UKIP has won its first seat in the House of Commons. That, I admit, saddens me. Everything about UKIP is, as far as I can see, opposed to the principles and values I stand for.
As far as we can tell, and precisely because Douglas Carswell had to talk about it in his victory speech, UKIP is racist. I think racism not just profoundly unacceptable, but deeply offensive, and morally repugnant. I do not think UKIP has even tried to discuss immigration without embracing racism.
I believe UKIP embraces a crude faith in the market, although most people do not realise it. Again, Carswell embodies that. He wishes to privatise the NHS, but few who vote UKIP will realise the implications.
UKIP's grasp of economics is, to be polite, weak. But it's desire to cut the size of the state, which is implicit in its wish to cut taxes, would create massive inequality, enormous tax loopholes and a level of state spending last seen before World War 2, when children left school at 14, we had no NHS and few lived to claim their pensions for long. This just cannot work.
And I believe that UKIP's anti-EU stance is that of the fighter for petty freedoms, whose mistrust of health and safety laws goes hand in hand with anti-trade unionism and a stated dislike of human rights, although in all cases they have little clue as to the benefits to their well being any of these have delivered until asked context specific questions.
Most of all, by offering the electorate what seem like a string of untruths to get elected UKIP show a profound contempt for democracy.
But they have been elected. And that's the real worry. If people vote UKIP they must be really fed up, and they are.
Mainstream politicians also lie to them. No one is talking about how they will achieve cuts, even though they all say they are needed when the truth is that this is simply not the case.
No politician talks about the need to stop harmful capital flows that undermine economies as an essential way of preserving local jobs.
No politician is telling the truth on TTIP that will consign democratic control of large parts of the economy to history.
No one is saying that the problem with the NHS is the market based model on which it is now built.
No one talks seriously about the tax gap, and their ambition with regard to tax abuse remains firmly at the level of tackling the international arena whilst turning a bind eye to the tax corruption that is blighting our domestic economy, our High Streets, growth and the job prospects of so many.
No one talks about the need for sustainability.
No one talks about how we do protect jobs, because this is a real concern for people - and to pretend it is not is just to deny the truth.
Instead we have a tacit and complete agreement between all the major parties that they will not challenge the mantra of 'free' markets that so many can see abuse them and which give rise to the feeling that Westminster is as remote from them and as uncaring as the employers who have been all too ready to cast them aside by moving jobs elsewhere.
And the inevitable result is that extremists and those offering snake oil solutions - and parts of UKIP probably fall into both categories - become attractive.
But I still see that more as a cry for help than a real belief in what UKIP are offering - because UKIP are so unsure themselves as to what that offer is.
But it's all deeply depressing nonetheless. I could try to console myself that this is all a backlash against a failed Coalition - and Labour's retaining its share in the North West and the Tory and Lib Dem collapses could all be interpreted as that. But that would not be true. There is something more significant in this. And the message is really to neoliberalism - much as UKIP embraces it in its entirety - and is that actually what people want is community more than anything and no one is giving it to them - and that is why they are so deeply disappointed.
And the depressing fact is that so far no one - least of all Labour - has listened. That's a real cause for despair.
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:
One mp does not a government make.
Agreed
But a response is needed because millions who do not vote are despairing
@JohnM
Agreed. But the near victory of UKIP in
Middleton and Heywood, slashing a previous comfortable Labour majority to just 617, is a worrying occurrence. Never forget the way the NSDAP garnered an ever-growing protest vote against a failing (failed?) political and economic system that eventually led to Adolf Hitler becoming German Chancellor by fully constitutional means!
Despite its populism, UKIP is clearly an antidemocratic Party, in that it wants to surrender the WHOLE of the state mechanism to the market.
Labour really needs to wake up – to dump Ed Balls and the whole “austerity-lite” narrative, and promise real, hopeful, radical change, otherwise the UK will be swamped by a protest movement that will usher in our worst nightmares. The old adage is true “Be careful what you wishvfor …..”
If Labour did that they’d be the Greens. Goodness! 🙂
Andrew -we have to forget Labour now they have given up the ghost -I agree with Ricahrd and feel his despair at this but my anger at Labour is incandescent!
But lets not forget that Heywood & Middleton turnout had fallen from 57% to 33% but the percentage of people voting for Labour actually INCREASED (1% increase).
Therefore UKIP did not actually dent Labours support – it galvanised it! UKIP took votes away from LibDems (17.6% loss), Conservatives (14.9% loss), and more importantly BNP were completely wiped out (7% loss)!
Very good analysis, Richard.
UKIP worry me in the same way the Tea Party would if I was an American.
They’ve done a great job of convincing working people they will represent them, when patently, that is just not true.
Indeed, recently (their deputy leader) was portraying himself as a ‘white working class’ man defending the interests, supposedly, of the forgotten, replete with scouse accent – this was a complete perversion of reality as UKIP would sell the poor and underpaid down the river and only compensate them by giving them a Union Jack to wave – remind anyone of previous periods of history?
All their tax changes benefit the best off either solely or mainly
We can now hope that UKIP, who have now won the same number of Parliamentary seats as the Green Party, will now receive the same amount of media coverage as the Green Party.
And that is the other half of the problem with UKIP: wall-to-wall coverage, freely and uncritically given, while all other views are shut out. Does anyone remember BBC Question Time before it was the Nigel Farage Show? You *definitely* can’t remember the last time you saw a Green Party MP or MEP on the show: and it’ll take a little effort to recall a left-wing Labour MP, a Scots Nationalist, a Unionist, Plaid Cymru or independent MP.
Representation does not guarantee media access: and ‘Popular Appeal’ is achieved by appealing to powers behind the scenes in the media.
Most polls have UKIP three times ahead of the Green in terms of share of the vote. They won the European election too.
It may be embarrassing for the Left to see disgruntled working class voters turn to UKIP, but if they want to change that then put forward an attractive alternative. Looking at the Greens’ current poll ratings, they haven’t done that anywhere near satisfactorily enough.
The Greens have done that – but are deprived coverage
I agree Labour has failed
I think the Greens are getting there but their coverage is a fraction of what UKIP gets. Having said that in the last 5 years the Green Party has increased its vote share by a factor of about 4 – from about 1.5% to 6% – so they are definitely moving in the right direction. I think they will move above 10% at some point during the 2015-20 Parliament, and from there, who knows?
If Labour has nothing to say they will grow
And young people think Green
It is now in their DNA
The real problem I see is that FPTP simply isn’t equipped for dealing with anything other than 2 strong parties. So what is happening already is people saying “vote X, get Y”: it is funny hearing UKIP saying “vote Con get Miliband” but there it is. The perception, which is true, is that FPTP leads to a position where in most seats there is an entrenched party that can only be shifted by a co-ordinated protest vote.
That really makes the outcome of an election a total lottery as we could well find in 2015 many/most people voting negatively. I can imagine left leaning voters voting Tory to keep out UKIP in “safe” Tory seats, Tories voting UKIP in “safe” Labour seats etc. And that is depressing, as whoever wins will claim a mandate whereas the reality is that a large proportion of voters may well vote for a party they don’t like.
I also think this is an election you want to lose. Nobody is going to win more than 35% of the popular vote or have a real majority. If Labour or the Tories scrape in on a barely workable majority they are both screwed as they have leaders who do not command the respect of the party or the public. I suspect there will be a second general election in 2016, and whichever party loses in 2015 and elects a new leader will be in a much stronger position than the winner.
Single transferable vote please
Roger
While I don’t disagree with your analysis, I think you’re forgetting what happened in Scotland.
Every analysis of the vote we get is based on the assumption that, maybe, 60% of the electorate will come out to play. But we’ve seen from Scotland that if the electorate feel really involved in the issues 90% might come out.
I think Ed Milliband has understood that. I don’t think Cameron or Clegg have. But I’m not convinced Milliband is the man to achieve that sort of mass-mobilisation. Gordon Brown can do it in Scotland, in England….well, plainly not Prescott, I can’t imagine Alan Johnston, after that I’m literally struggling to think of a working-class Labour politician !
Time to call back Ken Livingstone?
You are SO right, Nile, that you couldn’t be more right if you tried. The pro-UKIP media bias, particularly on the BBC, has been breathtaking. One almost wonders if money has changed hands, or just how many UKIP members there are in the upper echelons of Broadcasting House. And to think there used to be regular complaints from the Tories about ‘left-wing’ bias! What a laugh.
I suspect the Clacton result is as much for Douglas Carswell as it is for UKIP. I get the impression he was an excellent constituency MP putting his constituents ahead of his political ambitions.
Putting his politics aside briefly, the man does have excellent democratic credentials. He is firmly in favour of a recall bill for MPs and open primaries. Both of which would improve the accountability of parties to the electorate and IMHO remove the attraction of the protest vote for UKIP.
That’s a good point on Carswell – he is also in favour of Proportional Representation (he was even in favour of PR when he was in the Tory party, which was highly unusual) and at least gives the impression that he is thinking about the issues, even if his conclusions are mostly deeply wrong. I don’t like the guy particularly, but there are far worse people on the right – Boris Johnson scares me a lot more than Carswell does, to be honest.
Oh yes
It was also Carswell who created an EDM to remove the power of money creation from the banks. He was even on Sky News talking about it. This may explain Cameron’s publicly boorish behaviour towards him. He doesn’t really belong in any current party and certainly not the Conservatives. I suspect he’s looking beyond UKIP. We shall see.
Indeed- I don’t like aspects of his politics but he is one of the few calling for root and branch banking reform -from the Austrian side, though!
Which is why I have little truck with him
Er, but didn’t he also write a book proposing that “state education should have voucher-like systems to make it more market-driven and to allow parents to choose.” For health, he suggested “people should be able to opt-out of the NHS and pay into a health saving account so they’re in charge of choosing doctors, facilities etc.”
And, of course, I’m sure he supports the UKIP policy of bringing back grammar (and secondary modern) schools.
Carol – you are right; the man is not to be trusted
“The man is not to be trusted”
On the contrary I think you can trust him to try to implement what he says. And if only more MPs could be trusted to put their beliefs, constituents and country before their party I think we would have a better parliament with better legislation.
And for the avoidance of doubt (for those who skim read too quickly) that does NOT mean they have to share politics with Carswell, UKIP or the Conservatives.
The characteristic you’re admiring is already found in parliament
Caroline Lucas clearly Jodie’s it
So do many in the minority parties – of which there are plenty, all ignored as they are not in England.
Only on the left of Labour is this really found in the major parties
Perhaps we should hope that the Greens get the same coverage as UKIP. The Establishment outriders, otherwise known as the media love Farage,he is the ultimate useful idiot. The further the electorate can be shifted to the right the happier those who have the real power in this country will.
Exactly. As UKIP pull the Tories ever further rightwards what will Labour do? On form they’ll sheepishly follow the Tory coattails, abandoning centre left that should be an entirely electable terrain for them.
To be fair Labour alone cannot just combat the rise of all this UKIP stuff post economic crisis its a long ‘drip-drip’ effect of the Daily Mail and Daily Express etc., and the Tory Right and the BBC’s compliant/weak analysis of UKIP policies especially the consequences of the EU exit.
It’s a working class frustrated response to ‘everything going down’ as one voter said and ‘low wages’another voter said . The diagnosis is there- its just the poorer voters in Clacton & Heybury are going for a UKIP ‘misdiagnosis’. An Irony that the Right has messed it up and the voters are going further right for the cure.
I’m not pleased to see UKIP doing well but they are really no worse than the right wing of the Tory party. That’s not to say that UKIP is not a monstrous thing, but so is the right wing of the Tory party – and increasingly, the right wing of the Tory party is the only wing of the Tory party. There are probably at least 150 Tory MPs who could cross over to UKIP without having to make any adjustment to their views. Given the UK’s FPTP electoral system, the UKIP cloud has a silver lining; because most (though not all) UKIP voters are ex-Tories, the stronger UKIP are, the weaker the Tories are. Which means Labour could potentially win a majority in 2015 on something as low as (say) 32% of the vote because the right wing vote will be split.
As usual, I agree with that analysis
While true, this doesn’t take into account the hordes of Labour voters who, having seen Labour’s recently declared intentions regarding the sick and disabled, are leaving in droves and joining the Greens. The left wing vote will be similarly split. It’s going to be anybody’s game.
“Labour could potentially win a majority in 2015 on something as low as (say) 32% of the vote because the right wing vote will be split”
I think that is what Miliband is banking on. But what sort of mandate does that give and what damage would it do to the Labour party if they did try to manage on that basis? At that point, wouldn’t the honourable thing be to acknowledge that the electoral system is broken and that a new election should take place with constituencies of equal size and using STV?
Or are we doomed to a series of governments with ever smaller shares of the national vote, each one refusing to change the system while they have the short term benefit of its largesse, ending with at some point the country being governed by a far-right party with 25% of the vote as the left is split between nationalists, greens, liberals and labour and the right between the BNP, UKIP, Tories?
Unanswerable questions
I make my position clear: I would welcome STV
Roger: I agree. But given that the Tories fought tooth and nail to keep hold of FPTP during the AV referendum, they would be completely hoist by their own petard if FPTP were to deliver a Labour victory in 2015, no matter how small the vote share – because the Tories voted for the system that allows there to happen. Also the experience of the Police and Crime Commissioner elections, which the Tories insisted were legitimate despite turnout of around 15% on average, suggests that they have no fundamental problem with legitimacy arising from low turnout *per se*. But I agree that among the wider public this might raise fundamental questions of democratic legitimacy (although in 2005 Tony Blair secured a majority govt with 35% of the vote and not many people seemed that bothered at the time!)
Actually Roger, the constituencies don’t need to be of equal size under STV. With this system constituencies are multi-member and we could have one which was a community with five MPs but maybe a more sparsely populated area which had three. It might not give exact proportionality but takes more notice of communities-unlike the list system we use for the European Parliament. The great thing about it is that gives more choice to the voter. If three three candidates for my usual party, I could put them one and two but give my next preference to another party if I didn’t agree with the third person’s position ( for example If one were Labour and the third candidate was a Blairite).
I do read that attempts to reform FPTP voting in Australia, Canada and New Zealand have usually come up the alternative member system, which I think was Roy Jenkins’ Commission’s recommendation. I’m not sure I agree with them that it would mean constituencies that too big or there was too much choice. Northern Ireland uses STV and Scotland too, i think. The Aussies seem to manage it for Senate elections.
Anything but the present corrupt system.
I believe UKIP embraces a crude faith in the market, although most people do not realise it.
Let’s just remind people that Nigel Farage’s background is that of a public-school educated City commodities broker. He’s one of the 1%, however much he claims to be a man of the people.
“He’s one of the 1%, however much he claims to be a man of the people”
Everyone who earns over about £24,000 is one of the 1% globally.
I presume you know his stupid that comment makes you look?
Expect to be deleted
I also get the impression that Doug Carswell has won over his constituents through his personality and he may well have won as an Independent. He is one of the very few MPs who have demonstrated a full understanding of the workings of the Bank of England, another being Michael Meacher.
Those with political interests will read what they want to read into this result but the outcome of the next election is still subject to many variables.
Apparently, farage has been emboldened by events and is now putting forward more knee jerk suggestions about not allowing HIV-positive people into the country -he’s good at pressing the buttons of and cowed and fearful population. It is clear that the move to the right is happening and happening fast; add this to collective narcolepsy, dumbed -down discourse, craven politicians -it doesn’t look good.
This picking on the weak has a name in politics
It’s fascism
Agreed Richard. The Tories have prepared a lot of the ground-I view with horror a coalition of the two as I’m sure you do.
I do
As I find myself saying repeatedly lately, this behaviour has a name in nature too, it’s called predatory. We have predatory politicians, quite the opposite of what they’re supposed to be.
The worrying thing is, I think, that people vote for UKIP. Are their dog whistle policies of Racism, homophobia, anti-immigration and xenophobia really a true reflection of the attitudes of the people of this country?
David
No, I don’t think it has much at all to do with policies, it has to do with people.
Nigel seldom, if ever, makes any utterance these days that doesn’t include the phrase “Westminster’s club of professional politicians”. That’s the real point.
I said 4 years ago that the really interesting thing about the expenses debacle wasn’t the duck-houses etc but that it revealed just how much people hate (& I mean that) their elected representatives. Some of them seem to agree. That Dorries woman said that almost everyone agreed MPs should be paid much more, but it was politically impossible. Another MP, asked if the changes would pacify voter anger, said that if MPs were paid NMW & forced to live in hostels near Westminster it would still be too good as far as many voters were concerned.
They were both right, but neither picked up on the main point-why do we hate the people we elected? I mean you can understand Mugabi or the guy in N Korea, but they’re meant to be OUR representatives.
I think people have just lost patience with being told what to do by people whose career path goes;
University politics, parliamentary researcher, political scriptwriter, prospective MP, MP.
The Lib Dem recently elected a 29 year old & were really pleased with themselves!
Far more than Europe, immigration or anything else, UKIP hold themselves out as ordinary guys who know about real life & have now gone into politics to show the eejits inside the Westminster bubble how it should be done. That’s their USP & it is fantastically popular.
The main parties can’t counter it because, obviously, the people that make the decisions are the people the voters can’t abide. They’re scarcely going to stand down in favour of normal human beings are they?
I think many people are right on this occasion
I think some experience – and I mean serious experience (although I am not at all prescriptive as to what) is an essential pre-requisite for an MP
The bubble is killing access for most others and that is very worrying
It’s also profoundly ageist – so we get young prime ministers way out of their depths acting like school boys (this is a gender specific accusation)
Richard
Well, we haven’t got long to go now. If you & I are right, Labour need to be finding some candidates that are “old school”. I don’t, necessarily, mean from a TU background, it could be headmistresses of successful schools, or people that have spent years in child protection, or people that have done time in the services or police or prisons, but we need to find some candidates with “real life” experience pronto or Nigel will be waltzing up to Her Majesty as leader of a far right UKIP-Con alliance & that is, frankly, not something I want to contemplate.
The Tories did it with Sarah Woolaston (hope I have name right from memory)
Labour need to do something similar
Interestingly Sarah Wollaston was selected via an open primary, one of Carswell’s policies/ideas that I do admire.
On the same evening that UKIP won in Clacton, I was at a massive (1200 with many turned away) Peoples Question Time meeting in Bethnal Green. Union, antiwar, Green and and celeb (Russell Brand – undeniably the most popular speaker) got a tremendous reception and huge support from the largely young audience. A lot of good stuff came out. there was also a lot of showbiz crowd-pleasing from the panel, with all the right pauses.
I came home to news of the UKIP vote and thought about these 2 forms of protest.
I really want the people in my country to act together against big business control, typified in the trade agreements they are trying to push through to make their agendas permanent and protected in international law.
But I can see that these 2 streams of protest, which actually have so much in common, will cancel each other out because of the unworked-through differences and easy dismissive rhetoric.
In the decisive voting game, this will leave the same financial services big business laughing, still controlling this country and much more.
UKIP is complicit in this without a doubt. And we must beat them. Otherwise, as they get more power and influence this real agenda will emerge, indeed it is starting to now, but without attention.
UKIP has done the most productive political marketing – productive in terms of votes, and that’s the name of the game – by taking what people want for the party’s starting point ‘manifesto’ (though that manifesto is changing as their positioning changes and will continue to do so).
Undoubtedly the main thing they have taken up is the very broad and real concern about immigration. This concern there, whether you like it or not and moreover has not been addressed by any other party.
Are you going to call 80% of the UK population racist? I hope not.
Trying to oppose UKIP fby calling them racist is totally counterproductive. Much more useful would be to expose how they are only pretending at this point in time to want to limit immigration. What they are pursuing is the worker migration that is in trade deals, mainly from the sub continent, which is controlled by big business and in which big business takes a big cut (ie commodified immigration). Their post-Clacton rhetoric is starting to reveal that in talk of migrants of value. Full circle.
The mileage against UKIP is in exposing UKIP’s real agenda in this key regard, not in calling 80% of the population racist. Slagging them off for the very thing for which people are voting for them may be popular with a minority but will lead, as I say, to a cancelling out of our joint protest against big business control. Please consider this.
UKIP has similarly picked up on majority feelings about EU membership, though, actually, counter to people’s concerns, in order to have MORE neoliberalism. So again, slagging them off for what most people want may make you feel good but is counterproductive. How much better to expose that their actual agenda in this regard is counter to what they are waving in front of people.
To support my thesis, UKIP has also taken up no bombing in Iraq (3/4 Brits don’t want) and NHS out of TTIP (as people around the country are calling for).
Please don’t do damage. Better to keep quiet if you can’t act usefully in this regard.
For heaven’s sake: if you do not think I am capable of discriminating between racism and proportionate and appropriate immigration control why bother to comment?
I do think many in UKIP are racist
I do think there is need to rethink immigration, but let’s be clear – that will be a waste of time without appropriate capital controls
You know that. Why not credit me with knowing it too?
I hope the answer to David Drinkwater’s question is an emphatic ‘No’. Their racist, xenophobic, homophobic and Islamophobic views are undoubtedly shared by a proportion of our fellow citizens, or they would have no support whatsoever, but these people are in a minority. (I had to block one of them on Twitter only yesterday.)
Better education is the long-term answer to such negative social phenomena, and so, above all, is a great improvement in the economic conditions of the worst-off in our society. The likes of UKIP will not be able to get away with their scapegoating of immigrants, and other minority groups, when there is nothing to blame on them. UKIP are exactly like the Nazis in Germany in the late 1920s and in the ’30s, blaming Germany’s economic woes – first the hyperinflation, then the Depression – on the Jews, the Communists (who were in league with the Jews, naturally), the Slavs and the Gypsies – all the untermenschen who were Hellbent on destroying the Herrnvolk. And millions of working-class Germans bought this crap, and swallowed the lot. It must never happen again.
Thankfully, there is much less danger that UKIP will be as successful as the Nazis. Nigel Farage does not have the degree of charisma that Adolf Hitler did, nor the wille zu macht. He may have been a tinpot little fascist at Dulwich College, but he was always an Oswald Moseley in the making, not a Führer. He’s just changed the black shirt and jackboots for a uniform of check shirt, Harris Tweed jacket and Paisley tie.