As the British Conservative Party starts its annual conference today, I am sure a lot of party activists and Members of Parliament will wonder how they can deal with the threat posed by the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP).
The UKIP pushed the Tories into a miserable fourth place in last week’s parliamentary by-election in Hartlepool, a seat vacated after disgraced former Cabinet Minister, Peter Mandelson, went off to Brussels for a cushy job in the EU (no doubt a place well suited to his talents).
UKIP has reversed its policy of not standing in election contests against euro-sceptic Tories. This looks like quite a calculated gamble to me. It means they have gone from being a bunch of slightly eccentric nuisances, as far as the chattering classes are concerned, to something a bit more serious.
The Tories to my mind have lost their bearings in the last six months. The decision by leader Michael Howard to flirt with Bush-bashing anti-Americanism, even to the point of letting colleagues work for the wretched John Kerry, looks like an act of supreme folly. But closer to home, the European issue remains the one the Tories have to get right if they want to survive as a serious political force.
It is going to be an interesting week for the Tories. And I am also looking forward to how the conference is covered by the blogs.
What the reversal of that “don’t run against eurosceptics” policy means: they don’t anymore consider themselves to be a single issue party.
For the next election, it looks like there could be a hung parliament…
As the months pass it will be interesting to see if any Eurosceptic Tory MPs decide to join the groundswell and transfer their allegiance to UKIP which might benefit from the additions to their ranks of a few professional politicians. Next year’s election should prove very interesting – if UKIP’s support continues to grow, that could be the demise of the Conservative Party.
The downside is that Robert Kilroy-Silk seems to want to take the party over completely (and is claiming that it was offered to him). Despite wanting to get out of the EU, he seems far from libertarian. Am I the only one who’s found UKIP dramatically less appealing since Kilroy became involved?
For a brilliant exposition on this situation re the Conservatives and UKIP, go to Airstrip One and read Sean Gabb’s post which absolutely sparkles with clarity and intelligent deduction.
I think the problem with the Conservative Party is the disconnection between the pompous self-regarding MPs (soft on Europe), and the gritty activists who actually knock on doors come rain or shine (hard on Europe).
The activists voted for Iain Duncan Smith, and although the conceited Big-Media opinion columnists (mainly Labour luvvies) and “bed-blocker” Tory MPs who date from the Heathite “management of decline” days thought they knew better, a year later things are no better, and possibly worse.
Although IDS wasn’t a natural lawyer and completely unsuited to verbal jousting, he was solid in his beliefs on resisting Europe and genuine social justice that doesn’t depend on the Nanny State.
But what does Michael Howard really believe in, give the wishy-washy pronouncements on tax, etc, we’ve heard lately.
So, by slinging out the leader that the party-at-large backed, the MPs have lost their main weapon against the UKIP and blunted their main weapon against the perceived social harshness that puts many women off the Tories.
I think the only way the Tories can kill off UKIP’s threat is for the Tory leadership to state that the local associations have the authority to adopt an uncompromising “UK Independence” policy on Europe if they believe it will secure them more votes – but be expected to resign if the votes secured turn out lower than 2001.
By all logic, UKIP ought to stand their candidate down in such a constituency (or perhaps if their candidate is an ex-Tory MP) insist that their candidate be the Tory candidate.
I think the problem with the Conservative Party is the disconnection between the pompous self-regarding MPs (soft on Europe), and the gritty activists who actually knock on doors come rain or shine (hard on Europe).
The activists voted for Iain Duncan Smith, and although the conceited Big-Media opinion columnists (mainly Labour luvvies) and “bed-blocker” Tory MPs who date from the Heathite “management of decline” days thought they knew better, a year later things are no better, and possibly worse.
Although IDS wasn’t a natural lawyer and completely unsuited to verbal jousting, he was solid in his beliefs on resisting Europe and genuine social justice that doesn’t depend on the Nanny State.
But what does Michael Howard really believe in, give the wishy-washy pronouncements on tax, etc, we’ve heard lately.
So, by slinging out the leader that the party-at-large backed, the MPs have lost their main weapon against the UKIP and blunted their main weapon against the perceived social harshness that puts many women off the Tories.
I think the only way the Tories can kill off UKIP’s threat is for the Tory leadership to state that the local associations have the authority to adopt an uncompromising “UK Independence” policy on Europe if they believe it will secure them more votes – but be expected to resign if the votes secured turn out lower than 2001.
By all logic, UKIP ought to stand their candidate down in such a constituency (or perhaps if their candidate is an ex-Tory MP) insist that their candidate be the Tory candidate.
[quote]Despite wanting to get out of the EU, he seems far from libertarian. Am I the only one who’s found UKIP dramatically less appealing since Kilroy became involved?[/quote]
Wanting to get out of the EU and being libertarian seem somehow logically identified, by a lot of posters here.
I guess it makes sense. Many Libertarians seem to want to get out of (….whichever state they are posting from….) into some sort of individualistic/anarchistic society. Thing is, analyse the membership of the UKIP and they seem to be a white, middle-class, well-off, Daily Mail-reading, reactionary, ultra-Tory constituency. How are such people sympathetic to libertarian principles…?
Or does EU-hate override such considerations?
Sorry for the double-posting, but if the Samizdata server didn’t take so long to receive and accept messages, I wouldn’t have thought it had crashed, and not re-sent…
Ron: UKIP has more policies than just anti-EU. So no, it made the right decision NOT to stand aside on behalf of anti-EU Tories, who don’t share those other policies.
Besides, who’d trust the Tory party to keep their word?
RKS is essentially a moderate socialist in economic terms and either a nationalist or simply an opportunist in strategic terms. He is not without appeal in certain quarters, even if it is a somewhat populist appeal, and he certainly knows about dealing with the media. I have said before, and doubtless will have cause to say again, that all this country needs to experience radical change is a popular (or populist) leader of sufficient charisma. RKS has the potential to be this leader, but that doesn’t mean he’ll actually do it.
Having said that, it doesn’t seem likely that a UKIP economic policy would be much different from the current offerings of the barely-distinguishable Labour or Conservative parties. Withdrawal from the EU could provide a significant boost to the economy, but only if the tangible problems the EU causes (excessive petty regulation and higher than necessary taxation) were removed, and it’s by no means certain that would happen. More likely, you will see the regulation remain
(necessary for exporting into EU, will be the excuse), and the higher than necessary taxation will also remain but instead of being spent on the EU it will go welfare and health care. This is not necessarily economically wise, and won’t cure any real problems.
However, getting out of the EU or alternatively radically reforming the nature of it could be a good first step towards improving the general situation. There is never going to be a mainstream libertarian party in this country, not least because practical libertarianism seems to be defined by what it opposes rather than any specific set of politically practical policies it proposes, so it might be a good idea if those of a libertarian bent accepted that whilst one slice of bread isn’t the whole loaf, it’s a lot better than starving.
EG
Julian,
Good point – but since most UKIP supporters are ex-Tories the policies are actually what most grass-roots Tories would be fairly happy with.
If the UKIP insisted that an ex-Tory MP or councillor candidate of theirs became the alliance candidate, they could be pretty sure on the trust issue.
(PS – sysop – please feel free to delete my duplicate posting and subsequent comment about the Samizdata server – which seems to accept messages quickly but always take 2 or 3 minutes to refresh the comment window on my screen having posted the message).
Or does EU-hate override such considerations?
Yes.
Well, that’s a refreshing breath of honesty, David. LOL
thomasd wonders:
“Am I the only one who’s found UKIP dramatically less appealing since Kilroy became involved?”
I doubt it – I certainly fall in that category. There’s something about RKS that triggers my alarm bells.
On the one hand, clearly RKS can raise the UKIP’s profile way above the level it would naturally reach without him.
On the other hand, if there is ‘something of the night’ about Michael Howard, there is ‘something of the bunker’ about RKS.
G Cooper – well, hmmmm. I mean, he didn’t join the BNP, did he?
I am not disagreeing with you, but perhaps this personality is what Britain needs just now to pull it out of its strange, drugged lethargy. Leaders don’t have to be nice. They just have to be effective. RKS could be the man we were talking about on another thread about a week ago. The leader who is tuned in to the roiling discontent – on many issues – just below the surface of British life and just waiting to be given a channel to gush into.
This could be the filip that Britain needs to jump-start it into saving itself from euro collectivism and the Gramscians in the nick of time.
There’s something about RKS that triggers my alarm bells.
Of course there is, the man’s a socialist at heart. Europhobia crosses party lines, so get used to being bedfellows with some strange types, and RKS certainly falls into that category. As for making him the ‘Leader’, – well that would be the first mistake….
The Tories deserve all of the ridicule and contempt that is heaped upon them, that they are called ‘the Right’, politically speaking is demonstrably incorrect, they just offer an alternative, and inferior version, of socialism, slightly more corporate leaning than than NU-Labour’s welfare slanted version. But then, as always, there is only a semantic difference between socialism and fascism, – they are both birds of the same species, with but a few different coloured feathers to separate them.
Sean Gabb’s article mentioned in a comment above, sums it all up very concisely, they say one thing, and then either neglect, or ignore it. In hindsight they really are the definitive hypocrite, – not quite lying, but achieving the same effect by ‘going vague’ when the subject gets in any way contentious.
I find them to be generally no more than a bunch of egocentric, pretentious buffoons, without an original idea between them. The sooner they go, the better, to leave the field clear for the birth of a truly alternative party.
To recover from their present sorry state, they would need a miracle along the lines of that performed on Lazarus…
In some US states, a person can stand for election nominated or endorsed by several parties. For example, New York has a Conservative Party and a Liberal Party. These parties occasionally run candidates, but often they endorse the candidate best representing their views.
In the UK, for example, if someone stands for election from some portion of Wessex, may he stand both as a Conservative and as a UKIPer, or must he choose one or the other?
– Josh
The Tories have lost their bearings in the last six months? I don’t think they’ve had any since Thatcher was pushed out. They don’t have any principles or philosophy any more. They remind me of the current craze of wannabe celebrities – not for any kind of talent (principled beliefs) but merely because they want to be famous. So they will propose anything that might win them popularity as long as it isn’t too radical. They have no interest in anything but have all their attention on trying to be interesting to the voters.
Verity writes:
” …well, hmmmm. I mean, he didn’t join the BNP, did he?”
I know, I know… and you are right, of course. But in a sense, that is the kernel of what worries me. He would never have joined the BNP (even had he agreed with their views) because what he wants is power – and that he could never have wearing a BNP rosette.
“RKS could be the man we were talking about on another thread about a week ago. The leader who is tuned in to the roiling discontent – on many issues – just below the surface of British life and just waiting to be given a channel to gush into.”
Yes again, I agree and that thread popped into my mind when I posted. But the point Ernest Young makes about RKS’s essential socialism isn’t wrong, either.
As you suggest, RKS could be the very thing we need in the UK – a charismatic figure the gormless floating voters can support because he has woken them from the spell cast by that slick sorcerer of bland vacuousness, Bliar. Then again, his instability and showmanship – the very qualities that make him relevant at all – could be the very things that destroy our last chance to defeat the federalist, statist hell that is creeping across this country like paralysing fog.
I suppose what I am saying is that what makes RKS potentially great, makes him, equally, dangerous. And while that is probably true of all great politicians, I just have an instinct that he is closer to the edge than most.
Wild Pegasus,
In the UK, for example, if someone stands for election from some portion of Wessex, may he stand both as a Conservative and as a UKIPer, or must he choose one or the other?
In Britain, you vote for the candidate not the party. Hence, if you vote for someone standing for the Conservative Party and he subsequently defects to Labour, you have yourself a Labour MP.
A candidate may wish to represent both Tories and UKIP but neither party would ever allow that. He/she would have to choose (not to mentioned getting the party of their choice to agree to let them stand for election).
I think most commenters here have deluded themselves with the possibilities that UKIP provides. The “outside the mainstream concensus circus” attraction it holds at the moment is too weak IMHO to hold it together given the infighting that will take place
given Kilroy-Silk’s desire to become leader. It will simply devour itself with factional in-fighting,
becoming a fringe fringe-party.
The Tories for all their weakness do have a greater structure and also professional politicians
allowing them to ride out the UKIP storm although weakened by them. Of the two it will be UKIP that goes under first.
In Britain, you vote for the candidate not the party. Hence, if you vote for someone standing for the Conservative Party and he subsequently defects to Labour, you have yourself a Labour MP.
That’s what they tell you. What actually happens is that you vote for the man at election time, and when he gets elected he then becomes the property of ‘the Party’, and has to answer to ‘the Whip’, so all you are really voting for at election time is some Party hack who owns a suit, and not the man who espoused some great ideas in the Election run-up. So much for the debate between on having a ‘proactive’, or a ‘reactive’ candidate. It doesn’t matter – the Party rules all!
You delude yourself if you think you are voting for anything other than the Party machine, with all that entails, – stale ideas, cliched rhetoric, self- publicity, and more of the ‘same old, same old’ brand of mindless pandering that the Tories are so good at!
The ousting of Thatcher was the Tories version of Hari-Kari, the Heath – Hesseltine clique, with their little ‘grey man’ Major, have seen to it that we will never see another Tory Government, – thank the Lord!…
Their successor(s), may not be the UKIP, but at least they will be visibly different from either Labour or Tory, – or Liberal for that matter, after all there just isn’t enough money in the welfare kitty to bribe all of the electorate to vote socialist…
As they say “Time for a change”, not just of party, but of political thinking and action…
ernest young,
In practice, you are quite right. I was merely explaining to our friend from the USA how it works in principle.
G Cooper – Again, I understand your responses and almost partly agree – yet there are assumptions I don’t entirely agree with.
Does RKS lean towards socialism? The Labour Party’s what got him into Parliament, but this could simply have been a strategical move on his part. He doesn’t seem to have a bee in his bonnet about capitalism.
And his TV show, which I’ve seen twice, was produced for people who are at home and watch daytime TV. Not merchant bankers and QCs.
I’m not sure why you say he’s unstable. It could be something I know nothing about, not being in Britain. But you can’t condemn a politician for showmanship.
Cometh the hour, etc … He doesn’t have to be Richard the Lionheart. He may be the right man in today’s Britain to weld together all the unease, the vague sense of grievance that things have been taken away from them that they haven’t bothered to understand, the sense that they’ve been tricked and left poorer, that they’ve been diminished by sleights of hand they now resent, and they’re being led by a ring through their noses to adhere to rules that are, they sense, antithetical to their history and their best interests.
RKS may be the man of the hour, and two years ago, before Trevor Phillips’ foolish push for glory, who wudda thunk it?
Sorry – didn’t mean to argue with you or split hairs, just got into a stinky mood when I was reminded that it really is the Tories fault, (largely by default and ineptitude), for most of the ills which have befallen the UK in the past thirty or so years… they really are quite abysmal!..
What a joy it must be to have opponents who are so generous as to give you a three lap start in a four lap race… and them in wheelchairs too!
Thanks.
– Josh
Going back to what John Ellis asked earlier: “does EU-hate override such considerations?”
On my part, it’s not hate. It’s my considered opinion.
I say: the EU is all of unnecessary, bad, and inherently predisposed to become worse. There is absolutely no good reason for its existence. Governments can do diplomacy through ambassadors. They can pledge mutual friendship via alliances. Free trade and open borders can be set up with a simple one-page treaty. International law can be maintained via treaties and extradition. For all these things there is no need for a council, a parliament, a court, or any of the other EU nonsense and folderol.
The EU’s real roles are: parasitism, technocracy, junkets, and a gradual ramping up towards international belligerence.
It does nothing good.
Very nearly anything that pulls us out of the EU is better than staying put. If it shatters the EU in the process, even better. Speaking ith cold pragmatism, it doesn’t really matter how much of a domestic mess is made, because domestic mess is so much easier to fix later.
If I didn’t think that UKIP was a single-issue party I would leave it and stop voting for it. The role of UKIP is to demonstrate that a withdrawl policy is worth at least 15-20% of the vote to any party that adopts it. Being taken seriously as a real party might increase its vote but would decrease its influence, as the vote it achieves can no longer be attributed to a single policy.
I’m uncomfortable with RKS, but that’s probably just snobbery on my part. It takes something out of the ordinary to attract people to vote for a fringe single-issue part, and a media-friendly frontman does fit the bill.
I agree with Bernie and Ernest Young. The Conservatives have had their day.
A party founded on a concept as ridiculous as conservatism will never take us forward. I truly hope the Tories get smashed at the election, and all those feeble power-hungry lifetime politicians would just f*** off.
Then maybe a truly radical party would rise in its place.
And a party founded upon the imbecilic notions of equality under socialism, where some inane failed barrister and his authoritarian cronies believe that they are more equal than others, is a better system?
Another thought: the whole Kilroy-Silk leadership thing might be a publicity stunt in its own right. After all, if you want to be a proper party with TV coverage, you have to have endless rumours and bickering about who should be leader….
It’s a tradition, or an old charter, or something.
It would be a mistake to equate public UKIP support exclusively with public Euro-hatred – there’s also a large ‘at least they’re not Labour and/or Tory bastards’ vote.
It would also be a mistake to assume that UKIP growth means the Tories should move further to the right on non-EU issues. I did some analysis of the parties’ platforms last year, and found that the UKIP platform was more socially liberal than the Conservative platform.
Don’t vote for them either.
The end of conservatism is a necessary step on the path to freedom. The sooner it happens the better.
Julian M:
“Free trade and open borders can be set up with a simple one-page treaty”
Why do you need a treaty? If you want free trade and open borders, you just scrap tariffs and open your borders. The Victorians did just that and it did them no harm. No treaty required.
What Julian Morrison said.
Also, what Julian Taylor said.
(BTW, Julian Taylor, there’s more to the inane Tony Blair than just being a failed barrister. He’s also a failed rock star. And his wife is also a failed barrister. She does “human rights”. In other words, she doesn’t compete in the real world of barristers. She practises pretend law.)
RKS is articulate, he is media savvy and he’s comfortable in front of the camera, unlike Tony Blair who always looks furtive and eager to impress, he’s a familiar name and he appeals to a great mass of people who watched his show and always judged him “fair”.
They know he shares their concerns about large scale immigration and was victimised by Trevor Philips for writing a politically incorrect – although perfectly legal – article. They know he holds the EU in contempt and cuts straight through the Labour and Tory BS on it, and they intuit he shares their worries that Britain has become the most lawless country in the Western world and no one in the government will acknowledge it.
They go overseas and see transport systems that work cleanly and efficiently. Then they come home to a ramshackle, overcrowded, filthy system in Britain. They know that their children’s education, in the state sector, has been degraded to the point where their exam marks mean nothing and they would be unable to compete with same year students on the continent or Asia.
I don’t think they give a stuff either way about fox hunting, but I do think they resent Blair using his office to ramrod his bill through on a non-issue when the country is awash with real issues, most of them impacting urgently on their daily lives.
I think he has the same voter appeal that Schwarzenegger has in California. He’s not in politics to get rich and famous.
We’ll see, but I have a feeling that a lot of issues will begin coagulating around this candidacy.
The end of conservatism is a necessary step on the path to freedom. The sooner it happens the better.
I’m not so sure. A true conservative party would seek to preserve the liberties that have been fought for the last 800 years. If the Conservatives were talking about classic English liberty and how it is important to preserve them, they would be powerful allies for libertarians.
– Josh
Verity, you say:
(BTW, Julian Taylor, there’s more to the inane Tony Blair than just being a failed barrister. He’s also a failed rock star. And his wife is also a failed barrister. She does “human rights”. In other words, she doesn’t compete in the real world of barristers. She practises pretend law.)
1) I think calling dear Tone a “failure” is a bit rich. He is PM of our little country, after all. There is no greater political office he can attain in the UK. He put his legal career on hold to concentrate on politics, like so many of our MPs for the last 150 years.
2) As for Cherie – well I reckon you can be as rude about her as you like! The bloody woman seems to be trying to become a British First Lady, salaried by the state, in addition to her vacuous but oh-so-well-remumerated legal practice.
3) RKS strikes me as more than faintly satanic, both in the way he looks and the way he sounds. However, that is not a very rational political critique, so I would say this: RKS seems even more heavily reliant upon Personality Politics than Blair. Blair too, was reckoned “articulate, … media savvy and … comfortable in front of the camera”. It has taken the country 7 years to see through Blair, lets’ not encourage another snake oil salesman….
My suspicion is the UKIP may be about to have another go at tearing itself to bits. (Remember Alan Sked?)
Kilroy-Silk is a slimy populist with much more in common with TB than either would care to admit, but I also detect a touch of the David Ickes about him. There’s a greed for fame rather than real power that’s disconcerting in a politician. (He certainly doesn’t need the money.)
That is a poor fit with my understanding of the UKIP, which, tho’ it contains a lot of odd remnants, to be sure, like all parties, is in principle a market conservative enterprise rather than an authoritarian one. So it could go in any direction at all with such a big loose canon aboard.
What effect it has depends both on the direction it takes, and the strategic choices taken by the Conservatives. If the latter insists on strengthening Blair by me-tooing the crime and security theme, while continuing vague on the EU to avoid waking the dinosaurs, then UKIP could take a big bite, as once it is clear the Tories are losing badly the otherwise un-committed Euroskeptics of every stripe have no reason not to peel off. Even a stronger, braver European position won’t stop that if the rest of the Conservative strategy is weak.
Guy Herbert, I do not understand why the Tories are so frightened to see off Blair – except they fear the media. The vapid lefty Rachel Sylvester wrote in The Telegraph yesterday: “… most people believe the Conservatives are way to the right of them” and she thoughtfully urges the Tory leader “to persuade the British that he is of the centre”. I cannot imagine one person believing the Tories are on the right on anything. I think believing that they’d made it to the centre would be pushing credulity a bit.
John Ellis – I don’t agree with your basic premises.
In advance, I know this is going to sound absurd, but I think that if Blair hadn’t become prime minister of Britain, he would have been pretty much, given his ambition, a failure – an obscure barrister taking state-funded cases and never distinguishing himself in any way. His wife would have been similarly employed, as indeed she is now, except without the crutch of the ‘Human Rights Act’ her husband rammed through Parliament.
He got the position of prime minister through a freak set of sliding doors.
When the over-mighty Trevor Philips overstepped himself, I followed the story more out of a gut dislike of Philips than any interest in Kilroy-Silk. But what came out in the story was, his large viewership all expressed the opinion that his show was always “fair” and that he scrupulously always presented both sides of a case.
Now, that is a good reputation to have with a large swathe of the public, and it will have been noted by other large swathes of the public who were only dimly aware of him before.
I can sense a coalescence of the electorate’s concerns swirling around RKS, and I believe he is more driven by a set of beliefs than is Blair – although I don’t know, of course. If his candidacy (if it happens) serves to arouse the electorate from their dangerous lethargy and focus their attention on Britain’s diminishing liberties, the thought police and other arrogant socialist/Gramscian fantasies, then he will have done a good job. If UKIP damages the Tory party in passing, well, that’s politics.
Verity, nice try, but to be honest I don’t see how Blair is a failure. He is PM of Britain, fcrissakes and has been so for rather a while. Putting aside my own dislike of the man, I have to concede that he has been a successful politician.
Yes, Blair got lucky. Luck plays a big part in politics, but also having the guile to exploit that luck is a mark of intelligence.
RKB comes across as a bit of snake-oil salesman. I would not make too much of him.
Josh/Wild Pegasus
Perhaps its the wild colonial in me, but I really don’t give two hoots about English traditions. In fact, overcoming all that pompous nonsense is one reason I want the pompous Tories to go away.
What difference does it make if a tradition has been around 1000 years or a million, it’s only worth retaining if it holds up to logic.
Liberty has to be a growing, passionate and radical system – qualities that are all antithetical to conservatism.
Verity:
I think that if Blair hadn’t become prime minister of Britain, he would have been pretty much, given his ambition, a failure
And if my aunt had balls, she’d be my uncle.
Jonathan – John Major was prime minister of Britain. Jimmy Carter was president of the United States, fcrissakes. Grossly incompetent, inadequate people can slip in through the sliding doors when circumstances are right. (Or, from our point of view, wrong.)
Jonathan Pearce’s comment about Peter Mandelson prompted me to do some research, and I came across a Telegraph article suggesting he is at least annoying the right people:
The fear is that global free trade will force privatisation of the French state-run sector by opening services to unbridled competition.
Oh, pulleeeeze! Three years ago, the EU told the French government they’d have to introduce competition into the electricity and gas (as in heating and cooking, for Americans) industry as they are both owned by one big state company. The first steps were supposed to have been taken by the summer of 2003 and competition introduced by 2004.
Right. The French public would love to see some competition in this overpriced industry. But ministers went on TV to explain, with all the pompous gravity of someone reading off the tablets Moses had just placed in front of them, why this could not be. For Sylvain and the Dissident, these always took place on that programme whose set looks like the club car of a train for some chic French reason.
What is boiled down to was, EDF and GDE have such vast pension commitments that there is no way the company can afford to lose one thin penny in revenue between now and, oh, forever. Unless they continue to get their extortionate rates, and refuse the customer the option of taking her/his business elsewhere, they won’t be able to meet their generous retirement (55) and pension commitments.
Large hint and nudge in the ribs, Mandelson’s presence isn’t going to make a blind bit of difference in Brussels and it will take him around, oh, five seconds (I’m sure it’s already happened) for him to a strange affinity with life in the five star restaurants of Brussels and Strasbourg and the first class lounges of Europe’s overpriced (those pensions, you know) airlines.
Back to the central subject of UKIP:
Millionaire backer drops UKIP
and
Kilroy’s ego loses UKIP its £1 million sponsor
and
Blow to UKIP as key backer withdraws support
and
UKIP backer stops cash
Verity: “I cannot imagine one person believing the Tories are on the right on anything. I think believing that they’d made it to the centre would be pushing credulity a bit.”
Then I fear too much Samizdata has caused you to lose touch with reality. The left/right description is much less a meaningful one than ever it was, but it is one that people and pollsters continue to use in Britain, because no more sophisticated model has got currency outside professional political and marketing circles. Within that model, many people actually do believe the Tories are “to the right of them”. And most of those people are going on that model to be well to the left of centre from Verity’s perspective of that scale. The Tories are indeed to the “right” of much of the population, even though they are well to the “left” of Verity. Hell, I’m well to the “left” of Verity if you project mutlidimensional attitudes onto a traditionalist-radical axis; but I’m off-the-scale “right” in the normal British political spectrum as an economic individualist.
Re Paul Sykes — it seems he takes the same position as I do. UKIP is either a single-issue party, or it is an even more amateurish and incompetent Conservative Party, that just happens to have a better policy on one issue.
The correct strategy is to blackmail the Tories, not to replace them.
The loss of Sykes’s funding will be a blow, but less of one than alienating the broad anti-EU electorate. This will not happen suddenly, but it will reinforce itself. Every policy the party takes will push off a few who can’t stomach it, and leave the party more clustered around one particular political position.
Tim,
I agree that “we’ve always done it this way!” is a bad logical argument, but politics isn’t about logic. If the Conservatives could ignite an English passion for their heritage of liberty, they would be powerful allies, even if they fail University Logic.
– Josh, wild colonial
What on earth does that mean? Attack the one party that has the closest views to UKIP’s ones, and then blackmail them? Forgive me for maybe being dim, but I was under the impression that UKIP’s stated policy was for withdrawal from Europe and the repeal of the 1972 European Communities Act with a little bit of closed border legislation thrown in. Instead of which it now seems to be ‘lets get onto the European Parliament gravy train, attack anyone in the Conservative Party who doesn’t agree with our vague policies’.
I would illustrate the ‘vague policies’ remark with this [LINK] little gem from their manifesto,
Julian: Your example is a good one. Every policy — like that one — that is not to do with leaving the EU weakens UKIP.
As far as “the one party that has the closest views to UKIP’s ones” goes, the track record of the Tories is to talk moderately tough, but get swept along with the EU tide when in power.
If the policy commitments to avoiding the Euro and the new Constitution are enough for you, then vote Tory. A vote for UKIP is a signal that the Tories haven’t yet gone far enough. That is what I mean by blackmailing them. If the Tories (or Labour for that matter, to be logically consistent) were to adopt a policy of withdrawing from the EU, UKIP ought to pack up and go home. Unfortunately the activists in UKIP are getting carried away with the idea of being a political party.
An informed view of UKIP from Richard North:
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2004/06/they-still-dont-get-it.html