Skip to main content

Farage's normality

UKIP leader Nigel Farage has defined 'normality'. Mr Farage told BBC News: "UKIP is putting forward a policy that will take immigration in Britain back to normal. Normal was from 1950 until the year 2000."  Well, that is all well and good then.  I always felt there was something 'normal' growing up in the 1950s.  It had that sense of 'normality' about it. Cars were 'normal', though very rare in the street where I grew up.  Boats, planes and trains were very normal too.  At least they appeared normal. Nothing alien about them as far as I recall.

Of course there was a lot of hocus pocus about the paranormal, but even that was normal.  The 1970s was pretty 'normal' too even though there was a lot of spoon bending going on.  I recall the 'flood' of East Africa Asians - I recall Enoch Powell's 'Rivers of Blood' speech - and all that was 'normal' too. In the 1950s I recall the signs in windows saying 'No Blacks' - and that was normal.  I recall the dockers marching against immigration in the 1960s and that was 'normal'.  I recall a lot of concern about immigrants, and that was 'normal'.

Now it seems Mr Farage wants us to believe that we have been living through something not normal. I guess we have been living in a dream since 2000 and when we wake up to 'normality' it will be let's say 1st January 2001 - the day of abnormality.

Mr Farage is fond of playing with figures. Now he says he doesn't like caps and targets.  Yet, last week, UKIP immigration spokesman Steven Woolfe said: "We would seek to have a cap of 50,000 on those coming here for work, for a period of five years."  I suppose the difference is that UKIP caps are 'normal'.

Mr Farage has a concern about those from former communist countries coming to the UK to work, rest and play.  Why he singles these countries out is beyond comprehension.  I think we get more net migration from Spain! But then that I guess is not normal.  Normality, that is the answer to it all. If only we would get back to it, normality that is.  Back to the future.  It is 'normal' for people from Spain to come here to work, rest and play,  but not people from the former communist states!  I suppose it sounds more sinister if it is former communist countries.  Perhaps they will be undermining our democracy in the interests of a subversive Marxist conspiracy.  Spain of course used to be dictated to by General Franco, but of course that was part of 'normality' as it was between 1950 and 2000.

According to Mr Farage under UKIP, migrant workers would have to have a job paying more than £27,000 a year before being admitted - but there would be exceptions such as nurses.  Of course! Exceptions!  I recall exceptions in the days of 'normality'.  We even advertised for bus drivers. Please come and drive our buses and trains we pleaded in the days of normality, and when they came we called then niggers and made them very unwelcome.  Some stayed and generations later they have made a great contribution to our Britishness.  Thank goodness for normality.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services. It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared. Utilitarian ethics considers the ba

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha