UKIP if you want to, but don’t get caught napping

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.

UKIP Clowns: 'Meet the Ukippers'

Last weekend Channel 4 launched its anti-UKIP pre-election campaign with its docudrama ‘UKIP: The First 100 Days’, and yesterday evening the BBC waded in with its own effort in the form of a fly-on-the-wall documentary about local UKIP party members in Thanet South, where Nigel Farage is mounting his bid for a Westminster seat in May. As was to be expected, the documentary focused upon the more ‘colourful’ aspects of the lives and views of the featured Ukippers, but to be frank, what was displayed was not so much fly-on-the-wall as foot in the mouth, over and over again.

That the documentary focused more upon personalities than upon policies was unsurprising (it has to be admitted that is hard to focus upon policies when policies largely remain in a state of flux), but given the BBC’s known hostility to UKIP, it would have been expected that those individuals featured would have been a little more circumspect about how they behaved and what they said. In fact, the documentary makers had to do little other than to stick around and wait for certain individuals to politically hang themselves. This was certainly the case with now former-UKIP councillor Rozanne Duncan who stated “I really do have a problem with people with negroid features”, adding that if she were to be invited to a meal where she knew a “negro” would be present, she would decline the invitation. She then made some bizarre reference to this aversion possibly having been acquired in a former life, saying that it would be interest to undergo hypnotic regression to reveal the possible source of the aversion. All of this was played out in the living room of the local UKIP press officer which provided an arresting backdrop of a sea of ceramic clowns; seemingly hundreds of them, for she and her husband were avid collectors of the said items.

This brought to mind some of the other absurdities uttered by another UKIP councillor, David Silvester from Henley-on-Thames, who claimed that the floods of early 2014 were part of God’s punishment for the legalisation of gay marriage. Bizarre? Yes. Fruitcake? Yes. Does this mean that UKIP’s concerns over the EU and mass immigration are bizarre and fruitcake? No. It is exasperating that an aspirant political party that many are turning to as a last straw to deal with these issues is repeatedly making ridiculous gaffes because of the eccentricities of some of its members. If it is to succeed, it has to ensure that its candidates are at least compos mentis, rather than as ridiculous and sinister as a collection of ceramic clowns.

Jack Straw and Malcolm Rifkind: Pounds Sterling, or Yuan?

Oh dear. Jack Straw and Malcolm Rifkind have both been caught out in a sting operation staged by the Daily Telegraph and Channel 4’s Dispatches. The former Foreign Secretaries revealed that they were willing to sell their services to a fictitious Chinese company, with Straw providing the bargain-basement option, only asking for £5,000 – “So normally, if I’m doing a speech or something, it’s £5,000 a day, that’s what I charge.” Rifkind, by contrast, who could arrange “useful access” to any UK ambassador, stated that his services could be purchased for the region of £5,000-£8,000 per half day. Why was Rifkind doing this? Well, despite being an MP, with the perfectly respectable associated salary and perks, he stated: “I am self-employed – so nobody pays me a salary. I have to earn my income.”

“Self-employed”? Since when has an MP been “self-employed”? In Rifkind’s case, it would seem to be just a slight matter of confusing tenses, for I am sure that should he continue and stand in the next General Election, that voters will grant his wish for him to be “self-employed”, as he will no longer be MP for Kensington. Straw on the other hand, will be standing down in May. The Labour Party will doubtless be relieved.

This evening's Dispatches will make for interesting viewing.

Who will govern after 7 May 2015? Readers' opinions

This year’s General Election promises to be the most unpredictable in living memory. For months, as assiduously documented by UK Polling Report, opinion polls have shown a narrow gap between the two leading parties – Labour and Conservative – with the former generally maintaining a narrow lead over the latter. However, this promises to be no typical General Election, for politics in the UK is no longer the traditional two-horse race that dominated the twentieth century after the demise of Lloyd George’s Liberal Party. Old party loyalties have frayed, with many voters displaying an increasing willingness to lend their votes to newer smaller parties, despite the limitations placed on their likely success imposed by the first-past-the-post system (with the exception of the SNP in this respect).

Labour, having sowed the seed of devolution, are shortly, it would seem, about to reap the whirlwind. Following the SNP’s defeat in the independence referendum but subsequent victory in Scottish opinion polls, we could be about to witness the death of the Labour Party as a national force as its MPs in Scotland are swept away by a rising nationalist tide. The Conservative Party has already undergone this process, having effectively become a party restricted to England and Wales. Given the projections relating to the SNP’s likely share of the vote in Scotland, with its rise in popularity being largely at the expense of Labour, Miliband’s party could be heading for near electoral wipeout north of the border in May. Nonetheless, it is clear that the SNP would make for natural bedfellows with Labour rather than the Conservatives. A minority Labour administration propped up by the SNP is a highly plausible scenario, as well as the least desirable, for Labour has indicated that it is in ‘principle’ against the concept of English votes for English laws, which whilst anti-democratic, plays into the narrow self-interest of the Labour Party. We could well therefore witness a situation in which Scotland effectively holds the rest of the Union to ransom, with the SNP exacting as many financial concessions as possible from Westminster, whilst facilitating the implementation of policies not supported by the majority of the electorate in England or Wales. The SNP leadership probably realises that such a tactic would also cause such an adverse reaction in England that it would prompt mass English support for Scottish independence, so as to be rid of an interfering deadweight. However, quite what the recent OPEC-engineered slump in oil prices will do to the long-term fortunes of the SNP and their budgetary credibility, remains to be seen.

A couple of weeks’ ago, a poll was opened to blog readers to gauge their opinions as to the likely shape of our next Government. Unsurprisingly, few believed that a majority Government will emerge on 8 May: some 7% stated that they believed we would have a Labour majority, whereas 14% thought that a majority Conservative administration would be returned. Readers were presented with a wide range of coalition options to choose from, as well as ‘some other configuration’. A total of 14% of respondents opted for this latter category, so perhaps they are placing their faith in the rather distant prospects of majority Liberal Democrat, UKIP or Green administrations.

Readers clearly did not share the view of the pollsters which currently indicate a Labour-SNP coalition as the most likely outcome, as only 7% selected this as the likely result. Even more surprisingly, perhaps, is that nobody thought that there would be the likelihood of a continuation of the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition. The second most likely outcome of the General Election was adjudged by 21% of respondents to be a Labour Coalition with the SNP, the Liberal Democrats, Plaid Cymru and the Greens. Topping the list of likely outcomes, securing 28% of this poll’s vote, was a Conservative Coalition with UKIP.

The only clear conclusion that can be drawn either from this readers’ poll, or from national opinion polls, is that there is massive uncertainty around the outcome of the next General Election. A new poll opens today, gauging readers’ opinions as to how many MPs they believe UKIP will have on 8 May.

Dire: 'UKIP: The First 100 Days'

Should national broadcasters be permitted to run 'docudramas' with the intent of interfering in the political process during the run-up to a General Election?

Last night's Channel 4 offering, 'UKIP: The First 100 Days', was as predictable and dull as it was woodenly acted and blatantly partisan. How could a review conclude anything else? (Admittedly, I've not read the Guardian review, so it may well praise it for its 'objectivity' and great 'public service'). From the outset, it was obvious that this programme had been commissioned and screened with no other intent than to portray UKIP as the new 'nasty' party; a party of not-very-closet 'racists', frightfully white and not very bright. Although Channel 4 sometimes commissions and delivers excellent documentary programmes, such as Dispatches, last night's drama could not be adjudged to meet the broadcaster's often high standards, falling instead into a knee-jerk pantomime Leftism, that characterised anyone with concerns about mass immigration, the undemocratic nature of the EU or globalism, as racist, xenophobic and innately stupid. If it was intended to be political satire, it was about as funny and cutting edge as David Cameron delivering a stand-up routine, or George Osborne shoving an unexpected tax demand in your face.

That its central character - a fictitious female MP of Sikh extraction - should eventually 'see the light' and turn on UKIP, was a known given of the drama as soon as the camera first alighted upon her. What else could such a character do? The writer evidently thought that both she, and the programme's viewers, needed to be awakened from their state of false consciousness.

Although, obviously, the UKIP platform - so far as we can make it out - being anti-EU, anti mass immigration and anti-multiculturalism, lies in direct opposition to Channel 4's pro-EU, pro mass immigration and pro-multiculturalism editorial stance, should this fact alone allow the broadcaster to screen such a programme at this time? If so, surely for the sake of political balance, we ought to see analogous documentaries dealing with the other 'major' political parties operating across the whole of the UK? Channel 4 could portray Ed Miliband as an out-of-touch elitist intent on wrecking the public finances, or David Cameron as a friend of transnational corporate capital selling off the country's economic assets to hostile foreign investors; Nick Clegg as . . . Nick Clegg, or Nathalie Bennett of the Greens as a vegan totalitarian with a soft spot for ISIS (not the Egyptian goddess) and a desire to extinguish Britain in an immigration tsunami from Africa and Asia? That would strike me as being both as fair and as objective as the 'docudrama' that we saw last night.

That complaints should have been submitted to Ofcom in the wake of 'UKIP: The First 100 Days' is perfectly understandable. Will Ofcom take any notice? What do you think?

SNP: ‘The more seats we have here, the more powers we’ll have in Scotland.’

Thus runs the slogan on the first welcome image (reproduced below) displayed on the SNP’s website landing page. However, for the English this statement, given projections regarding the possible composition of the next House of Commons, would be better displayed next to the SNP’s peculiar logo, which looks for all the world like a noose.   

Opinion polls indicate that we are heading towards a second Parliament with no party possessing an overall majority. For a number of months, the national polls – at the headline level – have remained relatively static, but what has changed, as widely noted by commentators, is the situation in Scotland. As matters stand, the SNP is on track to oust Labour as the leading parliamentary party in the country, routing the latter in a number of its historic strongholds. Rather than laying to rest the question of Scotland’s constitutional status within the United Kingdom, last September’s Independence Referendum has bequeathed a situation in which the Scots have come to perceive themselves as very much separate to the rest of the UK, albeit whilst remaining part of it.

Much of this change in national self-perception can, perhaps, be attributed to the Westminster panic over the possibility of a ‘Yes’ vote, and the associated granting of additional concessions to the Scottish Parliament which amounted to the ‘Devo Max’ that had previously been denied as an option to Scots. Having woken up to the efficacy of voting SNP in leveraging additional powers and privileges from Westminster, Scottish voters seem intent to play the nationalist card in pursuit of further concessions from the rest of the UK, to pay for policies that are deemed unaffordable in England, Wales and Northern Ireland. Doubtless, Ed Miliband’s lacklustre leadership of the Labour Party and absence of a coherent political vision also plays poorly with Scottish voters when contrasted with an SNP, which is making a direct play for the traditional Labour vote north of the border. 

Amongst the SNP’s pledges is to continue to ensure that ‘There will be no tuition fees for Scottish students’. This situation understandably makes many English students envious and resentful, particularly so when considering that whereas English and Welsh students studying in Scottish universities have to pay fees equivalent to the maximum chargeable to domestic students in England and Wales - £9,000 per annum – if you happen to come from anywhere between Lisbon and Tallinn that happens to be part of the EU, you pay nothing. Not only that, but even ‘if you’re the child of a Turkish worker in the UK’ you can apply to have your tuition fees paid in full. You could not devise a more unjust anti-English system if you tried. Alongside this remarkable pledge, is a statement that the party wishes to see ‘a minimum income of at least £7,000 for the lowest income students’ (although presumably not for sub-Turkish English students).

This SNP approach to policy, with its pronounced anti-English tenor, spells trouble ahead. According to today’s UK Polling Report rolling average of polls, Labour stand on 33%, Conservatives on 31%, UKIP on 15%, the Liberal Democrats on 8% and the Greens on 6%. The others, amongst whom are included the SNP, account for the remaining 7%. However, whereas UKIP are highly likely to end up with far fewer seats than the Liberal Democrats, possibly winning a handful in total, the SNP, because of their natural concentration in Scotland, look set to play the role of power brokers, just as the Liberal Democrats have done since 2010. Such an electoral outcome will doubtless fuel pressure for both constitutional and electoral reform, given the far higher number of votes that will accrue to UKIP, but failing to yield electoral MPs. 

On 3 February, UK Polling Report reported that the four opinion polls carried out thus far this year in Scotland revealed the following stated voting intentions: Labour 27%, Liberal Democrats 5% and the SNP 47%. This represented swings of 21% from Labour and 20.5% from the Liberal Democrats to the SNP. However, swings are never uniform, so although the polls suggest a near if not complete wipe-out for Labour in Scotland this May, most pollsters believe that Labour will retain some seats. Nonetheless, it is generally anticipated that the SNP will take upwards of 40 Westminster seats if current voting intentions hold firm. This raises the spectre of a Miliband minority administration propped up by the SNP, possibly, depending upon the precise distribution of seats, also being reliant upon a cobbled together coalition including one or two Greens and the Liberal Democrats. This would probably be the worst possible outcome for the UK, running the risk of fracturing it irrevocably, whilst ceding further sovereignty to the EU and sinking ever further beneath the weight of near-untrammelled mass immigration. Who would pay for Scotland's spending spree, particularly during a time of likely declining North Sea oil income? 

A Labour minority Government with SNP support could sound the death knell for the United Kingdom. Wouldn’t Alex Salmond, Nicola Sturgeon et al be delighted with the anti-democratic havoc that they could play with the Sassenachs! 

Readers’ General Election Poll Results

In the best tradition of John Snow’s “just a bit of fun”, I am about to introduce readers to the results of the past week’s readers’ poll as to their voting intentions in the forthcoming General Election. It may not come as a huge surprise that the results here diverge somewhat from the national opinion polls, but one characteristic is shared by both: the unpopularity of the Liberal Democrats. If this blog’s readers were to determine the future composition of Westminster the Liberal Democrats would be wiped out, for in total, 0% of this blog’s readers voted for them. Likewise, nobody declared in favour of either Respect or Plaid Cymru.

Turning to the ‘don’t knows’, readers are rather more likely to know whom they wish to vote for than the electorate as a whole, with only 9% stating that they do not yet know which party they will vote for on 7 May. Next come four parties with 4% apiece: Conservatives, the English Democrats, Labour and the SNP. Securing the support of 9% of readers are the Green Party, which would become the official opposition in the House of Commons elected by Durotrigan’s readers. However, storming home with a landslide majority are UKIP, who secured the support of 61% of poll participants.

Thus, if we omit the ‘don’t knows’ for the time being, blog readers would return a Parliament looking as follows: on the government benches, led by Nigel Farage, would be 445 UKIP MPs, whilst leading the opposition would be Natalie Bennett with 69 Green MPs. The Conservatives, English Democrats, Labour and the SNP would each ‘boast’ 34 MPs. Somewhere, in a far distant galaxy, perhaps this will be the outcome. As for here, well, we’ll have to wait and see. Watch this space for election commentary.

In the meantime, please feel free to take part in the new readers’ poll ‘What will our Government look like after the 2015 General Election?’ which has now opened and will run until next Sunday evening. 

Green Party Immigration Policy: Reckless and Destructive

Feeling tempted to vote Green? Then think again. Yesterday, the Green Party Leader Natalie Bennett sought to grab the headlines by announcing that the Greens wish to increase spending on social housing from £1.5 billion to £6 billion per annum by 2017, building an additional 500,000 rented ‘homes’ by this year. ‘Homes’? What form would these ‘homes’ take? Would they be the ugly, diminutive battery-style units that have shot up in our increasingly overpopulated land over the past couple of decades, or something else? Where would they be built? Who would occupy them? In fact, if we dig a little further, it is evident that this policy, given the Green approach to immigration, is both ill-founded and grossly inadequate, revealing the Green Party to be anything but environmental in its orientation. Its policies actually veer towards communism rather than towards environmentalism, and if implemented would result in a marked decrease in both environmental and living standards in the UK, in England in particular. 

If one looks at the party’s statements on migration (note its use of the term ‘migration’, rather than ‘immigration’) which were last updated in September 2014, it is clear that these proposed new ‘homes’ would in themselves not meet the demands of the many hundreds of thousands, if not upwards of a million, immigrants who would enter the country if the Greens got their way, for they believe in a world without borders. For most people in the UK – who have not arrived here recently, or who do not who view themselves as possessing a hyphenated identity linking them to some other country – the Green approach to immigration cannot be viewed as appealing in any way. In fact, it is nothing short of recklessly irresponsible, being to the clear detriment of our national environment, way of life, and, indeed, survival. Am I lapsing into hyperbole with respect to their approach to this issue? Judge for yourself by viewing these statements taken from the ‘Migration’ section of its website:

MG102 We are aware that, in the 21^st century, there is likely to be mass migration of people escaping from the consequences of global warming, environmental degradation, resource shortage and population increase.

MG203 Richer regions [by which they mean ‘regions’ of the globe, i.e. nation-states or the EU, for example] do not have the right to use migration controls to protect their privileges from others in the long term.

MG300 We will work to achieve greater equity between the UK and non-Western countries. In step with this, we will progressively reduce UK immigration controls.

MG420 We will resist all attempts to introduce a 'barrier round Europe' shutting out non-Europeans or giving them more restricted rights of movement within Europe than European Nationals.

There are many other statements in line with the above, which make it clear that other than limiting population influxes into Antarctica (scarcely a popular destination for humans, but favoured by emperor penguins) and national parks, the Greens are seemingly open to the idea of concreting over anywhere and everywhere in pursuit of their open-bordered dystopia. Their 500,000-home proposal would not even be adequate to meet the pent-up demand for social housing, for there are currently 1.8 million people on the waiting list. All of these homes, and more, would be needed for a nigh on limitless supply of immigrants, from countries such as Pakistan, Somalia, Afghanistan, Syria, Libya, Nigeria, etc. As well as imposing massive strains upon the economy, public services, utilities, transport infrastructure and the environment, what would this do to an already intensely cleft and fractured ‘society’, lacking any cohering values and sense of identity? 

The Greens are utopian idealists who, if they were provided with the opportunity to actively influence policy, would bring about a deliberate and calculated massive decline in the living standards of people in this country, as well as a significant degradation of this country’s environment. The Green Party cannot be adjudged to be an environmentalist party, for its policies actively promote massive population expansion at the expense of the natural environment. It cannot claim to be a party of social justice, as it seeks to snuff out the existence of the peoples of Europe and to reduce the living standards of UK and European citizens.

The Green Party gives expression to a poisonous strand of masochistic thought in the UK and other European societies that sees our country, and other European and developed nations, as being the authors of all of the ills in the world. The Green Party seeks to punish us for ‘sins’ that we have never committed. Given this, who, in their right mind, if they happen to be English, Welsh, Scots or Irish, would vote for the Greens? If you genuinely care for the environment and a sustainable approach to population and resource use, do not vote Green. If you support the principles of democracy, and subscribe to the belief that politics, ultimately, should be concerned with the business of improving the wellbeing of the citizenry, then do not vote Green. If you believe that the Green Party will be different to all of the others because it is more honest and will not lie, think again. On 18 January the Guardian reported that Natalie Bennett had stated on the Andrew Marr Show that ‘the party did not have an open-door policy on immigration, but those who have a right to immigrate should be entitled to exercise that right. She also questioned why Germany had been willing to take 20,000 refugees from Syria, and the UK figure was in the low hundreds.’ How does that square with the Green Party’s clear and unequivocal policy statements on immigration? It doesn’t. The Green Party might look fluffy, but at its heart, lies something rather sinister, and fundamentally anti-progressive. Do not be duped!