5 ms·

Yet another example that immigration policy trumps pretty well all other concerns. This has played out several times in Australia. 5% of the population suddenly

by Gatsky 10y ago

Yet another example that immigration policy trumps pretty well all other concerns. This has played out several times in Australia. 5% of the population suddenly voted for a nationalist candidate Pauline Hanson who came from nowhere, had no policies, no credibility and no clue just because she was against immigration. Major political parties took note that day, and since then they have in various roundabout ways adopted a similar stance on immigration, knowing that it is electoral suicide to entertain reform. It was sobering to see Brexit campaigners citing Australia's immigration policy as a 'good system'. In reality it is the opposite of courageous and humane government. But clearly, it's what people want...

q5 10y ago
Was immigration policy the only factor driving people's votes? Do you believe that over 50% of the UK population harbors ill will towards immigrant populations? What about the democratic arguments against the European Commission or the arguments against protectionist trade barriers? To distill the entire vote into a single issue is foolish. I think it's easy to say that immigration and underlying racism or xenophobia were the cause for the result if you don't agree with the result. Comparing 5% of Australian voters electing Pauline Hanson is a far stretch considering that one vote was a general election, the other was a referendum and one result was 5% of the population and the other is over 50%. Anecdotes of some campaigners citing Australia's immigration policy is not a strong enough argument to refute other fundamental issues that went into people's votes and is not proof of "Yet another example that immigration policy trumps pretty well all other concerns".
- Gatsky 10y ago
  I'm not saying that 52% of the UK voted leave because of immigration, but I'm certain that at least 4% did, which is enough to clinch the win. In an otherwise tight race, that is a big difference so I think it really has trumped other policy issues in this case. But I can't 'prove' it if that's what you're looking for. I don't think it is an unreasonable statement given that the polls repeatedly identified immigration as the key issue driving the leave vote eg [1]. [1] http://m.smh.com.au/world/brexit-poll-why-the-british-people-will-vote-to-remain-in--or-leave--the-eu-20160623-gpqo3n.html http://m.smh.com.au/world/brexit-poll-why-the-british-people...
- lucaspiller 10y ago
  > Was immigration policy the only factor driving people's votes? Do you believe that over 50% of the UK population harbors ill will towards immigrant populations? As a Brit living in the EU, yes this is exactly what the vote is about. The common Brit believes immigrants from Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, etc came to steal their jobs and benefits and are the cause of all their problems. They believe by voting out it'll magically fix everything. Take a look at the media like the Daily Mail and The Sun over the last few weeks and see what they had to say about this topic.
ubernostrum 10y ago
Of course it raises the question of what happens down the road. The problem with advocating extreme anti-immigration policies is you have to take great care to never actually succeed, since if you ever do and things go badly you're left without a nebulous external boogeyman to blame.
- 314 10y ago
  Quite the opposite actually. Once you have clearly separated the Inside from the Outside it becomes much easier to blame the Outside. You are making the implicit assumption of "without going too far". But once a racist succeeds in cutting off immigration their perspective on what is considered too far diverges quite sharply. Externalised aggression becomes easier, not more difficult, once the lines are drawn more sharply.
  - ubernostrum 10y ago
    My US politics analogy is abortion. The Republican party in the US consistently has fought to try to restrict access to abortion, or try to do an end run around court rulings saying it can't be outlawed (i.e., by imposing difficult-to-meet "safety" standards on clinics to try to drive them out of business). And this works for them because there's a small minority in the US -- small in terms of percentage of the population -- for whom banning abortion is the reason they get up in the morning, the thing they shout about from the time they wake up to the time they fall asleep, the thing they would put their lives on the line for, even in some cases kill people for, and they turn out in droves to vote for candidates who express sympathy with their position. But if the Republican candidates ever did succeed, somehow, in banning abortion, well, they have access to the same polling data as everyone else, and they know that while a lot of Americans don't necessarily like abortion, any genuine ban would turn the very next election into a landslide targeted at overturning the ban and ending the political career of every single person who supported it. So they end up walking a very fine line of talking about how much they'd like to ban abortion, but having to be very careful to not to ever succeed at banning abortion. Or they have to restrict their success to a local regulations which don't effectively end abortion, or to things they know will be swiftly overturned by courts. That way they get to go back to their rabid supporters and say "I'm with you and did my best, but those baby-killers won again" and get consistent guaranteed votes, but don't have to face the instant-political-death consequences that would occur if they actually succeeded. Anti-immigration platforms seem to face a similar end, though perhaps on a longer time scale.
bigger_cheese 10y ago
Pauline Hanson was elected in Queensland (North Eastern state) QLD has always had 'interesting' politics. Joh Bjelke-Petersen, Clive Palmer, Campbell Newman, Bob Katter etc. One Nation (her party) has done poorly almost everywhere else in the country.
- Gatsky 10y ago
  True Queensland is a nation unto itself sometimes. But One Nation still managed to get an unprecedented number of votes despite only existing for a year or so. This has had a massive influence on subsequent Australian immigration policy, not in a good way.
jacquesm 10y ago
The fear of the other is a very powerful button to press, as history has unfortunately documented time and again.

by Gatsky 10y ago

q5 10y ago

Was immigration policy the only factor driving people's votes? Do you believe that over 50% of the UK population harbors ill will towards immigrant populations? What about the democratic arguments against the European Commission or the arguments against protectionist trade barriers? To distill the entire vote into a single issue is foolish. I think it's easy to say that immigration and underlying racism or xenophobia were the cause for the result if you don't agree with the result. Comparing 5% of Australian voters electing Pauline Hanson is a far stretch considering that one vote was a general election, the other was a referendum and one result was 5% of the population and the other is over 50%. Anecdotes of some campaigners citing Australia's immigration policy is not a strong enough argument to refute other fundamental issues that went into people's votes and is not proof of "Yet another example that immigration policy trumps pretty well all other concerns".

Gatsky 10y ago
I'm not saying that 52% of the UK voted leave because of immigration, but I'm certain that at least 4% did, which is enough to clinch the win. In an otherwise tight race, that is a big difference so I think it really has trumped other policy issues in this case. But I can't 'prove' it if that's what you're looking for. I don't think it is an unreasonable statement given that the polls repeatedly identified immigration as the key issue driving the leave vote eg [1]. [1] http://m.smh.com.au/world/brexit-poll-why-the-british-people-will-vote-to-remain-in--or-leave--the-eu-20160623-gpqo3n.html http://m.smh.com.au/world/brexit-poll-why-the-british-people...
lucaspiller 10y ago
> Was immigration policy the only factor driving people's votes? Do you believe that over 50% of the UK population harbors ill will towards immigrant populations? As a Brit living in the EU, yes this is exactly what the vote is about. The common Brit believes immigrants from Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, etc came to steal their jobs and benefits and are the cause of all their problems. They believe by voting out it'll magically fix everything. Take a look at the media like the Daily Mail and The Sun over the last few weeks and see what they had to say about this topic.

ubernostrum 10y ago

Of course it raises the question of what happens down the road. The problem with advocating extreme anti-immigration policies is you have to take great care to never actually succeed, since if you ever do and things go badly you're left without a nebulous external boogeyman to blame.

314 10y ago
Quite the opposite actually. Once you have clearly separated the Inside from the Outside it becomes much easier to blame the Outside. You are making the implicit assumption of "without going too far". But once a racist succeeds in cutting off immigration their perspective on what is considered too far diverges quite sharply. Externalised aggression becomes easier, not more difficult, once the lines are drawn more sharply.
- ubernostrum 10y ago
  My US politics analogy is abortion. The Republican party in the US consistently has fought to try to restrict access to abortion, or try to do an end run around court rulings saying it can't be outlawed (i.e., by imposing difficult-to-meet "safety" standards on clinics to try to drive them out of business). And this works for them because there's a small minority in the US -- small in terms of percentage of the population -- for whom banning abortion is the reason they get up in the morning, the thing they shout about from the time they wake up to the time they fall asleep, the thing they would put their lives on the line for, even in some cases kill people for, and they turn out in droves to vote for candidates who express sympathy with their position. But if the Republican candidates ever did succeed, somehow, in banning abortion, well, they have access to the same polling data as everyone else, and they know that while a lot of Americans don't necessarily like abortion, any genuine ban would turn the very next election into a landslide targeted at overturning the ban and ending the political career of every single person who supported it. So they end up walking a very fine line of talking about how much they'd like to ban abortion, but having to be very careful to not to ever succeed at banning abortion. Or they have to restrict their success to a local regulations which don't effectively end abortion, or to things they know will be swiftly overturned by courts. That way they get to go back to their rabid supporters and say "I'm with you and did my best, but those baby-killers won again" and get consistent guaranteed votes, but don't have to face the instant-political-death consequences that would occur if they actually succeeded. Anti-immigration platforms seem to face a similar end, though perhaps on a longer time scale.

bigger_cheese 10y ago

Pauline Hanson was elected in Queensland (North Eastern state) QLD has always had 'interesting' politics. Joh Bjelke-Petersen, Clive Palmer, Campbell Newman, Bob Katter etc. One Nation (her party) has done poorly almost everywhere else in the country.

Gatsky 10y ago
True Queensland is a nation unto itself sometimes. But One Nation still managed to get an unprecedented number of votes despite only existing for a year or so. This has had a massive influence on subsequent Australian immigration policy, not in a good way.

jacquesm 10y ago

The fear of the other is a very powerful button to press, as history has unfortunately documented time and again.