by Will Wallace
The answer really lies with the fact
that UKIP thrives on discontent and fear, both of which are evident right
across the nation as a result of the Great Recession which so many families are
still struggling to resurface from. It is unfortunate that the most powerful
emotion in politics today is such fear. The same fear that President Roosevelt
warned against in 1933, that can lead people to choose leaders who would merely
use it as an instrument to their own agenda. By presenting themselves as
anti-establishment, yet also promoting a certain cultural identity, they are
able to gain the support and votes that can sweep them to power. There is, of
course, one example that no doubt everyone will have in mind, which occurred in
the same year that FDR gave his warning, in a Germany that had been totally
crippled by the Great Depression and the restrictive actions by other European
nations. However a similar observation can be made of what is happening in
Britain. I do hasten to add that, in spite of this, the policies of the
National Socialist Workers Party are a bit extreme in comparison with the UK
Independence Party. Nevertheless, they do share common enemies in the political
status quo, Europe and immigration. They both thrive in times of economic
hardship, and both ensure their manifestos are ambiguous and wide-ranging (the
latter often going to the extent of being contradictory).
We've seen
fringe parties rise before, and they almost always ebb away eventually (the
clear exception being the Labour Party's surge, a hundred years ago). Yet the
suggestion that UKIP is just another expression of a protest vote has been
slapped down by the press, eager to report a revolutionary shift in the political
sphere. Even the BBC is guilty of this serious lack of journalistic integrity,
with a huge amount of coverage being focused on UKIP, and almost nothing on the
other non-establishment party that has seen increasing support: the Green
Party. With the media drooling at the thought of sensational victories for a
new party, the public remain uninformed about the truth behind Farage and UKIP.
This is a party that despises some of this country's greatest achievements: a
system where becoming ill does not leave you penniless, where losing your job
does not leave you facing the gutter, and where your gender, ethnicity and
sexual orientation are irrelevant in the eyes of employment, marriage and
treatment by others.
Over
the past two years, our political establishment has been rocked to its very
core by the emergence of a new force that has been successful in gathering
widespread support and stands united behind a charismatic leader, and “man of
the people”, in the form of Nigel Farage. Even before the results of last
month’s elections were revealed, David Dimbleby and his colleagues at the BBC
declared UKIP to be the “fourth party” in British politics. It would seem that,
given the degree of electoral success that it has witnessed, UKIP is a party
that defends the values that so many voters hold dear.
But to reach such a
conclusion would be pretty foolish. What we have really seen over the past two
years, is an astounding protest vote against the three establishment parties,
fuelled by economic and social distress, manipulated by populist nationalism
and broadcast by a sensationalist media. I really struggle to see how a country
such as ours, with a society that embraces diversity and a National Health
Service that is so greatly cherished, can suddenly support a party, such as
UKIP, that rejects multiculturalism and would happily sell our hospitals off to
Richard Branson.
I recently laid eyes on a piece of UKIP
literature. Apparently their position on healthcare is to "improve the
standard of care in hospitals". That was it. There was no mention of how
they would achieve this. On education, they want to "improve literacy and
numeracy skills". How exactly? Not a peep on that either. Of course, we
know that UKIP does have policies on these issues, but the material they
present to voters is nothing more than a collection of soundbites lacking in
substance. All they offer on their glossy leaflets is a list of goals that no
sensible person could disagree with: better hospitals and schools? Who could
oppose that? But if UKIP were to print a more clear list, detailing plans for
privatised public services, including hospitals, and for the reintroduction of
selective grammar schools that often favour children whose parents can afford
private tuition. At the same time, UKIP tries to appeal to as many voters as it
possibly can, gaining the support of both right-wing Conservatives and
working-class voters that usually side with Labour. Yes, Tony Blair's
"third way" project, New Labour, did attempt the same thing, by
occupying the centre-ground with social progressivism in one hand, and
neoliberalism in the other. The difference however is that Blair did not
underline this with a nationalistic tone. New Labour, unlike UKIP, did not
propose heavy restrictions on immigration, coupled with acting in the name of a
Britain last seen in the 1950s, both culturally and socially.
People often forget that the real face
of UKIP isn't the chummy leader, but the people around him. Farage can laugh
off Godfrey Bloom's racism, Roger Helmer's homophobia and Stuart Wheeler's
misogyny as mere expressions of opinion, but these remain senior members
of a party where bigotry and discrimination thrive. I doubt many of you even
know who those three men are - one referred to Africa as "Bongo Bongo
Land", one said that homosexuality is "abnormal and undesirable",
and one claimed that women are "nowhere near as good as men" at
games such as chess and poker. Definitely not the sort of people you'd invite
to dinner (especially if you're a black lesbian...). Again, it has to be asked
whether these prejudiced, chauvinistic nutters accurately reflect the attitudes
of the British people. I really hope not. Farage might have cleverly concealed
this ugly side of UKIP with his frequent photo shoots at the local, but if his
party were to get a handful of seats in Westminster, and maybe even a pact with
the Tories, there can be no doubt that Downing Street would be influenced by a
party that has a very backward view of society.
So why do I care so much?
Britain isn't perfect. The NHS and
welfare state still require reform, men still dominate the highest-paid jobs
and LGBT and minority communities are still marginalised by a few. If we have
any lessons to learn from history, it is that these achievements can be as
easily taken away as they have been granted. Giving in to the fears that UKIP
stir up could see an end to these things. Britain must unequivocally reject
UKIP: if anything is anti-British, it is them.
Excellently expressed. Many have also voted based on the image of Farage alone- he seems very persuasive to the man on the street! But one man cannot run an entire party, and there seems to have been surprisingly little media coverage on any other members of the party in the face of the pub local. So all the public see of UKIP is himself, not the bigots and the hot-air policies upheld by the party.
ReplyDeleteThe recent poster campaign was hard-hitting, exactly what was needed to persuade both voters from the right and centre to vote, and then to vote UKIP. How many voters actually performed research into what they were voting for? How many had the time? The only proof anyone will have of a `political earthquake` is when it really matters- next year's General Election.
If voters really are bored/annoyed/disappointed/detached (delete as appropriate) with the current selection of key parties, then I am afraid that UKIP have already done enough to hold themselves as the protest vote. Barring a Green Party publicity onslaught, it is highly likely for UKIP to raise their share of the vote next year, however mis-informed the voters are.
With Portsmouth South being one of UKIP's `target seats`, I fear we may have a few more visits from the poorly-driven UKIP bus. Whether it will be `All change please` is far from certain.