UKIP’s Margate conference is over, but its election
manifesto is yet to be published. We know what the party’s mood music is, and
that it has two policies that the three major national Westminster parties plus
the Greens find distasteful: withdrawal from the EU and a greatly tightened
points-based system for immigration. Beyond that, what UKIP stands for –
concretely speaking – is largely a matter of conjecture; of hope for some, yet
apparent fear for others.
UKIP’s failure to define what it stands for and what it
would wish to do were it to be in a position to influence policy, illustrates
that it still has some way to go to define itself as a political party. As
matters stand, it remains a vehicle of protest. A UKIP candidate on the ballot
paper will effectively present voters with the opportunity to vote for ‘none of
the above’, providing that the latter sentiment also coincides with voters’
opposition to EU membership and mass immigration. As such, a vote for UKIP can
be said to be positive, as it increases the pressure on other parties to
address these concerns, particularly in marginal seats where UKIP’s seizure of
a few thousand votes will doubtless hobble the chances of many a ‘mainstream’ candidate.
That said, a vote for UKIP should, given the party’s lack of clarity regarding
direction and policy, be one that is loaned to it.
UKIP’s absence of a definite set of policies currently
enables it to tap into the discontents of different groups of voters in both
traditional Conservative and Labour seats, but as such, this approach is
unstable. It may work for a while, but can UKIP function in this manner in the
longer term, if indeed, there is a longer term? Douglas Carswell has already
stated that he believes immigration
“has been, overwhelmingly, a story of success.” How many UKIP voters believe that statement to be true? Carswell
appears to have strayed into the wrong party, frustrated by Cameron’s
commitment to EU membership. Farage may yet come to rue having allowed Carswell
into his party. It may have raised UKIP’s profile and given it a brief fillip
in the polls, but if one of UKIP’s two core messages that has great resonance
with the public – its opposition to mass immigration – is abandoned, UKIP may
as well disband and simply become a campaign group calling for an EU
referendum. Then again, perhaps it was never intended for it to be anything
other than the latter.
It seems likely that UKIP will stack up a large number of
votes across the country in May, taking support from both the Conservatives and
Labour, creating unpredictable electoral dynamics and consequences in many
constituencies. However, it is unlikely to seize many parliamentary seats, and
like the SDP, will come a good second in many a constituency. As to what
readers of this blog think, the recent readers’ poll revealed that the greatest
proportion of respondents – 25% - thought that UKIP would have 2-3 MPs in the
new parliament, but only 3% thought that the party would have no MPs, the same
percentage who stated that the party would obtain 51 seats or more (an unusual
opinion, certainly). The majority of respondents – some 68% - thought that UKIP
would have between 1 and 10 MPs, but surprisingly there was also a cluster of
readers – 12% - who thought that the party would obtain between 21 and 25. However
many MPs are elected under the UKIP banner, their influence upon this General
Election is likely to be a significant and interesting one, but quite what it
will stand for remains very much up in the air.
