Indeed. Some people have done very badly out of globalisation, who should have been treated better: compensation, transitional arrangements, possibly medium-term protectionism. There are social housing shortages and rent problems.
There has also been a determined campaign by the rightwing parties and press to put the blame for this firmly on the immigrants themselves. The left has had a disastrous response to this, which is to call anyone complaining about immigration a racist, rather than point to the misdirection and underlying problems of inequality.
(Finally, note that you can't tell someone's immigration status by looking at them, and quite a lot of the UK ethnic minority population aren't "immigrants" but were born here.)
> The left has had a disastrous response to this, which is to call anyone complaining about immigration a racist, rather than point to the misdirection and underlying problems of inequality.
(What I'm going to say is highly simplified, and possibly wrong. I'd love to be corrected if I'm wrong in my views. I'd also like to add that in my ideals on social policy I am rather left-wing. I am also aware that the simple left-right divide misses an important axis (social/economical). That said, most people still speak of 'the left' and 'the right', so I'll do that.)
I see this as one of the primary reasons why the right-wing parties have done so well in The Netherlands (including more extreme right-wing parties like that of Geert Wilders and Rita Verdonk), which started when Pim Fortuyn gained in popularity.
Fortuyn rose in popularity because he dared to attack the Left's sacred 'multi-culti' approach. Their reaction was to denounce him as a racist, despite the fact that for the most part he actually acknowledged that the underlying problem was economic inequality.
Of course, over time, their continued denial of problems and refusal to discuss them left space for actual racist and nationalist parties like that of Geert Wilders.
From my point of view, based in part on my dealings with left-wing students, the Left is making two big 'mistakes':
1. their particular brand of 'caring' for the common folk is often really of a rather elitist, condescending and paternal kind, and these 'common folk' notice.
2. they refuse to understand, or perhaps because of 1, acknowledge that their complicated, academic views on things, however correct they may be, need to be translated in a way that everyone understands. At least when it comes to votes and not policy. I think this is possible without devolving into soundbites or pure populism.
Concerning 1, it's sad and a bit ironic that the Left, in a scramble for votes, eventually started acknowledging the problems and now do engage with the (perceived) problems with minorities in a somewhat populist way.
Indeed. Some people have done very badly out of globalisation, who should have been treated better: compensation, transitional arrangements, possibly medium-term protectionism. There are social housing shortages and rent problems.
There has also been a determined campaign by the rightwing parties and press to put the blame for this firmly on the immigrants themselves. The left has had a disastrous response to this, which is to call anyone complaining about immigration a racist, rather than point to the misdirection and underlying problems of inequality.
(Finally, note that you can't tell someone's immigration status by looking at them, and quite a lot of the UK ethnic minority population aren't "immigrants" but were born here.)