I am up early on a bank holiday Monday morning to go bird watching - and it's raining too hard to make any fun of that, so I've been reading the news and wondering what a UKIP world will look like.
First things first - I am sure UKIP will have its first elected MP in two weeks.
Second, I do not foresee a landslide in a year for UKIP, or even little more than a blip. A 30% share now could easily become 15% or less at a general election based on many precedents.
That, though, remains uncomfortable.
It's uncomfortable because many who would lose very badly from UKIP voted for it.
It's uncomfortable for women - UKIP had the lowest electable party representation of women by far.
It's uncomfortable for anyone who feels like the UK is their adopted home.
It's uncomfortable because right now it makes the idea of effective government within the prevailing UK system seem hard: the complete failure of the current Coalition to have anything to do in its mandatory fifth term is evidence of that.
It's uncomfortable for those who believe in public services.
It's uncomfortable for those who care.
It's uncomfortable for those that need protection.
And that's why I would like to see politcians - especially on the left - move out of their comfort zones.
It's time to talk basics.
It's time to talk freedom from fear.
And it's time to embrace diversity - because that is reality.
And it is also time to talk about something to that almost no one will touch upon - which is what it really means to be English. The Scots, Welsh and Irish know who they are, by and large. The crisis is for the English. It is they who, by and large, have moved to the far right (and yes, I know UKIP won in Wales and Scotland, but only just).
Surely that is a theme to be addressed that we have all been far too uncomfortable with?
It is one to ponder on because defining what Englishness means seems to me to be at the core of resolving the English political dilemma outside London.
I will give it some thought.
Enough musing for now. It has stopped raining.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I agree with you Richard. The elections this week have demonstrated the problem. Dimbleby et al talk about Britain, the UK and England as if the terms were interchangeable. When they use the expression “the whole country” they sometimes mean England but at other times they might mean Britain or the UK. England will not truly find itself until the political union of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is dissolved.
I am not seeking a dissolution – unless that is clearly desired
The others have identities within the union
England does not.
Nor am I seeking nationalism – far from it
I am seeking understanding
Richard, the much-derided John Prescott really tried to establish regional English. Government, but fell flat on his face, even in his own North East – the trial run – so the whole idea was, alas, dropped.
I say “alas”, because I have always been in favour of real regional government, along the lines of the German Laender – which, of course spring from the opposite motivating force for any English version: for the German Laender descend from the old German hotch-potch of statelets, Margravates, Dukedoms and Kingdoms, so Laender Government preserved that diversity in unity – so unification was the predominant objective, with concessions to localism.
In England the opposite is true: we have FAR too much unity, in the sense of Whitehall centralized, London-centric government – even tyranny! – with localism overlooked at best, mocked and derided at worst.
But the real irony is that, coming from opposite origins and motivations, Germany and the UK arrive at the same end – namely, the need for diversity in unity, only it is diversity we need.
Imagine a Federal UK, in which the Parliaments of Scotland, northern Ireland and Wales (bumping those up to parliament status, not mere Assemblies) might be joined by 5 or 6 (more? Fewer?)Regional English Parliaments, with considerable regional autonomy, presided over by a “federal” Westminster Parliament, (probably shorn of the Lords), with regional legislation being the responsibility of a Regional Parliament, and federal legislation needing the assent of both a majority of the regional Parliaments, as well as a majority vote in the Federal Parliament.
This would break the stranglehold of the London-centric Westminster “chatterati” bubble, and force it to pay attention to the regions, which could develop and promote their own sense of “Englishnesses” – deiberate plural, as I’m Yorkshire- born and schooled, but now live in East Anglia – two areas of England which each has its own different, but EQUALLY VALID, idea of Englishness.
It is London-centricness that has effectively squeezed out our sense of Englishness, leaving the Regions gasping for psychic space and identity,and the confidence to try to defend their distinctiveness.
Finally, toxic Thatcherism would not have succeeded against a more decentralized federal system – exactly why she abolished the GLC.
Andrew
There is a lot in that
Even the Nordic states that are much smaller than the UK have much more powerful local government precisely to allow for diversity
We don’t
It is a way to progress – within a strong framework of regional support though – or London will run away with low taxes and the rest will suffer
Richard
“The crisis is for the English. It is they who, by and large, have moved to the far right….”
Wow, so the people who voted for UKIP are now all far right. I’ve never been called ‘far right’ before.
So now you know
You need a ‘like’ button, Richard. I like.
I am researching it
Those who have trawled the wider shores of genealogy will be aware that many who see themselves are one thing may quite another and almost certainly in part. Most of the present “English” derive from elements of Scots, Welsh and Irish who moved. Hence in the 18th Century I have people from all over Scotland, Sligo and other parts of Ireland and North Wales despite an English male line and that from the Welsh Marches. Before that it gets complicated. In the present the last few generations have seen a huge proportion of the former rural population decanted into urban areas and abroad. And the urban areas are very mixed. There is not a preponderance of actual many English English. Although there may be many who think they are. Moreover, much of so-called “English” heritage is an artificial construct from the relatively recent past, as is the Scots, Irish and Welsh.
I am acutely aware that I am a long way from being all English. Two grandfathers appear to have had Norman names and a third one that probably originates in Yorkshire, so the Irish has been diluted….until we come to my children, who are more than half Irish
So we construct narratives of who we are….except the English have lost the plot right now
I don’t want to see the UK dissolved. I feel myself to be British and English. I also feel European in some way. The old saying was ‘a patriot loves their country, a nationalist hates everyone else’s’. An over simplification but it has a lot of truth in it.
You raise a question which doesn’t have an easy answer. England is larger than the Celtic nations -although we share most of the DNA. (Two thirds of the genes in these islands were present when the Romans came.) There are more regional differences in England than Wales or Scotland. One could argue that the class structure was more pronounced in England than in Wales or Scotland.
We used to tell ourselves that we had a genius for compromise and a sense of tolerance and fair play. We also like eccentrics. These are not unique to this country, of course. I fear that they have eroded in recent years but I hope they can be rediscovered and re-invigorated. That will need the quality you often write about, the courage to stand up for what we believe to be right but not in a way which seeks the annihilation of those who disagree with us.
I think courage was one of our virtues
There certainly isn’t any sense of ‘our’ anymore and the issues affecting the whole economic system don’t have national boundaries which is why it is hard to deal with them within national borders. I personally see national identity as a negative phenomenon. Many borders are to do with bizarre historical foul ups or geographical accidents. We need to care for where we live but also see it as contingent rather than some abstract ‘essence.’ If we are to challenge global finance and its oligarchies, regional identity won’t help us.
The parochialism of UKIP is all baloney and cant, with Farage’s ‘fag and pint’ image about as crass and pathetic as you can get, appealing to some sentiment sodden idea of the ‘ordinary bloke’. If their is a national characteristic coming out of all this it is the English tradition of being condescended to, a ghastly small-mindedness and a supine inertia whilst being vilified by powerful ignorami!
I see identity as coherence
Andrew Dickie’s idea is interesting. The German Federal structure was imposed by the USA and UK after 1945. We also imposed a PR system of voting and one union per industry. Remember the old union demarcation disputes which used to bring British workplaces to a halt? Some years ago I heard a Liberal peer tell us that one German politician said to him, ‘what a shame you didn’t do the same’.
I’m not sure that it is possible to define ‘Englishness’, although many have tried. I’m not even sure that it is worth doing, which does not mean I disagree with the points made above about regional governments. I think its tempting to define nationalities and I think UKIP’s appeal is, at least partly, based on some ill-defined idea of ‘Englishness’ (presumably they’d say ‘Britishness’)that sets the English apart from other people and locates their interests as residing in some isolationist idol. Being ill-defined, it works by ignoring the fact that people’s interests within any society are diverse, as you rightly point out when discussing the dire consequences that UKIP’s project would have for the majority.
Perhaps the answer to UKIP is to continue to draw attention to the issues that are relevant to most people’s lives, as you are doing in this blog.
It’s not Englishness per se: that would be pointless: it is what creates coherence that I am seeking
I see ukip as being the same in the next general election as it was in the last; nothing.
The EU elections are PR, the general election is FPTP.
A general election gets some 70% off their backsides and voting, the EU elections got 35%.
Ukip got 9.4% of the 35%. The LibDems got less than 3%.
Ukip have no policies, other than out of the EU (and even that seems to have been watered down).
They have one voice, Farage, who seems to have one of his feet firmly stuck in his mouth and a collection of electable representatives who seem to be stupid (to be charitable).
Looking at Der Fuhrer (Farage) I see a person who, from his history, fits in quite well with the other three parties from educational and social background. In fact, I see him as a potential ¨ship jumper¨ from ukip to conservative….if he can manage to find himself a winnable seat….which looks to be never.
I think they are a serious issue, I am afraid
I find it deeply depressing when discussions such as these focus on “identity”, it’s such a dangerous, delusional dead-end Andrew Dickie has it spot-on in identifying the real problem as the UK’s massively over-centralised and undemocratic form of government. It’s such a pity that truly local government was abolished rather than modernised in the mid-70s; while there are many reasons for the UK being where it is now, I think the extinction of local democracy is key amongst them.
For most of the people I know, who intend to vote Yes in Scotland in September, the driver is democracy, not identity. Had we had a constitutional settlement like Germany’s, I’m pretty sure we wouldn’t be striving for independence.
Could I add, Richard, whilst I’m at it, that in Sweden, for example, there isn’t really a “framework of strong regional support”, gifted as it were by central government. Taxes are raised and spent locally, with a percentage going to support central government.
And I would suggest to Ian S that, paradoxically, the only solution for the UK’s failing state IS dissolution. It can’t survive as it is; it is so deeply and systemically flawed, that it doesn’t have the capacity within it to resound to the challenges the world presents.
But that does mean a change in identity if we are to achieve those goals
I’m not sure I fully understand your question, but I do think that we should worry less about our identities and more about democracy. I think identity should be a personal thing, rather than tribal – I’m a half-Swedish, half-English, Scottish citizen, who probably feels mostly European, but although I value them, none of those identities are more important than a just, democratic and fair society. Whether that be at local, national or international level.
I agree
But you may be a minority
And I suspect I am
I don’t think you “get” UKIP properly. I did not vote for them , but I can understand
their frustration with Establishment politics and London centredness, and the political elite largely indistinguishable, and most MPS never having a proper job.
And the whole machinery of government in large parts not fit for purpose. I have met Nigel Farage and he is a giant among pygmies. Effective opposition to UKIP will not be the usual Left Wing bleating because that will just strengthen them more, but the considered dismemberment of their policies.
Whose policies?
UKIPs?
Ooooh. So many typos. Apologies!
It means common or garden British.
There is a reality in all this that is ignored by commentators in politics, the press, and media. Turnout at the local elections was, I think, somewhere around 36%. That means that, in reality, something like 6% of the electorate voted UKIP. This is what is being described as an ‘earthquake’.
Think of it the other way round. 94% of the English electorate do not ascribe to the views expounded by UKIP. I would venture to suggest that if UKIP’s ‘success’ is indicative of anything, it is of the failure of our political system to engage with the voter.
The response of the major parties is predictably arrogant. ‘We have failed to get our message across’, they earnestly inform us, without considering for one moment that we, the people, may not actually like the message. More importantly we may not even like the messenger.
When I was growing up (in the Black Country) it was common to hear someone described as being ‘one o’we’. It was a term of social acceptance that denoted a wealth of shared social and cultural understanding and experience. It was a descriptive that could be applied equally to millionaires and labourers alike, regardless of gender or ethnic origin. This may seem like a whimsical digression on the subject of politics, but consider this.
The late, lamented Baron Ballston, Dennis Turner, was palpably, irrefutably, ‘one o we’. Mr Milband is not.
And there you have the nub of Farage’s success. Only the gullible fall for the beer-drinking, fag-smoking subterfuge of the public school ex-stock broker. But listen to the regional accents amongst the candidates he chose. Could it be, perhaps, that amongst those who voted for his party were many who were simply voting for candidates who are like them (or against the middle-class Oxbridge elite that have dominated British Politics for thirty years).
There are two implications from this. Firstly, if I am right, the game is up for the Labour Party. Those who have controlled the party since the sad demise of John Smith would see the Party destroyed before they would accept that, actually, they ARE the problem.
Secondly, the continued lack of engagement by more than half of the electorate suggests a huge void waiting to be filled by something ‘other’. 94% of voters rejected UKIP at the polls. It will not be them.
Many will agree with you Martin
Even the founder of UKIP according to today’s Guardian
“Could it be, perhaps, that amongst those who voted for his party were many who were simply voting for candidates who are like them (or against the middle-class Oxbridge elite that have dominated British Politics for thirty years)”
There’s something missing from that statement, Martin.
If the media are to be trusted, a very big ask, particularly after Nick Robinson’s recent performances, what struck me most was the number who said they had voted UKIP specifically because of UKIP’s stance on immigration and the EU, regardless, and without much interest in, UKIP’s other policies.
I believe that many may have said that because they have been forced so savagely into one or more groups of those to be despised by the coalition’s mightily successful demonising propaganda programme of the last four years. Forced into positions of fear, they do what humans do when they become fearful, focus solely on defending what they have and attacking all they feel, or are led to feel, threatened by.
This is not to defend Labour who, I agree, have lost their way and need most urgently to grow some. But I really don’t see how the effectiveness of the Tories propaganda, which I can’t believe to be anything other than the result of significant planning and coordination, can be left out of the equation.
The Tories and UKIP have not and do not appeal to reason, just the raw fear that has accumulated over the last four years. Labour’s crime is to have focused on reason alone, to talk rather than listen, which is plain daft when so many people so plainly want and need honesty and a positive, feel better, if not good, flag to rally around.
Most of all, Labour need to identify someone passionate who can connect with the electorate in the way Farage does AND explain and sell a positive political vision. I seem to remember that sort of person being described as a leader.
is needed and show a great deal more passion in fighting the lies and listening to the people
Sorry for the rogue last line!
How have we got politicians who find it so hard to commnnicate
With the greatest respect Nick, I have to disagree. I don’t know what your reality is, but I can only presume it is very different to my own.
I have watched with dismay over the last 40 years while a Labour Party that was once, for me, the only possible choice for people like me, drift further and further away from everything I believe in. I am not alone. The constituency in which I live still faithfully elects a Labour representative, but the majority gets smaller every year. And little wonder.
The modal average wage in this country, that is to say the wage that most of us earn, is estimated between £15-20k. And yet Milband’s narrative is about the squeezed middle. If you’re on minimum wage you’re probably not sure who that is exactly, but you know it isn’t you. Labour debates, in ambivalent terms, about the conditions they would apply to free schools. You hope that your local primary or comprehensive has a space for your child. Labour supports a £50bn investment in HS2 but agrees with the coalition that Government of the future will need to be smaller, that cuts are necessary. Electricity and public transport get more expensive and less reliable every day but the Labour Party refuse to commit to nationalisation.
Who are these people, who once spoke for us, for the majority?
We stayed who we are, we stayed the majority. It was they who left us, who stole our party. I have waited dumbly for a sign that the Labour Party would find its way back to its natural constituency for 20 years now.
I know now that that isn’t going to happen.
And just for the record, Nick, no, the BBC aren’t to be trusted…
Martin, I’m not sure what you disagree with, so, for the avoidance of doubt, let me make it as clear as I can that I agree pretty much totally with your original comments, particularly your sense of having been badly let down by Labour. What I was trying to say was that, in my opinion, you had not taken into account what I believe is another important factor in any analysis of why so many voted for UKIP, ie government propaganda designed to marginalize different groups, make them fearful and the use the fallout from fear as those groups turn on one another.
Would Labour had acted any less spinelessly or distantly in the absence of that propaganda? Quite probably not. Have the electoral prospects of UKIP been improved by the presence of that propaganda? In my opinion, quite probably yes.
“We stayed who we are, we stayed the majority. It was they who left us, who stole our party. I have waited dumbly for a sign that the Labour Party would find its way back to its natural constituency for 20 years now.” I couldn’t agree more.
I admit I could not se much difference between you two, having read many comments over time
I like Andrew’s idea of a Federal UK too, but backed up with Australia’s compulsory voting system. Surely the sacrifices made and blood spilt throughout history to obtain enfranchisement justifies the latter!
I like compulsory voting
Why not? After all, returning the census is obligatory, although, given that one borough ground to a halt due to an ‘unexpectedly high’ (50%) turnout I suspect the mechanism would require significant investment!
I would also predict a large number of ‘none of the above…’
It shouldn’t be assumed that compulsory voting equates to responsible voting or indeed to an actual vote being cast.
If systems of government, local and national, are meaningful and legitimate, then compulsion shouldn’t be necessary. The UK problems are the absence of truly local government, the distortions of FPTP and a Parliamentary system that the Tory Lord Hailsham called an “elective dictatorship”.
Votes have to have meaning and influence, otherwise why turn up at a polling station?
1) Your blog doesn’t anywhere acknowledge why people voted for UKIP – or even that they did. Not a good starting point.
2) You keep saying that you and your children are Irish. But do you and they hold UK passports?
If we leave the EU – possible implications? A case of make your mind up while you have the chance perhaps.
And although it’s not in the Scotland debate – possible implications for Scottish people working in England, if Scotland were to have voted for independence?
1) Disaffection and alienation
2) Dual i.e. Both
3) I would reform EU, not leave it
4) Your view? Would they be banned from pubs like the Irish in the past?
Dual eh – best of both worlds – as it suits.
What a silly reply re the last point.
If Scotland is independent and the UK is out of the EU – where do you think that would put Scottish workers? Surely on a par with workers from anywhere else in the world.
Linda
If only you would engage in debate
And why ask questions that are meaningless if you know the answer? It deserved the response it got
Richard
Given that an EU exit would require substantial negotiations with every member state with regard to trade, taxation and movement, it is crass to presume that Scottish workers rights would be automatically diminished as a result, particularly when so many English workers are employed north of the Border.
Why would Scottish workers be any different to workers from other countries?
It would not be an EU free movement issue if we were out of the EU, and an independent Scotland would have no special connection with the remainder of the UK, so Scottish workers would be on a par with workers from any other country.
I’m not saying that there would not be any special arrangement, but that would need to be formulated to change the above prima facie situation.
I don’t know about this ‘negotiations with every member state’ – a blanket rule would be the starting point surely. And then ‘human rights’ considerations and assertions might make preferences tricky.
BTW – there is no reforming an EU that has been the mechanism of the European RoundTable of Industrialists (ERT) since the year dot.
And with a ‘democracy’ mechanism whereby no one knows who their MEPs are (not just in the UK), whether they are ever in Parliament, or how they vote. And the EP has little power anyway.