Farage May Be Tokenistic, But We Should Listen (This Time)

Photo © European Union 2013 - European Parliament

An unprecedented situation arose today: when The Telegraph published that Nigel Farage believes the UK should welcome refugees from the Syrian conflict, a moment arose where the Green Party, the left, and UKIP, the right, were in agreement.

Almost three years since the beginning of the Syrian crisis and a large proportion of the Syrian population are either dead, militarised or displaced by the civil war. Yet, despite this, the British government and their official opposition remain adamant that the UK should not accept any refugees from the battle-torn state. Ignoring the massive demand placed on the neighbouring countries, especially Lebanon, and that the Syrian population must either leave their home and country or face their imminent death, the Tories, Labour and Lib Dems are refusing to help those in dire need of aid.

Hence, it does come as a real surprise when the leader of the UK Independence Party, renowned for his intolerance of migration and non-nationals, is the most high-profile figure calling for the UK to be more accepting. Despite the Green Party having called for this kind of action on Syria since the vote in Parliament, UKIP are being granted the real voice, due to their increasing success in the polls. Having caught on to this, Nigel Farage is making the most of it and he and his party are beginning to act as more of a pressure on the Government.

Attempting to find reconciliation for this confusion, however, can inevitably lead to some cynicism. Is it just a ploy by the UKIP leader to find some a policy that is popular with the British electorate? Perhaps it is just a way to soften the hardened perception of the party that they are nationalistic and racist. It is possible to find this as an answer: In the same article, the party leader maintained the position that we should limit the number of Eastern Europeans becoming resident in the UK. Trying to differentiate become immigrants and refugees, Farage implied that we have a duty to help those displaced by war and other humanitarian crises, which is entirely right, but that those immigrating for other reasons are undeserving of any support, regardless of the wider contexts of their lives.

And, again, I find myself in complete shock as I find myself in agreement with Tory politician, Andrew Brigden, who said “it’s purely political tokenism and it’s a policy put forward by…a tokenist politician.” Nigel Farage is simply doing this to strengthen his party’s image where the other parties look weak, and with the European elections on the horizon. He’s also chosen the Christmas period, when the other parties are fairly quiet (with the exception of Cameron who is busy being criticised in flood-stricken Yalding) to make this bold announcement. It’s all part of his recipe to gain a positive perception of his party. With people becoming tired of the three governmental parties, they are looking for alternatives and with UKIP tapping into their fears on immigration, distrust of Europe and now some compassionate ground for Syrian refugees, there is a potential for a far more popular UKIP here.

However, even if we are to be cynical of Farage’s motives, his is a policy we must also support. There has been a distinct lack of support for Syrian civilians throughout the conflict from the UK. We have shouted at Assad and threatened terrorist organisations who have used the conflict to their advantage. We have offered non-lethal support and humanitarian aid. But the conflict continues and people continue to lose their homes and their lives. If we really want to help the Syrian people, we need to help end the conflict and help every civilian return to a normal peaceful life.

UKIP is beginning to leave its immature side behind

Photo by Euro Realist Newsletter

 
In the wake of the UKIP conference in Westminster this weekend, the party and its leadership seem to be showing a conscious desire to mature in the minds of UK voters. The controversial party has been subject to ridicule and deconstructive attacks since their success in the council elections this year, as the population responded to their rise in popularity and other parties launch an offensive against an increasingly popular party that steals votes from them. Yet, recent news shows that UKIP have a strong wish to establish themselves as a serious party, sensitive to the population's views, and not just one of extreme views.

Nothing makes this more apparent than the exit from the increased condemnation of Godfrey Bloom from his own party, and his decision to step down as a representative of the party in the European parliament. As a senior member of the party, Godfrey probably faced some behind-the-scenes nudging, with the ultimate result that he stepped down from the position, despite Farage stating that he didn't want to see Bloom 'hounded out of the party.' Essentially, Bloom was damaging the party's already tainted image - one that Farage wants to see UKIP leave behind - as the European and General elections approach in the next two years.

Now, the party are still far from establishing themselves as a major and dominant party in Westminster (though, not Europe), but the understanding that their political figures are making unpopular and offensive remarks and their response to this will reduce their outrageousness. And as this is reduced, their appeal to the public will grow. Couple that with their policies on HS2, Syria and (ill informed as it is) immigration, the chances of UKIP becoming a major player in Westminster politics is not too farfetched.

UKIP, like the Greens, are revelling in the dissatisfaction with the dominant three parties. Their rhetoric on Europe, immigration and their distance, politically, from Labour and the Tories make them an attractive choice to apathetic voters. As the support for the party increases, it will inspire further further support for the party, allowing them to break into Westminster.

The loss of Bloom as a representative of the party shows that UKIP want to drop the unnecessary criticism their party gets. The only criticism that the party is open to, now, is that which is focused on their policies, much like other parties.. UKIP have some ludicrous policies and terrible history but their prevalence n British politics is only around the corner and we should be prepared. With the party dropping the main perpetrator of their blunders, they're only bound to gain more respect, voter backing and success. 

Racism as Populism

The Tories are desperate to find a scapegoat, and distraction, for their failing economic program and their tactics are sickening. This week’s stop and searches, ordered by the Home Office, represent a rising prominence of institutionalised racism. In the week that Doreen Lawrence was made a peer vowing to tackle racism whilst in Parliament, the Government have succeeded in showing that nothing has changed when it comes to racial prejudice.

Stop and Search has been an ever-present display of racial profiling and unwarranted bigotry since the very day of its inception in 1994. With black members of the public twenty-six times more likely to be stopped in the streets, it comes as no surprise that there is a common misconception that black people are the UK’s criminals. Yet, according to Parliament’s latest report on prison figures, only 26.2% of prisoners are from an ethnic minority, and 13.2% are Black or Black British. This is hardly representative. Looking at these statistics, it hardly comes as a surprise that of the 1.1 million stop and searches that took place between 2011 and 2012 only 10% resulted in arrest.

What the Government’s recent ‘crackdown on immigration’ forgets is that illegal immigrants cannot be defined by the colour of their skin. An illegal immigrant is any person that enters the country without permission and declaring that they have done so - not a black person. A white American could just as easily be an illegal immigrant as an Ethiopian. Despite this, their recent anti-immigration tactics involve prowling areas of the country where there is a higher proportion of black people, and then demanding information and compliance from, in majority, black people. You’d be mistaken for thinking that non-white people could be British!

The Government is intent on using scare tactics to drive away anyone who threatens the homogeneity that Britons should have. In the run-up to the General Election and the wake of the dramatic increase for supporters of the EDL and Ukip, who champion British exclusiveness, the Tories have knowingly introduced populist policies. These are most certainly designed to round up any lost supporters to their ideologically similar counterparts and unify the country around an issue that appeals to all – an issue that has been constructed by the media (by the demands of politicians) to seem even more widespread, and with potentially disastrous consequences, than it is. As Derek Laud describes it, the “government is drowning in the vulgarity of opportunistic spin-doctors.”

This is certainly not good news for the Tories’ coalition partners, the Liberal Democrats, who promote tolerance (a relatively negative word as it is – what is there to ‘tolerate’?), inclusiveness and celebration of diversity. Allegedly, senior politicians within the party, Nick Clegg and Jeremy Browne (Home Office Minister) were not made aware of the intentions of the Conservative Party in their campaign against immigration figures. This is just another smack in the face for their unwitting and ill-used ‘partners’.

Whilst the Conservatives and the mainstream media buddy up to provoke black citizens and migrants into going ‘home’, they are creating a problem that never existed. They are creating racial tensions in communities, breeding the misnomer that black people are not British and are immigrants and that immigration is a key issue that desperately needs to be tackled.

The only positive that this disgusting display of racial prejudice has brought out is the willingness of people across the country uniting to openly criticise and protest the blatant racism of ‘the nasty party’.