THAT
LINGERING SMELL
In
my last post I wrote
about my experience of following UKIP supporters on Twitter and the
impressions they made upon me. I ended by saying that, behind the
rather nasty and desperate public image, this is a party which is all
too similar to the three main UK parties which they seek to distance
themselves from. A lot has happened in the intervening weeks, but
it's that point of familiarity that I intend to start from.
Farage
tries to portray himself as a man of the people. One of 'us'.
(Personally I'd be as embarrassed to be associated with him as I was
with Thatcher - I don't think I was the only one who felt a need to
apologise for being British in the eighties.) He's frequently seen
with a pint and a fag, he wants to be seen as the 'anti-politician',
far different to those who have lost our respect due to the expenses
scandals, Murdoch chumminess, etc., etc. He claims that unlike most
current MPs he has real world experience of 'proper' work. And it's
all a lie.
The
son of a wealthy London stockbroker, he attended a private school and
worked as a commodities broker. Nothing wrong with any of that in
itself, but somewhat at odds with the 'man of the people' we are
asked to believe in. Sounds more like someone who is already embedded
within the establishment and has been a part of the corrupt banking
system which has cost us all so dearly. Maybe I missed something, but
I've not sensed any self-awareness coming from Mr F and indicating he
acknowledges how alien his background is to most of us.
Of
course he has achieved his current level of recognition through
politics and has been an elected MEP for well over a decade. He
receives a generous salary for this role, topped up with a variety of
allowances. Which, until recently, included a substantial sum for
membership of the Fisheries Committee. Which he attended once out of
forty two meetings. Not that this stopped him pocketing the payments
though. He and his fellow MEPs have the worst attendance record in the parliament. Whatever excuses Farage and co may make the fact
is that they are paid to act as the elected representatives of their
constituents. They are, quite simply, not doing their jobs, but still
taking the remuneration. Do you know many people who can get away
with such corrupt behaviour?
When
I've been thinking about writing this post I imagined that the
previous paragraph would be sufficient to demonstrate UKIP's lack of
financial integrity. But, with the perfect timing, the Daily Mirror produced this scoop to show what Farage really thinks about contributing to the British
economy. Most of us, including the immigrants UKIP are so quick to
demonise, dutifully pay their taxes so why does he think he should be
an exception? Farage is just as corrupt as any other politician you
might care to name.
So
much for the politicians, what about the policies? There aren't too
many to choose from. Their manifestos have been so thin that there
were stories circulating earlier this year that they were thinking of
buying in ready made policies from right wing think tanks. Possibly a
sign that they are as surprised as anyone at the recent attention
they've been getting. But what is there, other than the much
trumpeted EU withdrawal (which I'm not going to comment on today),
seems much like a more extreme version of many Tory ideas. Like the
three main centre-right parties (I include Labour in that category
for that is the position Blair led them to) there is nothing to
address the major long term problems our society faces, Just more of
the same old neoliberal capitalism which produces crisis after
crisis. Nothing to redress the problems created by inherited power,
privilege and wealth which prop up the ruling establishment. Instead
UKIP propose a flat income tax rate of 30%, an even more savage
variant of the current government's campaign to ensure the rich get
richer and the poor poorer. A UKIP government (shudder) would be even
more vicious in cutting public services. Yet propose a 40% increase
in military spending. For a state which already spends far more of it's GDP on this area of government than most others feel a need to.
UKIP
have no answers to the modern world, just a populist, reactionary
viewpoint that is entirely regressive. But frequent efforts are made
to hide that aspect away under the carpet. Other than some of the
loonier ideas, like those mentioned above, the party is keen to
present a civilised face to the world, one removed from the
'fruitcake' jibes that have been directed at it. But following UKIP
supporters on Twitter is a more interesting exercise than simply
listening to the party outpourings, and more revealing of what
underlies the picture being offered to the (largely compliant) media.
Shortly
after my previous post the brutally horrific murder in Woolwich took
place and the media went into overdrive. Many observers expected UKIP
to jump on the extremist bandwagon which followed, but no. Instead
there was an internal memo circulated insisting that UKIP members
didn't overreact for fear of making the party look bad. And so, on
the surface, the party duck glided on with unruffled feathers. But
under the Twitter waters the fanatical feet were paddling furiously.
My timeline was swamped with messages of hatred and violence.
Suddenly I had retweets appearing from Tommy Robinson, Nick Griffin
and other racist scumbags. Which means these UKIP supporters follow
some lovely people....
There
is also a sense of looking backwards, towards some sort of 'golden
age', before 'it all went wrong'. This theme has cropped up several
times in the conversations I've been observing, but it isn't entirely
clear if actual dates could be applied. For some it all goes wrong
after Thatcher is 'deposed'. For others the sixties were the start of
all our problems. Myth making isn't really possible when faced with
hard realities. I did make one effort to see if I could gain some
understanding. There was a tweet that said "The dogmatised
right-on kids of today have no idea what it was like to live in a
safe and free country.". Which seemingly implies that there was,
in living memory, a period which was safer and freer than is now the
case. I was curious, so I asked a simple question in response - "When
was this then?" (I concede that the 'then' might have betrayed
my cynicism!)
In
my last post I stated that UKIP members did hatred rather well. At
least I had my point proven. The reply to my question was "Wanker
Klaxon. Aaaaarooogaaah. Wanker joining conversation". Apparently
the fact that my Twitter bio says that I hate bigots was enough to
justify this response. You can draw your own conclusions.... The
oversensitive clown who replied says on his bio that he's a comic,
although reading his timeline is about as funny as contracting
syphilis. And I never did find out when that mythical golden age was.
The
health of Nelson Mandela has been in the news a lot over recent
weeks, and that got the kippers excited too. Mostly wondering what
the fuss was about, it wasn't as if he was anything other than an
ex-communist ex-terrorist black man, was he? Their views swung
between outright distaste for the great man and puzzlement that so
many revered him. With a special hatred reserved for the BBC for even
daring to mention his illness as news. The word forgiveness does not
appear in kipper dictionaries.
In
my last post I celebrated Farage's treatment in Edinburgh. He was
visiting as part of the UKIP campaign in the Aberdeen Donside
by-election the results of which came out last Friday. UKIP made a
lot of noise about this election and cited it as the start of their
breakthrough in Scotland. But the voters delivered the same message
as those demonstrators did a few weeks ago and the party lost it's
deposit. Scotland rejects fascists. Isn't it time for England to do
the same?
But
that's a controversial label and one the kippers are desperate to
reject. I've had a few twitter spats on the subject in recent days
and it's one of the accusations that rankles them most. The truth
hurts. In evidence I keep pushing forward this excellent definition by Umberto Eco and have yet to receive anything which contradicts my point. If you
examine UKIP rhetoric, and in particular their antagonism towards the
EU, it's clear that they easily meet at least half the criteria
(points 1, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 13).
It's
been fascinating, but I have to admit defeat. In most cases I just
can't get a grasp on the mindset at all. I have come across a few
reasonable individuals - there was a Scottish kipper the other day
with whom I was able to have a polite and reasoned discussion - but
most I've seen react like hard core fanatics. One compared Alex
Salmond and the SNP to Mugabe and his one party state, and, when
challenged, couldn't admit that the comparison was ludicrous. But,
like Farage, he'd been faced with anti-fascist demonstrators (who
almost certainly had no SNP links) and could only interpret the
reaction as being anti-English - presumably for fear of facing up to
the alternative explanation.
So
I'm letting go now, I'm wiping these people from my Twitter feed and
returning to a life away from hatred and bigotry. In time their true
colours will become more widely apparent and they will fade into the
background once more. But that doesn't mean that there isn't a fight
to be won first. For now UKIP is intent on hiding that nasty side
which I've seen so much of in the last two months. The quicker that
gets shown up the quicker we can be rid of them. Tell your friends.
