The absurdity of modern society

Should different classes or groups within a country have to follow a common agenda or should the philosophical / moral / political agenda, which is largely the brain child of a specialise group, the chattering class, who have control over the media, should their opinions be the basis of the body politic.

Is it "Neanderthal" for a person who has felt the direct economic effect of immigration and the lowering wages, which often accompanies the increased market in labour, especially since it is usually not a level  playing field, to complain and wish for the migrants to go away, preferably back home . Is it right we level opprobrium on our own people calling them racist when all they are doing is protecting their jobs and their way of life.
Usually young men and women come from all parts of the globe to take advantage of the opportunity to obtain work where there is non in their own country. Willing to accept what ever terms are offered, often sending a large part of their earnings home, to an economy which is, by comparison, impoverished. Living in a shared digs, some-times many to a room, sometimes hot bedding, (we have all done it as we wander around the world), places the immigrant in a position willing accept a lower wage and work longer hours since everything is in their minds temporarily. Compare this to the man or woman bringing up a family with all the pressures that it entails and you see an immediate flash point. And we must also never lose sight of the exploitative tendency of business to make the most of such a situation.
As a society the willingness to be open hearted, to recognise the commonality of human beings, the moral aspects of extending a hand to assist, is the currency of the middle and upper middle classes where, fortunately for them, the pressure of lower rates of pay would not be countenanced in their professional life.
In a dog eat dog society, where resources are very limited and much seems in disarray it is scandalous to ask people from these areas to have views which are philosophically equivalent or have much in common with the Chelsea set .
The fall back on catch all phrases such as racism is cheap and shows the paucity of modern academic rigour, the absurdity of modern society in its willingness to attempt to close down proper dialogue by these common slurs.
The rise of UKIP as an alternative to the often holier than thou standpoint in the Labour Party which, whilst having moral value, is out of touch with the reality on the ground. Listening to the Blairites is like listing to the 'village vicar', a man or woman who's hopes and desires are exemplary but locked up in their faith and the routines of religious routine makes them separate, cut adrift from their congregation.
The term Political Correctness which some of the most heretical proponents of denying freedom of speech on the basis that certain views may be unpleasant will now a days wriggle at the use of the term but in the last 20 years there has been a ridiculous volte face in representing the ordinary fears of the masses (a term itself they would deny) for the defence of the minority. They have constructed a nether world where reality is suspended and a fairyland environment is imposed on the basis of human need and respect. The everyday reality, as in the case of the effects of mass immigration is swept under the carpet and soothing noises are heard to quell any unhappiness, platitudes invoked, and the indigenous constituency  left feeling ever more frustrated.