John Humphrys this morning presided over a mini-debate on the Today Programme about UKIP’s success on Thursday, observing that the party’s good showing in the three by-elections could be read as indicative of the disenchanted mood of a section of the electorate which is looking for a ‘new party’. In the case of UKIP however, the panel (whom it must be said were not sympathetic towards UKIP), suggested that voters had chosen them because they represented the ‘none of the above’ option, fulfilling a role akin to that once played by the now highly unpopular Liberal Democrats. The suggestion therefore, was that the vote for UKIP was largely negative, rather than positive.
One panellist stated that UKIP supporters tend to be much more concerned about the state of the economy than average, whilst another claimed that despite its anti-EU focus, 49% of UKIP supporters named immigration as their primary concern. However, what they did not go on to note is the implicit fragility of UKIP’s support, for its globalist Thatcherite economic approach would not assist our economic recovery, and with respect to immigration, the party is only concerned about European immigration. It never talks about restricting immigration from Asia and Africa. It would therefore seem safe to draw the conclusion that the bulk of UKIP’s supporters would prefer to vote for a new party committed to leaving the EU which also followed a non-globalist and non-Thatcherite economic policy, and was committed to slashing immigration from everywhere around the globe.
John Humphrys has acknowledged that a significant section of the electorate desires a new party. Some, at least for now, have decided to invest their support in UKIP. It is of course the wrong choice, but the positive alternative option has yet to be created. We must provide a positive and credible alternative. Upon this score, it is at least encouraging that UKIP is now being described as a ‘mainstream party’ by prominent political and media figures, rather than being misrepresented as ‘racist’ simply for raising the suggestion that mass immigration ought to be curtailed. There have certainly been some figures in a number of the smaller parties who would merit this appellation, but it is time that those who routinely abuse the words ‘racist’ and ‘racism’ in order to delegitimise any position on immigration other than that in favour of open borders, were ignored. They have cried wolf for too long, and as anyone in possession of their senses knows, there are no wolves in Britain today, other than those kept in zoos and safari parks.