“Congratulations to UKIP. Let’s hope you now hold the controlling Labour group to account. Remember something that they forgot – you work for us, not yourselves and your cronies. If you can do that, you’re already better.
What concerns me most is the collapse of the left. The two TUSC candidates standing were exceptional. Fair enough, I do know both of them, but both would have made excellent councillors. Sarah Kiran for Respect impressed me from her first appearance and I expected a better showing.
So why did the votes shift over to UKIP? At least now the ‘if you vote UKIP, you must be racist’ nonsense can be put to bed once and for all. 44% of the voting public in Rotherham chose UKIP (according to other posters on here) so goodbye generalised racism claims. Nor do I wholly agree with the ‘protest’ vote hypothesis; it’s too easy and leads to complacency.
Let’s face it, UKIP can claim that they focussed on local issues, but we all know it was immigration that clinched it for them. Talking to my neighbours on my council estate, the few who did vote, chose UKIP. Why? Immigration. And we DON’T have any new immigrant arrivals here! When pressed, they were essentially Socialist through and through but they’d rather vote for Thatcherites who talked the talk on immigration.
For anyone on the left of the political spectrum, Thursday/Friday was a tough night. If I had to choose a label, it would be centre left but Labour in Rotherham (and nationally) are a joke so I can’t vote for them. Something has to change so we have someone to represent us. In a time when ‘austerity’ (or genocide against the poor as I prefer to call it) is running rampant, and national and international policy is set by multinationals and banks, when most bureaucracy is ‘managed’ by Common Purpose, it makes me sad to see a good socialist candidate beaten by a Lib Dem.
This next year is crucial for the left. Whatever the reasons may be, the public are not listening to the message, even when that message would benefit far more Rotherhamites than UKIP could ever dream of. So to TUSC and Respect I say this; don’t be disheartened. This is an opportunity. This is a chance to really look at the electorate and engage with their hopes and fears. The last thing any of us need (including the not-quite-so-leftie like me) is a choice between a corrupt Labour party and several different varieties of Thatcher spawn, so you are crucial to have any semblance of real choice. And think on this – most people eligible didn’t vote. That’s your electorate right there… go get ‘em! Don’t let people believe that UKIP are their only option. If there was any justice in politics, then the three candidates mentioned above should now be in office. I hope next year they will be.”
Warren Vale
Rotherham Politics 
Warren where have you been -have you actually read the UKIP policies -such as ending payment for pregnancy leave-privatisation of NHS and destruction of workers rights. Ok thats natioanlly, but your dismissal of the soft -hard racist anti-immigrant issue is unbelieveable. Yes there are many who are fed up with -‘too many immigrants’ and the impact it has having on services etc-however you cannot ignore some of the statements written on the local candidates own leaflets. For instance4 the Wickersly candidate said he wanted to get rid of Political Correctness-the end game of such a policy-would be getting rid of Sex Discrimination laws-Haelth & Safety laws-Age and disability discrimination laws and of course tHe Race Relations laws. Surely you cannot just dismiss the main plank of UKIPs policy of wanting to even have more cuts to welfare (locally and nationally) and a31p flat rate of tax for rich and poor. There is an old saying Beware for what you wish for -as you may gloat over Akhtar’s removal but what Rotherham voted for was much worse and sadly most people voted against something -ie immigration-and UKIP got the vote for that along with the media promotion and demonising of certain immigrants-that fed into many who believe the distortions of immigrants and multiu cultural Rotherham and Britain. Also other contenders need to consider their role in allowing in the arch enemy of working class -A far right of Thatcher Tory -finacier who is for business over the mass of workers-all because they fall for the creation of fear about immigrants. Please do not pretend that you expect much from a ciollection of new councillors many of whom are bigots and are against progress and want to return this country via Rotherham back to a white supremicist country -that can rule britania-again.
LikeLike
Hi Maxwell,
Thanks for the response but I’ll admit to being a bit confused. (This may well be down to my insomnia and if it is, apologies.) You’ve made it sound like I’m a UKIP supporter. I hoped it would have been clear that I’m not – I call them ‘Thatcher spawn.’ I think their policies would be a disaster nationally and time will tell locally – but I’m not holding my breath. This comment was posted under another thread and was never intended as a dissection of UKIP policy, but I wouldn’t disagree with any of your thoughts on tax rates or workers’ protection. I would definitely disagree with your comment:
‘a ciollection of new councillors many of whom are bigots and are against progress and want to return this country via Rotherham back to a white supremicist country.’
I find that quite depressing and unhelpful and to quote Sarah’s own leaflet, ‘the politics of division and hatred’ – especially coming from someone so closely linked with Sarah’s campaign. I don’t know the ten new UKIP councillors, and I certainly wouldn’t vote for one, but white supremacists? That sort of statement would fit better on the ‘other’ blog.
Let me just repeat my final sentences above:
‘Don’t let people believe that UKIP are their only option. If there was any justice in politics, then the three candidates mentioned above should now be in office. I hope next year they will be.’
In case it wasn’t clear, that’s the TUSC and Respect candidates, not UKIP. I’m not sure it’s a good campaign strategy to criticise those who are offering a supportive word or two to your candidate, but hey, these are crazy times.
LikeLike
You think UKIP’s policies would be a disaster nationally and also locally, does that mean you expect them to emulate Labour then, because that’s what their last period of government was. A record deficit and the biggest influx of aliens in history. Locally we are half a billion in debt with nine mosques in the town and a third world standard of highways-oh and a Labour MP that went to prison for thieiving!
LikeLike
I’ve never read such Communist drivel in all my life! No real mention of the last Labour Government bringing this Country to it’s knees and bankrupting it. No mention of the last Labour Government selling us our completely to Europe.
No, you would rather go on about Thatcherism, the one thing that brought this Country back from the brink and made us economically viable. It rationalised the nationalised industries and made them for real, not cash cows for those who supposedly worked for them.
I know this upsets the miners, steel workers, rail workers etc. but it’s true, they were all paid far more than those working in the real world of competition and economic success so just get over it, try and make this Country “Great” again. I believe in Great Britain.
LikeLike
I am not member or supporter of the Tories , the facts are facts. Even the last labour gov. Left the treasury empty and economic in total disaster. The labour through their terms borrowed , borrowed and spend spend without any regards to what ever happens to jobs, the services and tax payers who will and are now paying the price of this total mismanagement of the labour. They only had one thing in mind that is to win the general election no matter what. They damn cared about the Britain andBritish Tax payer. They do not deserve to govern ever again as any other party in power is better then them in Westminster
LikeLike
Hi anon,
you must have missed this line:
‘Labour in Rotherham (and nationally) are a joke so I can’t vote for them.’
Quite frankly, that’s as much effort as I’m prepared to put in. Unfortunately for you, I suspect, I couldn’t agree more with your assessment of Labour.
And you have seriously misunderstood my point about UKIP and what constitutes a legitimate debate. Happy to talk about the children of Thatcher, or we could go back to the racism nonsense, but your view (with which I heartily disagree) is a valid one that should be talked about because that’s where the real UKIP danger lies.
Sorry if my lack of leftie rantiness disappoints you. I believe that would make me quite a poor ‘commie’.
LikeLike
Hi Warren, I was not referring to you or your comments when I talked about communist drivel I was referring to what “Maxwell 2 truth” has stated in his blog.
LikeLike
Apart from the EU and immigration concerns , UKIP admire the Thatcher government which destroyed the steel and coal industries and the communities that depended on those jobs, whilst at the same time the USA protected their mining and steel industries against cheaper imports how can labour voters switch to a party that admires that woman?
LikeLike
Think there is some serious mis-information being put about. Labour lost their support entirely due to their own ineptitude and corruption, that is why they lost! They can blame UKIP, but it was themselves to blame, no excuses now.
LikeLike
One or two observations relating to the elections.
1. Rotherham got 10 UKIP councillors, Sheffield got 3, Doncaster 1 and Barnsley none.
Why was the result in Rotherham so different to that in the rest of S. Yorks?
(Rotherham has a lower percent of immigrants than Sheffield, or of UK overall for that matter).
2. UKIP are reported as targeting the following areas for the next general election:
Rotherham, Great Grimsby, Great Yarmouth, Portsmouth South, Eastleigh, Broxtowe, North Thanet and South Thanet , and Essex.
There are three things to notice in that list:
a) Only Rotherham and Great Grimsby have Labour MPs – apart from two LibDem the rest are all Tory
b) Only Rotherham and Broxtowe are non-coastal constituencies.
c) Only Rotherham is a Northern constituency.
____
So I think you’re right Rothpol, Rotherham Labour is handing our town to UKIP on a plate.
LikeLike
About 290 mines closed under Wilson in all his time in office, and about 160 under Thatcher.
LikeLike
maybe rothpol can ask the people of rotherham ,why did you vote for ukip ?
LikeLike
Maybe rothpol aint bothered why SOME people voted UKIP … The fact is SOME people did and SOME people voted labour / conservative / lib-dem / respect and green as well as others. I guess people are just different eh , but what people are fed up of is a council that thinks it can do what it likes without having to explain itself to the very people whos votes they want , and they should have a serious think themselves why SOME people did not vote for them . It aint rocket science if you keep ignoring people.. Taking things from them.. Telling them they are wrong and you know best, why would you remain loyal and give them your vote. I am glad they lost some seats , but more interesting is what they do next.
LikeLike
@Warren Vale well quoted and well understood.
LikeLike
@Warren Vale well quoted and well understood. I was closely linked to this campaign as I stood for this campaign and unless I have stated as to who is associated with my campaign and to what extent then it is not definitive as to whether or not any particular individual is closely or distantly linked to my campaign.
LikeLike
Hi Warren, good article generating a good debate. I however disagree with your views on UKIP not being fascist and racist, based on your opinion that a party with 44% of the Rotherham vote can’t possibly be.
The best counter examples are from WW2. Where neither the fascists of Italy or Germany received majority popular support in elections, yet the masses got caught up in the nationalist fever that ensued.
I feel that UKIP are proto-fascist, meaning that they are going that way and will get there unless challenged.
To illustrate….the pillars of UKIP are withdrawal from the EU and a reduction in immigration.
Leaving the EU now will no impact on future immigration whatsoever and will do nothing about the real source of concern for the majority of UKIP supporters, the immigrants already here.
The policy and political quandary for UKIP is their two key policies really don’t support each other unless we add another element; repatriation.
The only way for UKIP to satisfy its supporters is having once left the EU and revoked Human Rights legislation is to start repatriation….otherwise why would the many who voted UKIP for anti immigration reasons have bothered? It won’t have any impact on Eastwood or Wellgate.
This is why in my opinion they are on the road to fascism, or hopefully collapse when people see the route plan.They end up in the same place as the BNP, just a little more subtly. A little less transparently.
LikeLike
Thanks Wil.
Interesting points you make. Can I point one thing out though, your first sentence:
‘I however disagree with your views on UKIP not being fascist and racist, based on your opinion that a party with 44% of the Rotherham vote can’t possibly be.’
That’s a distortion of what I said as you well know. 🙂
I didn’t mention anything about whether UKIP as a party was ‘racist’ or ‘fascist’ or not, and it could not be clearer that I was referring to UKIP voters when I said ‘At least now the ‘if you vote UKIP, you must be racist’ nonsense can be put to bed once and for all.’
My points were only about UKIP voters. I’m not going to stand there and accuse 44% of the people who were bothered to vote of racism. It’s a shameful accusation and it’s not true… If it was, and there are those here who continue to say this, openly and by inference, then we as a nation would be in real trouble.
People turning to UKIP are afraid. Afraid of losing their jobs, losing their homes, being unable to put food on the table… These fears are economic, not racial. Scapegoating always increases as wealth and well-being decreases. So address the policies – that’s how you counter a party like UKIP. The media and opposition to UKIP cry ‘racist’ because it’s easier than acknowledging their own failings in creating an environment where traditional voters feel they have nowhere to turn; where their policies have not helped the poorest to feel better off; where they can accuse UKIP of wanting to privatise anything that isn’t nailed down without really accepting that they started the process; start to bring back a manufacturing base to create good jobs for this and future generations of blue collar families. The list of areas where traditional parties have abandoned the public is a long one. UKIP, to their credit, have recognised this and are capitalising on it, and the opposition focus on ‘racism’ let’s tham have a free ride.
Unfortunately, Labour, indeed the left in general, have not talked clearly enough about policies that will really, actually change things for the better. Voters aren’t hearing the message because in some cases there isn’t one, and in others the message is drowned out by angry shouts of ‘racist’. UKIP may direct people to associate their economic woes with Europe or immigration, but shouting ‘racist’ at their voters serves only as a recruitment tool for these Thatcher mini-me’s.
Remember, when a baby laughs a fairy is born… Maybe we should change that to: when we shout racist, a UKIP voter is born.
🙂
LikeLike
.”the pillars of UKIP are withdrawal from the EU and a reduction in immigration”
Yes they want to reduce immigration, they also want a referendum on Europe i.e. letting ordinary folk like you and I decide if WE want to be in the EU or not. Not them, us. So, if UKIP came into power and gave us our referendum and if we voted to stay in Europe, do you think UKIP would take us out regardless?
LikeLike
Why can’t we have a mature debate on immigration without people using words like ‘racist’, ‘fascist’ and ‘Little Englander’ (Which is a racist term)? It is time to decouple the silly notion that reasonable scepticism towards mass immigration is racism/xenophobia.
The Labour party also needs to admit that it was wrong scrapping measures such as the Primary Purpose rule. (Between 1983 and 1997 the “Primary Purpose Rule” imposed a requirement that the applicant should show “that the marriage was not entered into primarily to obtain admission to the United Kingdom”. This was a major ground for refusing applications and dismissing appeals against refusal but it was controversial because it required the applicant to prove a negative. In 1997, shortly after the general election of that year, the rule was abolished. It is now possible, in practice, to enter into a marriage with someone settled in Britain purely for the purpose of immigration provided certain legal requirements are met)
http://www.migrationwatchuk.com/Briefingpaper/document/116
On the subject of immigration the public don’t believe the government, they don’t believe the media, and they don’t believe academics either.
Whatever your views are on immigration it needs to be discussed without wild and unfounded allegations being bandied about.
LikeLike
Colin, we can never have a mature debate on immigration without using the words “Racist”, “Fascist” and “Little England” because the people using these terms fear the truth. The truth that this Country is now full of cultures which conflict with the basic Christian culture this Country and it’s laws have been founded on over many centuries.
I have NEVER been asked if I wanted Britain to be multi-cultural (I am old enough to remember this Country before it became so) and I do not believe it should be. If people want to come and live in the Country and contribute to its prosperity, then they should come here prepared to live as the British people have done for centuries, not force and inflict their culture on us, including wanting to change our laws.
If this is being racist, then I am proud to be racist; but I don’t think I am. I think I speak for a vast number of people who believe in Great Britain!
LikeLike
Multiculturalism and multiracalism have been imposed on the indigenous people of this country! They never asked for it, they never wanted it. and they never voted for it and no party has ever had a mandate for it. If New Labour had said in 1997 we are going to encourage the biggest influx of immigrants in the country’s history, they would not have had a chance of being elected! Now they are claiming it was a mistake and they are sorry! It was no mistake, Peter Mandleson and Andrew Neather have both said it was done quite deliberately!
LikeLike
To whoever recognises this comment that begins:
Colin, we can never have a mature debate on immigration without using the words “Racist”, “Fascist” and “Little England” because the people using these terms fear the truth.
You didn’t leave an email address so I can’t contact you directly. please email me before commenting further. Rothpol.
LikeLike