A couple of days ago I took a look at intolerance among UKIP supporters. I've received quite a lot of responses to this, and I'd like to follow up on a few issues this has prompted me to think about.
Firstly, let's look again at racism. My blog's title - Are UKIP Racist? - was provocative, though it reflects the focus of much of the debate on this issue. The data I looked at showed that racist views were somewhat more common among UKIP supporters, the vast majority - 80% or more - did not support racist statements in the survey I analysed. So while a minority of UKIP supporters are racist, the majority are not.
Racism, however, is not the only form of intolerance. But what do we mean by intolerance anyway? My original article wasn't very clear on this. The OED defines tolerance as "the ability or willingness to tolerate the existence of opinions or behaviour that one dislikes or disagrees with." Its not ideal that the definition of tolerance also uses the word 'tolerance', but you get the idea. By this definition, an intolerant person is one unwilling to put up with people, views or opinions they do not like or agree with. Let's take a look again at the views I canvassed in examining whether Ukip are 'intolerant':
Immigration: Ukip supporters were more likely to support a complete ban on immigration, and to support government efforts to deport immigrants. UKIP supporters are thus less willing to support the existence in Britain of a group - immigrants - whose views or behaviour they dislike, which would meet the dictionary definition of 'intolerance'.
Ukip supporters are also more likely to falsely attribute negative behaviour to immigrants as a group - holding them responsible for 'most crime' and agreeing with the view that they 'jump the queue for council housing'. Neither has any basis in evidence: the vast majority of crime is NOT committed by immigrants, and immigration has not been responsible for a rise in crime Migrant status provides no advantage to council housing claimants who are, in any event, under-represented among council tenants. This stereotyping of immigrants is not quite the dictionary definition of 'intolerance', but I think most people would concede it meets the popular understanding. If someone said "most Spaniards are lazy" or "most Irish are drunks" we would not think they were demonstrating a tolerant world-view.
Islam: Ukip supporters were more likely to agree that 'Islam poses a serious danger to Western civilization' and to be bothered by the construction of a mosque in their neighbourhood (84% would be bothered, 64%). The first probably does not meet the strict definition of intolerance - one may regard a group as threatening while still being willing to put up with it. The latter, though, seems pretty clearly a form of intolerance: the majority of Ukip supporters are agreeing that they would be seriously annoyed by the provision of religious worship facilities for a different religious group in their local area, even though such provision is likely to do them no harm at all. This does not suggest much willingness to put up with people holding different views.
Homosexuality: I did not discuss this in the original article, but given the recent statements by a Ukip candidate for parliament describing gay adoption as a form of child abuse. Our survey asked voters their views about civil partnerships. Here, as elsewhere, Ukip supporters were more negative than any other party except the BNP - 41% opposed civil partnerships, higher than all the mainstream parties and nearly twice the sample average. This is dictionary definition intolerance: such legal recognition does no harm at all to heterosexual individuals, and yet four in 10 Ukip supporters are unwilling to put up with its existence, or to offer legal recognition to a group with different views or behaviour from their own.
My original article was pretty muddy about what intolerance meant. Here, I have applied a crystal clear standard. And, consistently, the finding is clear: UKIP supporters are less tolerant than supporters of mainstream parties. Less tolerant of immigrants. Less tolerant of Muslims. Less tolerant of gays. They are more tolerant than the BNP, but I am not sure that 'more tolerant than the BNP' is a slogan Nigel Farage will be keen to run on.
Ps If you want to see the full figures comparing Ukip supporters to those of other parties, you can find them here. The relevant table is on page 35.
The report by Matthew Goodwin and Jocelyn Evans, from which I drew the data on Mosques, is also freely available here
Follow Robert Ford on Twitter: www.twitter.com/robfordmancs
Nigel Farage: The Prime Minister's Speech Has Made Today a Victory for Ukip
Alex MacDonald: Ukip - A 'Moderate' Party?
Selective facts and partial views are just as bad, if not worse than the racism he seems determined to highlight. The fact that his views are packaged in a "study", confers on them the veneer of superiority, which us ordinary people are used to hearing.
He goes into a pseudo argument with himself about the meaning of the word intolerence.
Lots of people are concerned to a greater or lesser extent about Islam in this country. I know from personal experience that there is as wide a spread of attitudes within Muslim society as there are within any other section of society. However, the extreme views within Islamic society, are far worse than in other sections of society, but they are totally ignored by politically correct authorities, who are only interested in finding and stigmatising "intolerant" white people.
I've heard a number of Muslim men say that homosexuals should be killed. By far the most racist things about black people I've heard over the years, have come from Asian people, both Muslim and others. No mention is made of the attitude to woman within a lot of immigrant communities, and is very pronounced within Muslim societies, such as forced marriage, honour attacks, the racist paedophile grooming of young white girls by Muslim, predominately Pakistani (origin) men, etc.
Is balance a dirty word?
Miliband himself had to admit that the last Labour government’s policy of uncontrolled immigration was a mistake in a speech to the Institute for Public Policy Research.
We have had multiculturalism shoved down our throats. No-one asked for it and it never appeared in any party manifesto. Mass immigration has put an enormous strain on our services and infrastructure, eg welfare, health, schools, housing, transport, police, social services etc which are stretched to the limit.
Is it any wonder people want immigration reduced to the absolute minimum? This is not racism, it is realism. And all this guy’s sanctimonious clap-trap wont change that fact in the slightest.
- 78% of people want net migration brought down to zero.
Sorry you are not 'crystal clear' you have made a conclusion based on your own world view. Desperation springs to mind.
EVERYONE is intolerant of something. It is human nature. It is human instinct It is also the result of having a MIND and a PERSONALITY. Take away those and yes I guess you could be tolerant of anything. Have a too easy life and a silver spoon and yes you could be tolerant of anything.
Why on earth should people tolerate their country being changed beyond recognition within such a short timeframe?
Now that question is crystal clear.
Nick Boles said that an area of countryside the size of essex needs to be built on to meet the housing needs of the increasing population. We all know this is down to immigration. Why should be tolerate it? Why should we surrender our country
You cannot tell the difference between intolerance and mere opinion.
I am intolerant of mass immigration. I am proud to admit it. 78% of people in this country hate mass immigration too but many are scared to admit it thanks to thought
If there is only one comment and none pending how can it possibly be in a queue plus on another board about bliar four comment faild to be shown are you biased in comment allowed?