This evening’s UKIP party political broadcast sought to
bolster and capitalise upon the party’s recent relatively healthy showing in
national opinion polls, a number of which have shown them enjoying higher
support than the Liberal Democrats. However, given the very low level support
for the latter, this does not necessarily betoken a golden dawn for UKIP, as
after all the party has previously enjoyed a much higher level of support
during the parliamentary expenses scandal. Nonetheless, it was interesting to
see how on this occasion it had chosen to present itself to the electorate,
choosing to downplay its central “anti-Brussels” line, which was a sane
approach given that we are approaching local rather than EU or national elections.
Despite its present relative popularity, UKIP has hitherto never fared well
outside of the arena of elections to the European Parliament, and it will
represent a significant challenge to the party to break away from the
single-issue image that it possesses. This broadcast constituted a decent
effort at tackling this perception.
UKIP’s membership is notoriously grey, both in hair and suit
(granted, it must be conceded that the sartorial allure of blue pinstripes also
proves to be strong for many a Ukipper), whereas the broadcast sought to
portray a rather more mixed age range. A youngish (mature rather than callow)
couple appeared to describe themselves as “go-getting” (representative of a
demographic segment that marketers might term “aspirational”) who declared that
they were paying too much tax. Neither how much they were earning nor how much
they had inherited were revealed, so I cannot comment upon the merits of their
statement, but their clear desire for an uber-Thatcherite low-taxation economy
was apparent. This was a central theme of the broadcast: UKIP are a
low-taxation rather than a “tax and spend” party like the Westminster
triumvirate. UKIP are the populist voice of an electorate groaning beneath an
oppressive taxation system, standing up to the professional “career
politicians” of the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat parties. That may
be their message, but there was scant explanation of how such a commitment to
low taxation could be funded, other than averring that there was a great deal
of “waste” (code for the existence of the public sector).
Despite UKIP being the breakaway Atlanticist Thatcherite
wing of the Conservative Party - the only true ‘conservative’ party in the UK
given the Conservative Party’s abandonment of Conservatism - the broadcast
sought to emphasise that it provides a voice and natural political home for
disaffected patriotic Labour supporters. To underscore this assertion it
drafted in a former Labour Party member who had been converted to the UKIP cause.
Quite how far he concurred with UKIP’s flat-tax free-market globalist economic
policy can only be guessed, but UKIP, for all of its positive points, is still
a deeply flawed party that is incapable of curing our national, particularly
our economic, malaise. Although it was right to draw attention to the
well-publicised and unjust sacrifice of jobs at Derby carriage and wagon works
Bombardier owing to EU procurement rules, UKIP’s free-market globalism would
just as readily lead to the outsourcing of such contracts not to Germany, but
to some other country lying far beyond the boundaries of Europe.
Critics of UKIP state that Nigel Farage excessively
dominates his party and its proceedings, but on this occasion his presence was
marginally less intrusive than in earlier broadcasts, which represents
something of an advance. Overall therefore, this UKIP broadcast was an
improvement upon their previous offerings, managing to appear reasonably
professional, moderate, and to some extent credible. How many voters it appeals
to will become evident soon enough. As for myself, like many others I
shall be presented with the task of deciding which is the least bad of the
candidates offering themselves in my ward, but there will be no anti-globalist
candidate of any description. Quite clearly, there exists a public appetite for a credible, moderate anti-globalist party that protects and promotes the material and cultural interests of our people. UKIP may not be that party, but its rising level of support indicates that just such a party is needed. It is our task to bring that party into being, and to offer a positive alternative to the failed globalist free-market economic policies of the big three and UKIP alike.
Farage in Plymouth
Differentiation from UKIP ( in a positive way!) is absolutely crucial but the public need to be made aware of and to understand this. UKIP gains most of its support from the strong anti-immigration- anti-EU feeling within the general public, sadly few are aware of UKIP's global capitalist- pro U.S grounding - and few average voters would probably care. However, we as nationalists ARE aware that globalist capitalism is an equal threat to our sovereignty as the EU and, therefore, we must work to educate the public to this fact. However,unless your proposed party seeks to campaign to uphold and promote native British identity then I would be inclined to stick to supporting the BNP as I believe the brand is still salvagable but that it has suffered from a failure to present a moral case for ethno-nationalism to voters and,also,from not doing more to prevent the fruitcakes and nutjobs from playing PR disaster roles which delight Searchlight and their media servants.
ReplyDeleteIt is certainly my intention that a new party should be differentiated from UKIP, and indeed the BNP, in a positive fashion. As discussed in previous pieces, the identity question is one that should be woven into policies, rather than being something that is made into a standalone issue, which although being considered the primary concern for many nationalists, is not for the electorate at large.
DeleteThe trouble with UKIP is not only Farage's tendency to play the clown when it suits him, but also that he has surrounded himself with a cabal of sycophants who act as a kind of log-jam, preventing any people of independent thought from getting on in the party, & even throwing them out. It seems all rather similar to what has happened to the BNP under the non-leadership of Griffin.
ReplyDeleteThis is something that I have heard mention of before. It would seem that there are significant issues with respect to UKIP's leadership that serve to hinder both its organisational and electoral growth.
DeleteI thought this was very fair and accurate commentary on my party's PEB. I think it was a lot better than what we have produced before but there is a long way to go.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the London PEB for the Mayoral and GLA race was terrible, be great if you could blog what you thought on this one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbzDKtsy97o
Thanks for the link Julien. I'll take a look at it when I have time later in the week, so apologies for not passing comment on it in a rather more timely fashion.
DeleteAny new party does indeed need to differentiate itself from UKIP and expose their globalist, Thatcherite loony economic policies. Indeed, did you know that they want a flat tax of 31% so the ultra-rich would pay very little tax? Even public schoolboy George Osbourne and company would never seriously advocate that! The BNP failed to expose the crucial economic flaws (and their pro-US globalist foreign policy stance) of UKIP and hence too many members of the electorate thought that UKIP were just a more respectable BNP.
ReplyDeleteBarry (Anonymous)
Yes Barry, I'm aware that UKIP are advocates of the flat tax concept. I seem to recall that Osborne did once also publicly entertain (and probably still privately harbours) that idea too. The BNP and UKIP are both fatally flawed.
DeleteI believe he did once advocate it but has kept quiet about it. He is obviously a better politician than many within UKIP who are unaware (unlike Osbourne)of how such an idea would go down with anyone outside of the most well-healed Tory circles.
DeleteAnonymous (Barry)
The BNP brand will only be salvagable if the party turns over a new leaf and makes a fresh start. That can only be done by getting rid of Nick Griffin and his henchmen. Also a few changes in policy could be enacted such as a more liberal stance on gays. Too many nationalists (see the British resistance site for example) are seemingly pre-occupied with the sexual orientation of others. This makes nationalists look like weirdos and gives credence to the Left's claim we are strongly authoritarian 'fascists'. Also, although I am a supporter of the death penalty, I think it would be wise to just offer a referendum on it as the French FN does.
ReplyDeleteBarry(Anonymous)
The BNP has had it. It is finished, hence in part the 'Beyond the Fringe' series.
DeleteReluctantly, I agree with your assesment. Griffin had a car crash on Question Time and fell into the Establishment's trap. The party has never recovered since that programme. The problem with starting a new party is that it takes such a longtime to get it known to an electorate that is mostly intensely disinterested in politics.
DeleteAnonymous (Barry)
It is true that establishing recognition for a new party could take a long time, but it would be better to gain public recognition for positive rather than negative reasons. I get the feeling that the little additional publicity that will be afforded to the BFP this weekend will not bring it much public credibility either. It will certainly give a brief boost to their press profile, but any idea that the party will win over "Middle England" strikes me as illusory. Roger Bennett's departure is of interest, and I shall be writing something on this in the days to come when I have time.
DeleteI tend to agree. However, we must always remember that the media takes a collective anti-nationalist line and any party that has even a semblance of real nationalism to it will attract their disdain and disgust. As for the BFP, I think that if they overly fixate on an anti-Islamification stance then they are unlikely to benefit much electorally since the public will view them as obsessives. It is wiser to only mention the problem of Islamification within a wider anti-immigration policy line.
DeleteAccording to wikipedia, the party only has around 150 members and even taking into account the fact that it is a very new party that isn't good. I suspect even the severely toxic NF has more. They have a good article by Robert Henderson about economics on their site so perhaps Paul Weston does realise that aping UKIP's globalist economics isn't sensible.
Anonymous (Barry)
Also, according to wikipedia, Tommy Robinson of the EDL, has been appointed as the BFP's deputy leader. This a huge and I think fatal error on their part. The biased media will gladly associate the BFP with the EDL's street demonstrations. The fact is that no sensible party that wishes to see its candidates elected can engage in marches or violent street demos (yes, the far-left deliberately engage the 'far right' in order to get the media to demonise the 'far right')
DeleteAnonymous (Barry)
Barry, in the BFP's 20 Point Plan it is made quite clear that they wish to further marketise the economy and privatise services. This, I can assure you (as I have spoken to Weston) is quite deliberate, as his economic outlook is essentially Thatcherite and at odds with the founding principles of the BFP. As for the number of BFP members, this is disputed, but as of the evening their website displays the statistic of 719. The Wikipedia statistic is from late 2010. However, a number of members have left in the past week, and it has been claimed that up to one half of the total could be "free members", so its actual strength is hard to gauge. That said, it is a small party.
DeleteIn an article I wrote around a year ago considering whether the EDL should go directly into electoral politics, I cautioned that this would not be a good move, and I remain of that opinion. The EDL has achieved a certain degree of success as an anti-Islamisation street movement, and it should continue in that vein, whilst supporting a political party that advocates the anti-Islamisation measures it favours but embedded within a much broader policy mix.
As you have noted, the BFP will not thrive by becoming fixated upon Islam, but that is what it has done and will continue to do. As you will have seen in my earlier article on its 20 Point Plan, it doesn't have a coherent ideological package (whereas it did to a certain extent upon its foundation). The new party on the other hand will possess a cohesive and comprehensive policy platform that offers positive solutions to the major issues that have underpinned the rise of the EDL.
Yes, Barry, I am mainly in agreement with you on the BNP's failure to differentiate itself and make a case to the electorate to expose UKIP for the rank Thatcherites they are. It's a no brainer that the electorate will switch to the 'respectable' anti-immigration party and this is largely what has happened. I also squirm that some nationalists are seemingly obsessed by particular victimless sexual practices ( a legacy of John Tyndall, no doubt) and totally agree that it makes it easier for the Left to brand us as 'authoritarian' and cranks, as you say. What has homsexuality to do with nationalism anyway, I fail to see how it should be seen as oppositional to nationbalism perse. Many homosexual voters might otherwise become BNP voters/supporters. I haven't concerned myself too much with the pros and cons of Nick Griffin but he is ultimately responsible for how the party pitches itself to the electorate. I think capitulation to the 'racist' accusation rather than facing it out and exposing it as being a marxist concept used to subjugate native British identity would be more efficacious in the long term.
ReplyDeleteIf you look on the British Resistance site, you will see religious cranks like Jim Dowson in full rant mode about 'sodomites' as if many straights don't engage in it either! Now doubt this is because of his NI background but he and others like him should be firmly told that in the rest of the United Kingdom we 'don't do God' and that an Englishman's house is his castle. 'Nationalists' like him would no doubt find it very easy to ally themselves with the Islamist invaders of our country. If the BNP adopted a more liberal stance on gays then I have no doubt that quite a few of them (and their hetreosexual mums and dads, friends ect) would vote for the BNP as the more thinking ones must be getting a bit scared as to how they will fare once we have an Islamic majority in this country.
DeleteAnonymous (Barry)
Yes, we must make it clear to the electorate that 'racism' is basically a Marxist concept that has been used for decades now to suppress people's innate natural desire to live around and to associate with others like themselves.
DeleteAnonymous (Barry)
SC and Barry, I agree with you both that certain "nationalists" do have a peculiar obsession with people's private lives. So far as I'm concerned, it's a non-issue. Unlike Dowson et al, I don't spend my time thinking about homosexuality, as it doesn't interest me. It ought to be a personal matter, just like religious belief or lack thereof.
DeleteI wholeheartedly agree that it should be a private matter and a non-issue. I really can't understand how Dowson and others think a pre-occupation with the subject of sexuality could in anyway aid a nationalist party to appeal to the electorate. Their continued insistence of ranting about this subject only serves to make nationalists look like total weirdos and it gives us a strong impression of being totalitarians who want to control every aspect of people's lives. Nationalists should concentrate on economic matters primarily as we DO have DISTINCTIVE things to say about this important matter which could make votes move our way. Nationalists should always remember Bill Clinton's phrase, "It's the economy, stupid" This is true in normal economic times but at the moment with the world's economy in the parlous state that is in even more so. The fact is that the vast majority of the electorate only changes their votes on economic issues.
DeleteAnonymous (Barry)
The fellow you mention has some peculiar religious views, and the use of the verb "ranting" in connection with him is certainly fitting, for such religious fervour belongs to the century of the Ranters - the Seventeenth Century - rather than to the current one.
DeleteI don't agree with gay 'marriage' (and I think that most gays don't really want it) but I am ok with civil partnerships. I think the public obscenity laws should be enforced regardless of the offender's sexuality. You're right in asserting that somebody's sexual orientation has no bearing on their opinions regarding nationalism. For example, look at Tony Bliar. He was the first PM in well over a century to have had children whilst in office yet the bastard did very significant damage to our country ie his foreign wars with British soldiers being killed on a lie and his immigration policies.
ReplyDeleteAnonymous (Barry)