Mr Speaker Grimston

Saturday 20 March 2010

Mad, bad, and just plain boring!

The United Kingdom Independence Party does not hide its primary objective, to ensure the withdrawal of Britain from the European Union. They believe that the UK has given up some 80% of its law making rights to the EU, and at a cost of £40 million a day, money which could be better spent elsewhere.

However, this figure is very misleading. Britain does pay more into the budget than it receives, a distinction it shares with Sweden, Finland, Holland, Germany, France, Luxembourg, Austria and Belgium. The UK is the second highest net contributor, but the total deficit for the period 2007-13 is aimed to be 4.2 billion euros, which works out a around 11.5 million euros per day. So although the UK is a net contributor, it is nowhere near the figures UKIP propound.

Having been very much a one note party since its inception in 1993, UKIP is now trying to broaden its appeal, by forming policies on taxation, health, transport and a wide range of others. However, the central tenet of these, favour the better off to such an extent, they make the Conservatives look positively egalitarian in their approach. The Tories at least understand the need for, and benefit of progressive taxation. The flat tax proposed by UKIP, benefits the already well off, and hammers those who wish to achieve more within the middle income bracket. Basically, they would destroy the desire to succeed.

They have felt the need to expand on these policies, because of the current distaste with politics, and distrust of politicians, within the electorate. The 2009 European and County Council elections proved fruitful ground, as UKIP achieved second place overall in the European, and they gained seven councillors in the County elections.

So, it is easy to gain the impression that UKIP is a party on the up, and that they will gradually become a part of the political mainstream. There is still a lot of discontent in the country regarding politicians from the established parties, and UKIP hope to benefit greatly from this. But they also realise that being a one trick pony, would lead to people just asking what else they had to offer.

However, they are very deluded in one essential area. Such is their commitment to the anti-European cause, that they have convinced themselves that that message was the main reason for their success. In reality, it was the disgust with the parties in parliament, especially the scandal surrounding MPs expenses. Because the Liberal Democrats are a major part of that institution, on this occasion UKIP became the main party of protest.

On Friday 18th March, they held their Spring Conference in Milton Keynes, in which they attempted to lay out a programme to appeal to the electorate. Unfortunately for Lord Pearson, the opening speech at the Conference was made by Nigel Farage, "(A) flirtatious creature who does a good impression of a normal bloke,'' as described in today's Telegraph by Tanya Gold. There are lots of things you can say about Farage, none of them complimentary, but if there one thing he is good at, it is public speaking.

In the opening speech he was able to stir up the delegates. Farage has a style that is very reminiscent of old style political speakers from the 1940s and 50s. You could easily imagine him standing on a box, attracting crowds of curious listeners, as he bellowed and gesticulated. Unfortunately for him, these onlookers could also be gathered at Speaker's Corner, where those who are viewed as pure public entertainment unleash their fury, and Farage would not look or sound out of place there.

However, the point here is that whatever you may think of him, Farage knows how to perform. This must make it even more painful for them, when Lord Pearson gets up to speak. All political parties tend to be loyal to their leaders, and certain amount of exaggeration is to be expected after they make a speech. However, in this description of Lord Pearson's on Friday, "A hugely successful UKIP Spring Conference ended with a rousing speech by Party Leader, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, who approached and left the stage to a raucous standing ovation," really stretches the definition of 'rousing' to breaking point.

Lord Pearson stumbled throughout, in a slow droning voice. Even the delegates were struggling to cheer loudly, and the supposed standing ovation was probably more in pity than acclaim. He went on to attack both main parties for their approach to Europe, even though he was challenged on 5live yesterday, that the Conservatives were the most Euro-sceptic they had been for years. But, for UKIP, they don't go far enough, and David Cameron's insistence of a role for Britain in the EU, even if to more europhile observers, we find that a doubtful claim, as anything that seeks to co-operate within the institutions is considered anathema.

As could be expected, however, Pearson concentrated the bulk of his attack on the European Union, and listed a whole string of statistics, and information just as misleading as the one regarding the UK's budget contribution. He described as weak the government's defence of Britain's membership, when they had stated it, "(B)elieves that our membership of the European Union has brought real benefits to the United Kingdom through jobs, peace and security. Through our membership, we belong to the world’s largest trading bloc. Over half of the United Kingdom’s trade is with the EU, with an estimated 3.5 million British jobs linked to it. Our membership allows us to live, work and travel across Europe."

But whatever difference people may have over what we get, the vast majority of British people, seem content with membership. UKIP often claim that most people want to withdraw, but this is palpably untrue. The majority opinion lies somewhere between Labour's full engagement, and the Conservatives repatriation of powers policy. This falls far short of wanting to withdraw. Indeed even the Telegraph reporter, not a paper noted for its pro-European stance, described it as the party of 'Little England euro-sceptics.'

This was not the rousing speech that UKIP claim. It was the speech of a man totally out of touch with the reality of life. This is the same man who invited Geert Wilders, to show his anti-Muslim film, and promote UKIP's racist agenda regarding immigration. Indeed, UKIP are seeking to ban the burka, which ironically is a copy of the policy being being discussed in France, which is looking unlikely now to be implemented. Speaking to the converted, Pearson made no attempt to broaden UKIP's appeal, which is what they must do, if they want to make that breakthrough. A place to register your protest is one thing, but becoming part of the political mainstream is another thing altogether.

If UKIP are to threaten in the General Election, they need to do two things. Firstly, they need to persuade undecideds that their message is a good one. But secondly, as well as trying to get candidates from other parties to agree to their anti-European Union message, they need to attract voters from other parties. The Conservatives being the most likely victims.

In recent months a number of Conservative supporters and councillors have switched their support, including Lord Monckton, former adviser to Mrs Thatcher, the entire Harrow Road branch of Westminster en masse, as well as former MPs Sir Richard Body and Jonathan Aitken.

But you do not break the mould of British politics by standing candidates down when another agrees with your basic policy. In order to be taken seriously, they need to fight their corner, on all their policies, otherwise they will only ever be a single issue party, and most likely a protest vote.

UKIP, tries to present itself as something different, but in the last few years MEPs Tom Wise, Michael Nattrass and Ashley Mote have all either been investigated, charged or found guilty of fraud. They expelled former leadership challenger Nikki Sinclair because she objected to the alliance in the European Parliament with Italy's Northern league, and also have some extremist links in the UK, such as with Traditional Unionist Voice, a hardline loyalist splinter from the DUP.

The party has also suffered when a large donation was deemed illegal, and after a legal case by the electoral commission, and an appeal, cost the party some £750,000. So all in all, instead of being a party of change, UKIP seem to be nothing but a reactionary party, on the extreme right of the political spectrum, which has a lot of problems.

The United Kingdom Independence Party want to change the face of British politics. They want to do this by taking the country back to the supposed era that John Major once evoked so lyrically, "(T)he country of long shadows on cricket grounds, warm beer, invincible green suburbs, dog lovers and pools fillers." The world that existed, in the films of Ealing Studios, but not in the reality of day to day existence.

So as the 2010 General Election approaches, UKIP will be attempting to break through and snap up the anti-European vote they have convinced themselves exists. But as with their view of Britain, and indeed England in reality, it is a complete fantasy, and come election day, they could well find that 21st century Britain delivers them a severe slap in the face.

3 comments:

  1. Stephen R HillierTuesday, 23 March, 2010

    An extremely good analysis of UKIP and exposure of their numerous flaws.
    Q: Do the UK contribution figures to the EU include our VAT contributions?

    ReplyDelete
  2. I'm afraid your legitimate political disagreement is clouding your objectivity.

    1) £40m/day is based on gross, not net, contributions (£14.6bn/yr) on the basis what does come back in European funding is not controlled by HM Treasury.

    2) Flat tax - you ignore increase in personal allowance to £11,500 lifting 4.5m low paid out of tax; the fact 31% includes national insurance so is the same as a basic rate taxpayer today and doesn't penalise middle earners; and higher earners, while paying lower income tax rates, will have tax relief on pensions, trusts, and other things reduced significantly.

    You also ignore the fact our welfare policy would eliminate the poverty trap by eliminating means testing and moving to a simplified universal benefits system.

    3) Success - you say UKIP is deluded that its withdrawal message is the key reason for its success. This is true to an extent, but i assure you the party is well aware that the argument is not won.

    Polling suggests 20-30% are happy to stay in the EU, 45-60% want looser ties or to leave, and the rest don't know.

    3) Pearson - Pearson readily admits he is not a politician, but he is a man of principle and integrity.

    4) Tories not Eurosceptic - It remains to be seen. Nothing much has been promised by Dave and his plans to repatriate powers will be put to the test in his first term as PM. I feel it is unlikely he will succeed to renegotiate the treaties.

    Pearson, and UKIP, are all for co-operation, just not within the current EU structure. That is the WHOLE point of UKIP's belief. Inter-nation co-operation, friendship and trade, but not supranational institutions with qualified majority voting.

    5) Immigration - UKIP's policy is not racist. It calls for work permits and a fair points based system for all foreign nationals. Immigration would be reduced to the 50k/yr level common in the 1980's and 90's.

    UKIP opposed EU expansion in 2004 saying open borders with countries of lower GDP would lead to an influx. It did. We have consistently said that it is the pace of immigration that is the issue because too much too fast creates problems in communities and infrastructure while slower and mroe gradual changes are far more acceptable.

    6) Burka - the actual policy is not quite the 'burka ban' headlines in the papers. The policy is to require public sector employees to remove facial coverings during work, unless required to do so by their employer (e.g. NHS for health and safety). The policy is also to allow private landlords of public establishments (shops, cinemas, banks) to require removal of facial coverings. People would still be free to wear the burka and facial coverings in the street, the park, at home, etc.

    The point of the policy is effective to clarify that facial coverings cannot be construed as a religious right, but rather a liberty which can be constrained in certain instances.

    7) Standing down - I agree with you that you don't become a fully fledged party by standing down on a single policy. However, EU withdrawal is UKIP's raison d'etre. All the while we do not have enough candidates to fill every seat in the county then why stand against those MPs whose seat would be jeopardised by a UKIP candidate in opposition?

    The point is, in the current political landscape, when there could be a hung parliament, to exact as much pressure and influence as possible. That is politics!

    8) Problems - yes we've had a few problems and are very open about that. It is a problem you have as a growing party but one we are slowly putting behind us.

    9) Polls for the election look favourable. We are on course to break the 1m vote barrier.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thank you for that Harry, and your very reasoned response. I stand by what I say, but i thank you for reading and responding.

    ReplyDelete