Why Is It Considered Right Wing To Want To Look After The Interests Of The Uk?

[ToraToraTora]

UKIP is routinely describd a "right wing" and often "extreme right" - Why is that? why is it a right wing trait to want self determination? Why is it a leftwing trait to want the opposite?

[Zeuhl]

/to want self determination?/

for whom T3?

Britain?
England?
London?
Brent?
Joe Bloggs?

[Old_Geezer]

I don’t think it is considered right wing to want to look after the interests of the UK. It is right wing to look after the commercially astute and the elites interests (regarding the UK) with little/no regard to, or care for how the majority working citizens are affected.

[emmie]

no idea, but some won;t be happy till we are all citizen smith's

[naomi24]

andy-hughes, //I have always been mystified by the approach of people who see 'England' as 'their' country…//

That smacks of 1970s Hippie Central – the home of the 'citizens of the world' - except most of those hippies have since grown up with the stark realisation that they are not citizens of the world… man! I find your post at 10:55 really sad and frankly I wonder why millions bothered to give their lives in exchange for such scant comprehension. England is, indeed, my country.

[emmie]

i too read through AH post and wondered what on earth possibly his and my forebears fought and died for, the logic to this is mad, that a German doesn't own his plot of land, to be part of the country he was born into. that he inhabits it just for a short time, that anyone at all, no matter who, has a right to settle, bring their culture, ideology along with them, and settle or just simply as many have done here and i suspect in Germany, created their own little community, not being part of the wider communities, country with all it has to offer. I am English, British, my family gave up many of its sons so that we could have a freer life, a democracy, a country to be proud of, its nothing to doing with being patriotic, but i honestly don't see why we shouldn't be. I am proud that my relatives fought for something they believed in, that they didn't want to see us under the jackboot, or squashed by a totalitarian system, which wouldn't allow one any form of personal freedoms, that we by and large enjoy. Had we taken the attitude that AH has taken then what would we all be, nothing but disconnected souls, with no one to share a common bond with, nothing to suggest that we had a common language, which for the time being we do, what a depressing post AH, a truly depressing idea.

[kvalidir]

Well Naomi and Emmie are right in that they say that Andy Hughes' opinions don't work- they are very similar to the Abrorigine and Native American idea of land and we did a class job of marauding all over them (and their land) as a result of such tolerant ideals.
The notion of Nationalism does worry me though, it's fine to be proud of things about Britain, our freedoms, our nice countryside, our lovely scones etc etc etc but it's not okay to consider ourselves superior to other people because of an accident of birth. I am the same as a Romanian, I'm not better BECAUSE I am British, I might be nicer or they might be nicer it's all subjective.
Getting back to the OPs question though- it's not right wing to want to look after the interests of the UK, I want to do that too and I am very definitely NOT right wing, I just differ about what is actually in our interests long term.

[royfromaus]

I often wonder what type of utopian world , andy hughes drifts off into when he starts to construct some of his replies. Can I ask... do you own a house andy?

[emmie]

one where we all do as we are told perhaps

[andy-hughes]

Good morning all,

to respond to those who have somewhat shot down my point in flames I would say the following -

My point is an existential one. This dismisses at a stroke all the arguments about my forebears creating the culture in which I live, and that millions died to give me my freedom.

I am entirely aware of those points, and their validity.

My point does not equate with one global culture, and the impracticality of everyone moving to whever they wish with no costs or consequences.

I promise you, I am not that naiive, or blinkered.

My point was merely an expression of my thoughts whenever I hear and see right-wing groups like the EDL protesting that this is 'their' country, because patently it is not - in the true sense of the term.

That is the only point I was expressing, so for the record, I am as concerned about limitless imigration as anyone, I simply don't see it in terms of the country being 'mine, not yours'.

Hope I have explained myself more clearly here.

[New Judge]

No, not really Andy.

Whilst of course the land does not "belong to us" (and I'm talking about it as a whole, not the small parcels of it that some of us own) the people who live here and who have learnt of its development due to their forbears' efforts over hundreds of years most certainly do have a stake. They should have a say about what happens within it, who settles within it and who is allowed to share its assets.

People of the current generations are the custodians of the UK, rather like the 11th Duke of Marlborough is the current custodian of Blenheim Palace. The idea is that they preserve what they believe is good about it, improve what's not so good and hand it on to their successors hopefully in better nick.

This can only be achieved if there is a shared sense of purpose throughout the population, a shared culture and a shared set of values. Allowing anybody to trample over the land who may not share that culture and those values will hinder that process and lead to a nation that does not suit the people already here.

To move back to my Blenheim analogy it would be no use to the Duke if the hordes and masses were allowed unfettered access to the Palace, to write on the walls, nick the works of art and sell them on e-Bay. What he has done is to allow controlled and limited access so that people may share in the pleasures of the Palace without ruining it. He can then pass it on to the next custodian.

So it is with the UK. The people here do not own it but they have a valid interest to see that the place is maintained in good order so that they may live their lives in reasonable comfort - comfort that their forbears have worked for.

What is happening at the moment in the minds of many people is that millions of people who have contributed very little to the decent state the nation currently finds itself in have chosen to up sticks and move here for a better life. This would be all well and good if we were able to choose who they were, decide what they were allowed to do when they got here and (most importantly) chuck them out if they do not meet our standards (rather like the Duke does). But whilst we are in the EU we do not have that sanction.

So, back to the question, I don't know why it is considered "right wing" to want to put the interests of the UK first. I don't know why it's considered anything other than plain common sense.

[naomi24]

NJ, excellent analogy. Spot on.

[Kromovaracun]

NJ - except that the people who attend the palace and the owners of it are not different groups of people - the lines are considerably blurred. And it sometimes happens (and sometimes doesn't) that foreign influence enriches or improves life in the UK, which doesn't fit into your analogy. Britain's modern quality of life has not developed in isolation from the rest of the world, and nor will its future.

[Svejk]

I'm sure everyone can see certain past and future benefits from immigration. That's why its galling to be dismissed as a racist or bigot. But some of us feel we need to take control over who comes and who we can kick out.

[solvitquick]

In my opinion, the term right-wing means representing and supporting the so-called "upper-classes" who represent 5% of the population but own 95% of the country's resources. This probably goes back to the days when there were only Whigs (liberal) and Tories (protecting the hold of the rich and power of the Establishment).
The increased spread of newspapers, trades unions and thence formation of the Labour Party has somewhat dulled the Tory love of the rich-only.
Winston Churchill supported many "socialist" ideas notably the NHS although this was enacted by Clement Attlee, because Churchill had great vision and saw extreme class division as self-destructive.
But why "Right-wing"? Maybe in the old days the Tories always sat to the right of the speaker. Just guesssing!
As for UKIP they are not right, left or centre - they are the new raving looney party.
For us to leave the EU would be suicide and leave us sinking in
mid-atlantic - valueless to mainland Europe and valueless to the USA.
SIQ.