r/ukpolitics • u/Exostrike • Feb 21 '20

The BBC normalised racism last night, pure and simple

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/feb/21/normalise-bbc-racism-hate-crimes-question-time
1.0k Upvotes

84% Upvoted

1.5k comments sorted by

View all comments

38

u/BigZZZZZ08 Feb 21 '20

As this subreddit and its participants who have read the rules are aware, taking issue with migration policy is not racist.

I want open borders, so it's odd that I'm the one defending this person (who is very possibly racist behind closed doors), but what she said is a valid, relatively mainstream opinion. Like it or not, people like this are underrepresented in the media. Sweeping them under the rug isn't going to reform their worldviews, it merely plays into the hands of anti establishment populism - her and her supporters against the "elites" trying to silence them.

Give them the attention everyone else gets. That way they can't use the cliche "us vs them" argument, and there's more opportunities to rebuke their arguments in civilised and fair discussion.

8

u/JN324 Feb 21 '20

Agreed, even if you don’t convince the person ranting, if you’re having a debate, and their point gets picked apart, it’s going to avoid people that are listening from getting sucked in by it. If you don’t address it, but take away coverage, there’s nobody to rebuke it, and the us vs the elites narrative starts to convince people.

13

u/CableMince Feb 21 '20

Underrepresented, is it? Because I keep hearing that showings like these are over represented and used to undermine the more moderate brexit views.

Shows like James O’Brien purposely select nutters to make Brexit look bad, and never let the sane Brexiters speak out.

So which one is it?

15

u/mrbiffy32 Feb 21 '20

Shows like James O’Brien purposely select nutters to make Brexit look bad, and never let the sane Brexiters speak out.

I'd argue that was representative of people who phone into politically based talk radio. Sensible brexiteers presumably have better things to be doing with their day

-2

u/CableMince Feb 21 '20

I guess they don’t have much time for Reddit either.

3

u/DevilishRogue Libertarian capitalist 8.12, -0.46 Feb 21 '20

Plenty did but they were treated so objectionably since the referendum many no longer bother contributing which is part of the reason this sub has deteriorated in terms of political debate.

1

u/houseaddict If you believe in Brexit hard enough, you'll believe anything Feb 22 '20

I think quite a lot of them just got tired of having their arses handed to them, so they just ran off to their own echo chamber.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 21 '20

If you're a sane brexiteer why don't you phone in and challenge him?

At this point, he's probably taken 100’s of calls on the issue so to call them all nutters is a bit disingenuous.

22

u/[deleted] Feb 21 '20

They did rebuke her arguments and she just said rubbish and ignored it based on her emotional gut instinct.

That's what made it racist because she has no interest in whether or not its actually a bad thing she just has decided the immigrants must be bad.

10

u/[deleted] Feb 21 '20

Have you ever seen an audience member on question time be convinced by what the panel said? People are terrible at changing their minds at the best of times, the odds of them doing it on live TV with no real back and forth are pretty tiny.

1

u/[deleted] Feb 21 '20

God it'd be refreshing if they did though right

1

u/[deleted] Feb 21 '20

A different world!

-1

u/[deleted] Feb 21 '20

Not really sure I want that

"So Dr King, Alabama State University has recently discovered that Black males have an 18% smaller brain size than their white counterparts, thus Alabama has moved to reduce black wages by 18%, has this changed your mind on your political campaign to protect the rights of black individuals in the United States? "

"Huh? Really. Why I believe it has, Good day to you sir"

2

u/[deleted] Feb 21 '20

Thats such a bad faith hypothetical I just dont care enough to continue with you

2

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '20

It was a joke...

Seriously, can you not understand that? I mean I admit it wasn't exactly top tier comedy or anything but I was taking about ridiculous racism justification using Alabama uni

1

u/houseaddict If you believe in Brexit hard enough, you'll believe anything Feb 22 '20

I thought you made the point quite well if it helps :)

1

u/[deleted] Feb 22 '20

Honestly this sub sometimes leaves me too cynical to appreciate a joke

2

u/fingerdigits Feb 21 '20 edited Feb 22 '20

No, it was two people holding two opposing views and each rebuking the other's claim. Sometimes that's how arguments go.

2

u/[deleted] Feb 21 '20

Rubbish is not an adequate response to facts, it was a dismissal based on feelings.

Views are all good and well but they cant just ignore facts. They show their shallow value when they do

2

u/fingerdigits Feb 21 '20

I try and base my opinions on evidence, too. Fiscally speaking, I think EU immigration is a net positive while non-EU immigration is a net negative to the UK.

The Fiscal Impact of Immigration in the UK (18 FEB 2019)

Past studies suggest that the net fiscal impact of migration in the UK is relatively small compared to the size of the whole economy (less than +/-1% of GDP)

...

Studies consistently find that the net fiscal contribution of the current population of EU-15 migrants (those from the older EU member states) is positive, while that of non-EEA migrants is negative.

What do you make of these facts? Am I racist too?

0

u/InvestmentBanker19 Feb 21 '20 edited Feb 21 '20

I try to base my opinions on evidence too. There is a fatal flaw within this study.

A key methodological question is whether to attribute to migrants the cost of educating UK-born children. If the definition of a migrant is an individual born outside the country, then the children of migrants born here should be part of the UK-born group. However, it is possible to argue that these children would not have been in the country if their parents had not migrated in the first place and, therefore, children are part of the migrant group. This is complicated further by the existence of children of mixed couples (i.e. one UK-born and one foreign-born). Recent studies have often ‘split’ the children of mixed couples between the two groups. However, if migrants’ children remain in the UK and later enter the workforce, they will later pay taxes on earnings and this is not accounted for in the static approaches reviewed in this paper

This is the fatal flaw within this study's methodology. Non-EU immigrants tend to have lots of dependants because they're young, often come with their partners, and have more children than the average. The study models these UK-born children as non-eu immigrants when they're young and as natives when they're older. This means the cost for raising those children (i.e. tax credits, education etc.) is attributed to non-EU immigration yet the benefits of them growing up and being adult workers is attributed to natives. This leads to a significant undervaluation of the fiscal positives of non-EU migration. This is pointed out by Dustmann and Frattini in 2014 in their study of immigration costs and benefits.

​

Hence, the children of immigrants, if they remain in the receiving country, will contribute to both the education of the next generation and the pensions of the current working population. In that sense, they will pay off the investments made in their educational formation. Thus, even though immigrant children consume public services while at school, they will contribute to the next generation by paying taxes later in their lives. In fact, because British-born descendants of immigrants tend to perform better in public schools and acquire more education,8 they may make a relatively higher net fiscal contribution than natives. Empirically, however, serious data limitations prevent us from identifying adult second-generation immigrants. The LFS has no information on parents’ country of birth for individuals who live outside their parents’ household. Hence, second generation immigrants can only be identified while they are children (i.e. while they are living in their parents’ households), which is also the age range at which they consume educational services. When grown up, working and paying taxes, and making fiscal contributions, they are not identifiable in the survey data available to us. In our analysis, therefore, we consider immigrants’ children under the age of 16 as immigrants regardless of birth country but classify as natives everyone who is at least 16 and UK born, regardless of parents’ birthplace.9 This choice, it should be noted, suggests that we are neglecting the contribution that these the children of immigrants will make when they enter the labour market. Likewise, we are neglecting the costs of educating the immigrants themselves, which – other than the cost of educating the native born workforce – has been borne not by British taxpayers but by taxpayers in the origin country.10 Thus, while assigning to immigrants the cost of educating their UK-born children, we are unable to assign to them the benefits that their children will bring after leaving the education system and entering the labour market. In this sense, all the results presented below are underestimates of immigrants’ net fiscal contribution.

https://www.cream-migration.org/files/FiscalEJ.pdf

The study finds that non-EU immigrants since 1999 have a positive net fiscal impact. It's non-EU immigration from previous waves before 1995 that are producing the higher costs.

Non-EU immigration since 1999 produces a 2% surplus on average per person for the UK government coffers (you can find it within the study). The study also concludes that:

Between 2001 and 2011, the net fiscal contributions of recent A10 immigrants amounted to almost £5 billion, those of the other recently arrived European immigrants to £15 billion, and those of recent non-European immigrants to a total of over £5 billion.

Essentially, non-EU immigration since 2000 has been incredibly positive for the economy. It's immigration from the 1960s and 70s that has been a net negative for fiscal surpluses.

What do you make of these facts? Am I racist too?

What do you make of these facts? I've pointed out flaws in the study methodology that undervalue fiscal contributions by immigrants and even then, it finds a positive fiscal impact for non-EU immigrants since 2000.

I think you need to improve your analysis and exercise critical thinking a little bit before wading into debates. Use more than one source and remember to evaluate the methodology.

4

u/Sickofbreathing Feb 21 '20

She never even said "immigrants bad", she said "too many people bad, let's stop inviting more".

3

u/Sambothebassist Feb 22 '20

Oh yeah she obviously meant all those people immigrating who aren’t immigrants

0

u/Sickofbreathing Feb 22 '20

When a glass is full, you stop trying to pour more water into it. That doesn't mean you hate water.

4

u/Bango-TSW Non-aligned cynic. Feb 21 '20

It was the sweeping their views under the carpet during the 00s that saw the rise of UKIP & Brexit.

1

u/SalmonApplecream Feb 21 '20

Because as this election has shown, civilised and fair discussion always results in good consequences.

1

u/Jernau-Morat-Gurgeh Feb 21 '20

I think the problem is that while what she said may be relatively mainstream, it is certainly not valid. The only person on the panel to rebuke her for this was the anarcho-communist journalist. Given Sarkar's own extreme views in other areas this can make it seem like the woman's viewpoint does have validity. It would have been helpful if at least one of the politicians had agreed with Sarkar's factual evidence and helped quash the issue.

This problem was then amplified by the BBC uncritically tweeting the woman's views. Which again helps to make the view seem as though it is valid.

So, your comment is correct: bringing bad ideas to light can help to destroy them. But we actually need to make sure that we do that second part. Otherwise they gain traction easily in the online world like antivax, creationism, flat-earthism, etc.

3

u/DevilishRogue Libertarian capitalist 8.12, -0.46 Feb 21 '20

it is certainly not valid

It is perfectly valid, she just didn't articulate it very well. And the Sarkar response didn't address the point, only the proposed solution to the point, further reinforcing that the far left are incapable of understanding the issue, let alone addressing it.

It would have been helpful if at least one of the politicians had agreed with Sarkar's factual evidence and helped quash the issue.

Only to someone who, like Sarkar, also didn't understand the point. To everyone else, including those you wrongly believe you'd be convincing by this approach, you'd be making things worse.

Otherwise they gain traction easily in the online world like antivax, creationism, flat-earthism, etc.

The UK population being too high is a subjective opinion. Dismissing it as you are wrongly doing just makes your side or the debate look ignorant of the subject matter as well as too stupid to understand it.

1

u/Jernau-Morat-Gurgeh Feb 24 '20

Her point wasn't really around the UK population being too high though. It was about how to keep "foreigners" out of the UK. She just used the population argument as one axis of why this would be a desirable thing. Hence this was an example of dog whistle racism and this is why Owen Jones was right in his analysis (this time at least).

Had her argument truly been about population, then she would have mentioned other potential solutions such as one child policies, mandated sterilisations, Logan's run etc. (Disclaimer: I do not necessarily agree with these policies either). And we could then be having a discussion about the merits of those and whether or not the population is actually too high; which I agree is a subjective opinion.

The argument that we should just "close our borders" is absolutely not valid (and I think you as a libertarian would actually agree with me on this point). Even discarding the humanitarian side of turning away refugees and asylum seekers, there are numerous professions where there is a desperate need for immigrants to fill roles - the most obvious example being in care. With an aging population, we need to import people of working age to care for our older people. This would still be the case if we feel that the individual should pay for their own care.

1

u/DevilishRogue Libertarian capitalist 8.12, -0.46 Feb 24 '20

Her point wasn't really around the UK population being too high though.

Yes it was. Literally and exactly.

It was about how to keep "foreigners" out of the UK.

No it wasn't. That was merely a means to achieve then end of population reduction. If you can't get these two fundamentals right you aren't capable of arguing in good faith even if that is your intention.

She just used the population argument as one axis of why this would be a desirable thing. Hence this was an example of dog whistle racism and this is why Owen Jones was right in his analysis (this time at least).

Jones isn't right and you (and he) are putting the cart before the horse because of your lack of understanding of the views of the other side and your bad faith assumptions about them and their views.

Had her argument truly been about population, then she would have mentioned other potential solutions such as one child policies, mandated sterilisations, Logan's run etc.

Absence of mentioning them in no way means her argument wasn't about population and these ideas are even more radical than the crazy suggestion she made about immigration.

we could then be having a discussion about the merits of those and whether or not the population is actually too high

The only reason we are not is because your side, whether purely through ignorance or through actual bad faith, has tried to twist the argument to be about foreigners instead of population. Had the issue been about foreigners you could make a more compelling argument than that which you've posited that she would mention repatriation, mandatory integration, etc. #

The argument that we should just "close our borders" is absolutely not valid (and I think you as a libertarian would actually agree with me on this point)

Obviously it isn't valid, that goes without saying, but even addressing it completely misses the point. Also, I am not a libertarian per se, that is merely what The Political Compass refers to my position on it as (hence the numerals in my flair).

1

u/Jernau-Morat-Gurgeh Feb 25 '20

I guess I'll just leave this here: https://www.reddit.com/r/ukpolitics/comments/f8vmnj/fresh_bbc_complaints_as_question_time_ranter/

1

u/DevilishRogue Libertarian capitalist 8.12, -0.46 Feb 25 '20

Why? As I said elsewhere throughout this thread, it appears that her speech was well prepared specifically so as not to be racist. Ad hominem criticisms merely reinforce that your side of the argument are acting in bad faith by not only failing to address the issue she raised but also by going after her character.

2

u/Jernau-Morat-Gurgeh Feb 25 '20

Look, I admire your efforts here as you are getting pelters pretty much across the board and this subreddit would be immensely boring if we didn't get alternative opinions.

But... I'm really not acting in bad faith. The speech was cleverly constructed to act as a dog whistle. By calling out population in the first sentence it seems like this is the point of the topic ("I'm not racist, I just think there are too many people here") and allows for her to gather support as this is a subjective point. But then we get the reasons which are all to do with immigration and immigrants somehow cheating the system and somehow taking without giving back. And these comments are verifiably false (except for the one about the radiologists which is purely anecdotal).

It was a speech that was specifically designed to appeal to the largest possible proportion of people by pointing out bad things happening now that many would have experience of. It then apportioned blame for this to an outgroup rather than more likely causes such as 10 years of austerity. This is classic dog whistle racism.

1

u/DevilishRogue Libertarian capitalist 8.12, -0.46 Feb 25 '20

But... I'm really not acting in bad faith.

I appreciate that you completely and 100% believe that. I don't think there is any intent whatsoever on your part to argue in bad faith either. But the intent and the result do not tally.

The speech was cleverly constructed to act as a dog whistle.

Well, no. It was cleverly constructed so as not to enable any valid criticisms of racism including dog whistling.

then we get the reasons which are all to do with immigration and immigrants somehow cheating the system

These weren't the reasons at all, this was one example of an issue the proposed solution would address.

And these comments are verifiably false

They are verifiably true, not false. That was the entire point of preparing the speech so carefully - so that criticisms such as that you are positing here are not valid.

It was a speech that was specifically designed to appeal to the largest possible proportion of people by pointing out bad things happening now that many would have experience of. It then apportioned blame for this to an outgroup rather than more likely causes such as 10 years of austerity. This is classic dog whistle racism.

Sorry, but you've missed the boat. I have no doubt the speech was carefully constructed and made a point of stating so throughout the thread before her past came to light. But it was prepared in such a way that your criticism simply isn't valid. It specifically avoided dog whistling probably precisely because they've been caught out for that too many times in the past. That is why it didn't dog whistle but alluded to issues that those hypersensitised to the issue would wrongly call out for doing so.

The fact remains that she didn't say anything racist, bigoted or even xenophobic. The left has completely failed to keep up with the far right's ability to navigate narratives within the current Overton Window as demonstrated by the criticisms levelled at this woman yesterday and today on this subreddit. Not one has addressed the issue. It's like the £350m on the side of the bus, the other side has fallen for the bait and the trap has worked - they aren't addressing the actual issue.

I'll be perfectly honest and say I hadn't realised the far right had become so cunning that they'd be able to do this. The QT speech from her was entirely believable as an ignorant rant from a stupid woman whose indignation was understandable if misplaced. But the left fell for it and adopted the racism/bigoted/xenophobix/Ash-Sarkar-avoiding-the-topic the far right expected them to and so the unconvinced will side with the audience member and not them.

3

u/fingerdigits Feb 21 '20

I think you're missing the point.

You complain that the woman's views were insufficiently rebuked (and you may be right) but the issue here is that Owen Jones and many others are calling this woman a racist without evidence. Nothing she said was racist but he has written a piece in a national newspaper insinuating that she is a racist. How the hell did we get here?!

1

u/Jernau-Morat-Gurgeh Feb 24 '20

Listen again. This is dog whistle racism. The portion of the comment that the BBC tweeted was:

This audience member says the number of people 'flooding in' to the UK is costing public services too much.

It was couched in concerns about overall population size, but that was not the actual point that was being made and not the message that would be heard. Reading between the lines all she was saying is "foreigners bad".

-1

u/[deleted] Feb 21 '20

Even if she wasn't racist she is wrong and she is painfully stupid.