Thursday 11 April 2013

The UKIP Myth


“The new third party” is a frequent chorus about UKIP, a party that are apparently creating “political shockwaves” in by-elections such as Eastleigh, where they often gain more media coverage than the winners. There’s no doubt that their success boils down to their single-issue protest vote regarding Europe, yet leader Nigel Farage insists that they are “no longer a single-issue party”. It is for this very reason that they deserve far more scrutiny than the media are currently giving them. Beneath their anti-Europe platform is a far more sinister and radical outlook. 

First of all, let’s look at their manifesto. They have called for a £11,500 tax-free threshold; so far so good, and higher than the current Lib Dem-inspired £10,000 limit. That’s where the good news ends. Once the £11,500 threshold kicks in, UKIP plans would have a flat rate tax of 31%; whichever way you spin it, nurses, teaching assistants and every one of the “squeezed middle” would pay the same rate of tax as millionaires and bankers. With disparities in earnings large enough as it is, the UKIP tax plan is not only economically questionable but morally depraved; with fairness often lacking in society, how can it be right for someone earning just above the minimum wage to pay the same rate of tax as someone earning hundreds of thousands of pounds a year? Various benefits, such as Jobseekers, Incapacity Benefit and Student Maintenance Grants would be rolled into one, with no account for costings whatsoever. 

The loose and flexible term of “reducing bureaucracy and red tape” is a euphemism in the manifesto for repealing the 1998 Human Rights Act, along with abolishing employers’ national insurance contributions. The ‘Tea Party’ tendency of the right wing of the Conservative Party is present in the whole of UKIP’s ranks; they wish to spend an extra 40% on defence annually at a time when budgets are being squeezed. A common (and somewhat fair) theme is that the Conservative Party are “out of touch”, and going “too far, too fast”, yet Nigel Farage derides the Government for not cutting fast enough. This is politically poisonous, and Farage knows this; in a recent Question Time appearance, he admitted that “it looks like they are cutting too fast”, contrary to his true views, with the lack of media scrutiny benefitting his U-turn. The manifesto also promises to “denationalise Universities”, a contradiction to their desire for people to attend University “regardless of the ability to pay”; what would stop a privatised University having a free market in charging tuition fees without state intervention? UKIP would also introduce a “school voucher” scheme, hardly basing education on the equality of opportunity. 

The contradictions do not stop there. “UKIP accepts that the world’s climate changes”, yet they promise to “increase nuclear power generation to provide up to 50% of our electricity needs” and “oppose wind farms”. They wish to require UK schools to “teach Britain’s contribution to the world”, yet wish to create “an English Parliament”. Rather arbitrary figures are bandied around in the manifesto with regard to how much they believe leaving the EU will save, without specific details on how or why. Their school education policy is also a cause for concern; they wish to reintroduce grammar schools, a subject dear (secretly and not so secretly) to many Tory hearts. Whilst in some ways grammar schools could be a vehicle for social mobility, those that failed the 11-plus were left with a hugely unfair stigma, and an arguably lower quality of education. The UKIP manifesto rules out a return to the 11-plus, but they do not specify at what age selection would kick in. I admit bias here, but comprehensive schooling offers educational opportunities regardless of backgrounds, and has no doubt made thousands of students flourish, yet is unfairly derided as lacking in quality. The argument that comprehensives “drag down” people grouped with differing academic abilities does not hold; certain subjects are placed in sets in terms of grades. 

On a broader theme, Nigel Farage and UKIP hold the rather bizarre Daily Telegraph-inspired social commentary that the three major parties hold a social-democratic consensus. UKIP may well consider themselves the true heirs to Thatcherism, but the Iron Lady herself chose New Labour as her “single biggest achievement” when asked. The Peter Hitchens-esque view that the reason David Cameron and the Conservatives are performing so poorly and are so unpopular is because they are not enacting “true conservative values” (i.e they are not right wing enough) is a very unstable one; if this is true then why did people vote en masse for the so-called “radically left wing” New Labour Party? It is my view that New Labour was essentially a Thatcher-(l)ite Party, therefore enabling them to attract Tory voters, yet they were just centrist enough with policies such as the minimum wage and the windfall tax that they could gain moderate and floating voters. Had John Major, William Hague and Michael Howard adopted much of UKIP’s “true conservative “manifesto in their election campaigns, New Labour would have won even more convincingly. John Rentoul holds that much of Britain is made up of “social democrats and moderate conservatives”, and it is a compelling view; such an electoral makeup would not hand a radically right wing party election victory. 

There’s little doubt that the UKIP manifesto is a right wing agenda, yet such an ambitious behemoth which provides a platform for Conservatives who dare to think the unthinkable with regard to policies still dares not to attack the symbol of state power and spending; it promises to protect the “principle of an NHS free at the point of use”. Much criticism was aimed at the Conservatives for their diligent pursuit of electing police commissioners (and I’m inclined to agree with that criticism), yet UKIP chime with a similar theme; they wish to “make the police democratically accountable by introducing directly-elected County Police Boards who can appoint and dismiss Chief Constables”. Nigel Farage’s frequent attack on “the political class” is a popular but hollow theme; he was recently photographed having lunch with Rupert Murdoch, and since 2008 Farage has had more appearances on “Question Time” than any politician other than Vince Cable. Nigel Farage may well be in Europe to ‘attack Europe’, but as an MEP he is nevertheless still a politician, and still the recipient of taxpayer expenses, all £2 million of them in 2009 alone if media reports are to be believed. 

UKIP’s relative success in the European Elections and in recent by-elections cannot be denied, and it would be no great surprise if they come first in next year’s European Elections. But they are not winning. UKIP cannot be the “true third party” if they are not winning; the Liberal Democrats developed a famous habit for by-election victories back in the days of numbering around 20 MPs, such as when they overturned a 16,000 Tory majority with a winning majority of 4,500 in the 1990 Eastbourne by-election, or the overcoming of a 13,243 Labour majority at Leicester South in 2004, not to mention their victory in Eastleigh against many odds. UKIP are not winning because, contrary to their beliefs, they represent a small right-wing minority. It’s a strong bet that they will gain MPs at the 2015 Election, but under the unfair First Past the Post system they will only gain around 2-5 MPs. Their policies are a concern for who they attract; the English Defence League (EDL) has recently endorsed them, and UKIP MEPs sit with far-right homophobes such as the far-right United Poland party. UKIP Deputy Leader Paul Nuttall has already stated his enthusiasm for reinstating the death penalty. UKIP MEP Roger Helmer once compared gay marriage to incest and polygamy, whilst one UKIP candidate in 2010 suggested that “there is a strong connection between male homosexuality and paedophilia." UKIP may well distance themselves from such views, but the fact that their manifesto attracts such people must ring alarm bells. 

If people vote for UKIP for all of the above reasons, then fair enough. However, it is highly unlikely that this is true. Many people are Eurosceptic at the moment, and with the major parties offering ambiguous themes on Europe, UKIP are the only party to offer a firm stance on the matter. They also attract support as an inevitable protest vote, even though Nigel Farage is very much a part of the “political class” which he seeks to attack. Their other policies are a safe ideological haven for disaffected Tories, but they are a vote turn-off for the general public, yet they are not scrutinised. I found it hard to agree with much of the UKIP manifesto except for their pledge to introduce a Glass-Steagall equivalent for banking regulation, but I doubt bankers would mind being regulated in Britain if they are paying the same rate of tax as a dustbin collector under UKIP proposals. UKIP pose a big enough threat to the Conservatives, forcing David Cameron to hold a referendum on the EU, but they do not hold enough popular appeal to radically change the outlook of Britain; what would UKIP’s purpose be if the ‘yes to EU’ camp won the referendum? 

I’ve already alluded to the negatives of leaving the EU in my blog, but there are people on the Left who would wish to leave the EU. UKIP is more sinister than that; they have an underlying tone of prejudice which appeals to a small minority of people in Britain, and an economic policy of selfishness and unfairness. Furthermore, they do not offer anything concrete on cutting the deficit; there are no specific accounts made of spending and cutting plans, just vague pledges. In contrast, (yes, another bias here) the Liberal Democrat manifesto has a number glossary at the back which highlights the cost of every tax and spending plan in full. UKIP are the party that is really out of touch, but with the generous media hype and unscrutinised coverage that they receive, most people don’t yet know it.

Monday 8 April 2013

Thatcher: The Conviction Politician


First off, rest in peace Margaret Thatcher. That the death of an elderly lady should be immediately thrust into a political context seems wrong. I maintain that any death is sad; it has been especially humbling to see Mrs Thatcher’s physical and mental decline over the last years, so much so that she could no longer take up her seat in the House of Lords. This blog piece isn’t going to praise Mrs Thatcher; such a move would be contradictory and would go against my political values. Neither will it demonise her.

I have been truly disgusted at the predictable responses from various people, inevitably from the Left. How anyone can gleefully rejoice in someone’s death is beyond me, and no doubt the family and friends of the deceased are not taken into account when vitriol is spouted. This episode has suddenly made people ‘political experts’, many (not all) who were neither born in the Thatcher period nor affected by her reforms. It is likely that many of the offenders would not support the death penalty on principle (I don’t support it either); how ironic then that they should relish someone’s death. I won’t give a platform by naming vicious quotes here, but such views are not only sick and shameful; they are immature, and offer absolutely nothing to the political debate. 

I gave a critique of Thatcherism in a much earlier blog post, but I will try and surmise my views here. She dismantled the post-war consensus, a fraying method which nevertheless brought prosperity to the country and increased social mobility to an unprecedented level. Various industries were privatised, inflation was given priority over unemployment and business and trade were heavily concentrated in the capital. Her neo-liberal free market agenda led to a heavily individualist and uncaring doctrine, and she contradictorily wanted to ‘roll back the state’ whilst at the same time heavily centralising power in Westminster. The poll tax will forever remain her nadir, and she bequeathed a Eurosceptic legacy which has been unhealthy for the country and poisonous for the Conservative Party. I heard someone recently say that she was one of the luckiest leaders, and I believe them. Had Labour Prime Minister Jim Callaghan not dithered in calling an election earlier, it is widely assumed that he would have defeated Thatcher. Furthermore, with the abject failure of Ted Heath’s U-turns and Callaghan’s “winter of discontent”, Thatcher could feasibly offer her radical alternative against both her predecessor and the Labour Party with the cry that “it’s not working”. Harold Wilson’s failure to legislate trade union reform in 1969 with “In Place of Strife” further gave strength to Thatcher’s cause. Her share of the vote remained relatively stagnant over her premiership; more people voted against her, but the opposition vote was split almost 50-50 between the unelectable and radical Labour Party of the 1980s and the SDP-Liberal Alliance. The Falklands attack in 1981 brought her a timely electoral boost when the Conservatives had been lagging at third in the polls. Events aided her, massively. 

Thatcherism remains to this day, a further criticism of mine and a contributor to growing inequality in our society today. For Daily Telegraph and UKIP observers who curiously viewed the New Labour administration as a “radically left-wing” Government, Thatcher named New Labour as her single biggest achievement, with her student Tony Blair saying “we needed the reforms of the Thatcher period...an undoubtedly great Prime Minister”. Yet the fact that Thatcherism remains has shown that “no alternative” has emerged, and will be argued as a pro in Conservative circles. Credit where credit is due, however. The top rate of tax was far too high at 80%, something that she corrected (but at a 40% rate too low for a social democrat’s liking), and trade unions had exerted far too much influence over “who governs Britain”; in 1980 trade unions had 40% of the vote for electing Labour Party leaders, whilst party members and MPs had only 30% each. Enabling people to buy their own council houses was also a good move. 

Whatever people think of Thatcher, and politically I think of her negatively, she was a conviction politician. She stuck to what she believed in, and pursued it with great diligence; “the lady’s not for turning”. She shines over her U-turning predecessor Ted Heath, along with his modern incarnation David Cameron. How often have we seen people in politics dither, and change the course they believe in for the sake of political capital? The examples are far too numerous, but I will name one perhaps tenuous link; Mitt Romney appeared to be liberal as Governor of Massachusetts, yet veered sharply right in the Republican primaries in order to be elected, before cautiously flirting with the centre-ground in the Presidential race. Thatcher would not have countenanced such flip-flopping; what you saw was what you got. 

Thatcher’s death should be solemnly mourned, as anyone’s should. I will continue to criticise her record when asked, and will give credit where credit is due. I will never, however, engage in the basest of humanity and politics, where people believe it is ok to mock the passing of someone who you disagree with.