade with the world”. Having seen what “trading with the world” in the context of globalism has brought them even within the EU — offshoring destroying huge swathes of British jobs, iconic British companies sold to foreigners in the most cavalier fashion and claims that free trade must by definition include the free movement of labour (the reduction ad absurdum of classical economic theory) — many of the British public are unwilling to jump from the EU frying pan into the laissez faire globalist fire. That policy will alienate many.
7. Ukip are also for shrinking the British state radically. In particular Farage has made it clear that he thinks the NHS should be replaced by an insurance system whereby treatment is free at the point of use but the state ceases to own the medical infrastructure and employ the staff. The official Ukip policy is not for this, but as Farage is seen as Mr Ukip, most voters will think the party is for the privatisation of the National Health Service. That is electoral poison in Britain.
8. The muddled thinking of electors. Many of those who say they want an end to mass immigration also support staying in the EU. This is nonsensical because unless we come out of the EU, immigration cannot be controlled. This reduces support for Ukip because the “we want to stay in the EU” trumps the desire for immigration control.
9. A widespread lack of discipline within Ukip, both in terms of promoting Ukip policy and personal behaviour, from Westminster candidates , MEPs and councillors. This all too often provides opportunities for the mainstream media to represent Ukip as at best as amateurs put of their depth.