The Guardian notes this morning that:
Nigel Farage has been described by his own general election campaign director as a “snarling, thin-skinned, aggressive” man who is turning UKIP into a personality cult.
It looks as if the electoral fall out in UKIP might well outdo that in Labour and the LibDems. I would, in fact, go a little further. I think there is very good chance that UKIP will not survive the failure of Farage.
I am not saying that the reasons why people have voted for UKIP are going away. Or that the far right of the UK will depart the scene. But just as the BNP were a potential force on the right at one time, to be replaced by the sanitised UKIP, so too, I think, will UKIP now begin to fall by the wayside as internal fighting shatters the image of the leader, and the party as a whole is exposed as little more than a personality cult. By 2020 it is possible that the idea of UKIP as an electoral force might have become an odd quirk of history.
Unless, that is the Conservatives break in two, which is entirely possible. But the question then is who will keep the name: will UKIP gain its right wing or will the right wing Conservatives take the party name with them and replace UKIP after the fracturing that is likely to follow an EU referendum?
Why does this matter here? Because the right has a distinct tax agenda not seen elsewhere with its dedication to a small state, flat (or flatter) taxes, indifference to inequality and disdain for the welfare state. UKIP has dragged politics to the right, and given focus to some of these issues. What happens to it influences where that debate goes.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I’m not so sure this party will disappear -they got nearly 4 million votes based on misrepresenting economic reality and diverting real protest against austerity into simple-minded charlatanry that has satisfied a tired, stressed and frazzled electorate – Labour have helped UKIP to happen and need to see that. The only good thing about Carswell is that he’s keen on breaking up banking oligarchies, other than that he’s a shrunken state (no state?) libertatarian who thinks that a society of SME’s will be enough to give people jobs and security.
My view, as I mentioned in a comment earlier in the week, is that the rationale for the existence of UKIP has disappeared (or is in the process of doing so) as they are simply a two policy party. First, there is going to be a referendum (Cameron will not get the concessions he requires to head this off) and I’d say that with the Tory press on the case for exit, that’s what’ll happen. Result, independence: policy 1 gone. Second, the Tories (and a new, New Labour, will get tougher and tougher on immigration, thus out UKIPing, UKIP. Result, reduced (on paper at least) immigration: policy 2 gone.
I don’t disagree with you on the other points, either, Richard, but ultimately the policy vacuum which UKIP exploited is in the process of disappearing, and I don’t belie they have either the resources or intellectual capacity to find another suited to a right wing, zenophobic, divisive party as the Tories have that ground covered.
Agreed
But I think you assume Labour and the Tories will not split
I am not sure of either
I think the possibility of splits in both major parties is real
Not so sure that a referendum will end with an exit, Ivan Horrocks. I do not think that the corporates want that and that is what will inform the press campaign, perhaps. Question is how many are so committed to exit that it will overcome what will be a very strong campaign to stay in. It will be interesting, but I am not sure that enough really know the arguments to sustain their position in face of the kind of scaremongering we saw in Scotland during indyref. We will see
I’m really looking forward to the referendum. I shall be voting against staying in the EU, even though that is not my wish now (I did vote against in 1975). After all the hostility against the EU whipped up by the tories and their media it’s going to be very difficult to put the genie back in the bottle. I doubt Cameron will get much out of his ‘renegotiations’ since, although there is discontent among other member states, they are not for the same reasons. Of course, the media will suddenly be telling us how wonderful the EU will be under these new terms, but the ruse may not work. Then what does Cameron do – he clearly needs to stay in? The left should start to work out a plan to vote No.
I do not understand the rationale, Carol Wilcox. If you do not want to come out of the EU why vote to do that? I am probably being dense, but I don’t get it
I am, of course, being mischievous. I don’t for one minute believe that we will leave the EU, as you yourself have said. The City and the corporates will make sure we don’t. I’m just relishing the dilemma that will be facing Cameron.
I agree somewhat with Carol. Cameron has backed himself into a corner on this one.
I expect him to lie his way out of it by going for some sort of renegotiation and then claiming that this has worked and it is worth staying in. Diamond Dave does it again. all this because he may be under huge pressure from business.
Some of the Tory press will buy this; I suspect the Daily Male(volent)will not.
However, there is a chance that the Tories don’t give a damn and will take us out of the EU anyway and deeper into the arms of America – well – from being in America’s arms to actually sitting on their lap. The Thatcherite mantel he has taken on means that he may disregard business on this issue just like Maggie did when the raised interest rates in the early 1980’s and wiped loads of firms and economic productivity.
I’m not sure UKIP will disappear because as immigration continues to keep wages low and increases competition for jobs, resentments will build up or be maintained so the free movement of people in the EU will still be open to question for UKIP’s supporters. Maybe UKIPs fate is tied to the EU vote. Again, if Cameron wanted to get rid of UKIP, getting an out vote at the referendum would mean that he may get his UKIP voters back. But some big voices in business will not like this at all.
“as immigration continues to keep wages low and increases competition for jobs,”
Immigration does not keep wages low, so far as I can see. What makes you think it does? My view arises from the simple fact that Scotland has far, far lower immigration than england, yet wages here are lower, as they are in Wales and NI, which also have lower rates of immigration. I believe that London has the highest rate of immigration and wages there are higher than the english average as well
Nor do I think that immigration increases competition for jobs, for if that were the case then there would be higher unemployment in those areas and countries where immigration is greatest. There isn’t.
I agree Fiona -what keeps wages low is a policy of paying low wages and the syphoning of wealth upwards. I live in a rural are where there is great wealth concentration and yet median wages in local villages as low as £14,000-an are which must have one of the the lowest immigration figures in England!
I am friends with an extended Polish family. They are all (except the 2 week old baby) highly skilled and/or educated. All the adults work long and exhausting hours on minimum wage at the local 5* hotel, except a son who is finishing his degree at Birmingham. The immigrants we get are some of the brightest and best of their state of origin. They are reasonably content to work here because their peer group back home are suffering worse than they are. I live in true blue Geriatrica-by-the-Sea where the main occupation seems to be care work, the majority of whom come from the Philippines or Eastern Europe and are housed in controlled and crowed accommodation by their employers. How are these migrants not holding down wages?
Carol- what I meant really was that we need a liveable minimum wage for all and saying the migrants ‘hold down wages’ is putting the cart before the horse-it’s the lack of a decent minimum wage that is the issue. Part of America (like Seattle) rae cottoning on to this.
How are they holding down wages, Carol Wilcox? You honestly think that if they were not there the wages in those jobs would go up? Doesn’t happen in those part of the country where they are not. So why would they?
Excess supply over demand deceases price.
If we choose to let it, yes. That is a political decision, not a law of nature. You have not addressed the fact that wages are lower where there are fewer immigrants, broadly speaking. Generally empirical testing of a proposition leads to rejection or modification of the hypothesis if the predictions are not upheld in the real world. How do you think that principle applies here?