Is the UKIP really a single issue party any more? I have been asking that question for a few months now and I keep being pleasantly surprised by the answer. Sure, I am all for getting out of the EU but that does not change the fact that the biggest threat to the liberty of British people is very much home grown. Just ditching the EU is not enough, not by a long shot.
However more and more the UKIP seems to be sounding more than just a single drum beat… their latest satirical offering on the web is not just about the €uro-nanny superstate but rather just about the nanny state in all its forms and its message is overtly anti-Big Government… and not just Big Government from Brussels, the tag-line “Big Government needs little Hitlers”. Outstanding.
It would appear their slogan of It’s time we governed ourselves! means not just independence from the corrupt political machine in Brussels but time we as individuals had more ability to govern our own private affairs without domestic nanny-states and nanny-super-states alike regulating every aspect of life.
I may not agree with all their platform but more and more frequently they are putting out messages I can get behind without any problem at all.
If they want to be taken seriously as more than just a single issue party surely they will have to change their name.
UKIP are rather xenophobic nationalists. I can’t stand them.
No sweeping generalizations there then.
They haven’t been single issue for a while, but haven’t had the budget to really spread the message.
Have a read of their detailed policy papers on tax and education.
They are also the only party to embrace a real equality agenda (ie treat everyone the same without positive discrimination), and have an internationalist outlook.
In short, Michael is talking out of his arse.
The reason many people have the impression that UKIP are xenophobic nationalists is because of their portrayal in the media. Kilroy did not help their cause all that much, at the time it seemed that a policy of ‘no publicity=bad publicity’ was in force. I’m not saying that there are not aspects of their politics which I find deeply distasteful but that could be said of all the other parties aswell.
Personally I would do away with all political parties, but as thats not going to happen if there was an election tomorrow UKIP are the closest to persuading me to vote.
UKIP’s deputy leader and head of policy development is David Campbell Bannerman, descendent of a former Liberal Prime Minster. His calm, intelligent balance of views work well with Nigel, and really give us real hope for the future.
The party is currently inviting contributions to its working groups for policy development across the domestic agenda.
UKIP is also the only mainstream party to oppose any extension to the state funding of political parties, which shows its commitment to small government and value for money for taxpayers.
There is a massive amount to do, but UKIP really are trying to offer a different choice, with a real commitment to a low taxes and small government.
Sigh,
UKIP offered me the chance to run in Streatham in the 1997 election, I think I was the only party member in the constituency at the time, and I have always regretted that I failed to do so.
UKIP is indeed saddled with an off-putting name, £ logo and retina-busting colour scheme. Lets hope Nigel Farage (unfortunate initials) can sort out some of these issues and get better content quality on youTube.
Recently they have been putting out good ideas and systematically putting blue water between themselves, the Tories, the Blatantly Nazi Party§ and the BNP. Flat tax is one – sensibly, near-zero impact. The education paper is still on my reading list so I shall not comment on that, but they have made interesting noises.
If they adopt a Swiss style health funding/structure/reg environment then that would make me happy also, as that breaks much of the state monopoly.
My least worst option, which is about as much as anyone should reasonably expect.
§ NueArbeit Macht Frei.
>> £ logo > Swiss style health funding/structure>> £ logo > Swiss style health funding/structure< I hope so too. Nigel has raised a medical insurance approach a couple of times, so this is clearly on the table. This would really bring in a self-responsibility element and enable smaller government, as people, for example coulf require an annual check-up where obesity, smoking etc remains their choice, but they will have to meet the increases premiums. That would be refreshing break from the current nanny-state approach. I'm split on the name issue though. 'The libertarian party' fits well enough imho, but part of UKIP's appeal to me is that it is not getting drawn into a superficial beauty contest with the other parties and is instead focussing on winning the debate on the tougher issues.
The UKIP should shorten its name to the Independence Party. The abbreviation IP has a more modern, energetic sound than UKIP, which sounds like some obscure trade union.
More importantly, it would allow the party to give all aspects of its policy and presentation a single unifying theme. In foreign policy, independence from the EU as an outward-looking trading nation. In domestic policy, freedom and independence from big government for the citizen. In campaigning, slogans like “choose freedom, choose Independence”.
Chad I agree with your take on UKIP. They are trying to spread their message but the MSM always like to portray them as the “pleasant face of the BNP” which Tories, to their absolute discredit, have been known to ape.
David Campbell Bannerman was late of the Bow Group (chairman) and is a sensible intelligent chap. I have it on excellent authority that he is steering the party to a more libertarian outlook as to attract disaffected “Thatchers children” who are fed up with the neo-paternalism of Cameron & his ilk.
I’m always amazed at the BNP smear, considering the BNP want a state-run economy “economic nationalists – 2005 manifesto” which is about as far to the other end of the spectrum to UKIP’s small gov aims, but then we know those who say this are not seeking to do anything but prevent UKIP from getting out its full message.
The BNP are an authoritarian-left party, and UKIP a libertarian right. They both have a “right wing” element but on different scales (BNP socially, UKIP economically). So to call them both “right wing” is a very deceptive twist on the truth.
DCB focussed on the theme of “independence” during his election campaign, and it is something that I believe Nigel is considering.
As I said before, of course there are better names, I just think there are much more important things to spend our limited time and resources on.
What is really refreshing about UKIP for me is that it means and believes in what it espouses. You might not agree with the full party manifesto but you know the values are solid and heartfelt, and not some temporary electoral strategy like other parties.
The broadcast media are ruthless. On last week’s “Any Questions” I heard Lord Putman talk about “Nick Griffin and Nigel Farage” as if they were members of the same political party – almost needless to say none of the other people on the show pulled him up about it (this is one of many examples where the media try to smear the U.K.I.P. as racialists).
“Libertarian party” would not work, because whilst most U.K.I.P. people want a smaller government they do not accept going right down to what libertarians would want.
“Indepenence party” would imply that the U.K.I.P. had given up on Scotland and Wales (and Ulster) the reason the words “United Kingdom” were put into the name – and this would be a shame.
However, Scotland is just so weird (for example “independence within the European Union” is not considered a contradiction in terms) that a break with it may have to come with it one day. The relationship between the English and Welsh has its difficulties – but the gulf between England (statist though it is) and most of Scotland is much greater.
In Ulster the Unionists tend to be hostile to the E.U., and the S.D.L.P tends to be pro E.U.
Oddly enough S.F.- I.R.A. has its doubts about the E.U.
This is partly because the influence of Marxism is still strong among the various factions of the I.R.A. (and the E.U., whilst statist, is not Marxist) and partly because (unlike the demented Scottish Nationalists) Irish nationalists understand that one can not be independent and controlled by the E.U. at the same time.
As for the Conservatives.
My own M.P. (Kettering) is both the cheapest M.P. in the House (in the sense of taking the least expenses money) and one of the handful of Conservative M.P.s to come out in favour of the United Kingdom
leaving the E.U. – so I will continue to vote for him (should I be alive at the next election). In any case the U.K.I.P. has decided not to put up candidates against M.P.s who pledge to to support the United Kingdom comming out of the E.U.
Oddly it is NON E. U. issues that look like making me break with voting Conservative.
Kettering council (Conservative controlled) is a money wasting joke whose latest idea is a new town hall (for no good reason) I can not vote for such people – even if it does mean “Labour getting in”.
I went to a presentation by Nigel Farage in Garstang earlier this month; it was refreshing to hear a politician speak frankly and honestly for a change. He conformed that UKIP was not a single issue party and it would be making some publicity to this effect early next year. From what I’ve learnt so far it is the nearest we are likely to get to a libertarian-minded party, as distinct from the three hopeless left-wing mainstream parties.
Also, I agree with others that UKIP ought sometime to start downplaying the UK element and focus more on the Independence Party theme.
Incidently, it might logically be more accurate to call the three mainstream parties “single issue” in the sense that they appear content to take 80% of our new legislation off-the-shelf from Brussels. Their involvement with issues important to UK voters is more and more just fiddling about with matters they could have fixed years ago.
From the UKIP website (their 4th reason for leaving the EU):
Now, I might (just about) see some merit in “downgrading” our relationship with Europe from EU to EFTA. However, from the above, that does not seem to strongly feature as UKIP policy.
Have I got this right, or do the words require more knowledge than I bring to bear on this issue just now, let alone the average UK voter?
Serious clarification would be appreciated.
Best regards
Nigel,
Please see my post at Wanabehuman on the costs of the EU (which includes the costs of withdrawal).
DK
Well hello DK. It’s nice to see a side of you without all those bad words.
Thank you for all that stuff on the EU(/EFTA) issue. It reads as self-consistent and not obviously wrong (within my knowledge).
So far, so good; but then I find this link on global warming: yuk, yuk, yuk! [Or is it, or the link, satirical beyond my understanding?]
Well: life’s difficult; you might be right on some things and wrong on others (like the rest of us). I’ll take a Glen Morangie, do the ironing, sleep, and might come back to you.
Best regards
The raison d’être for UKIP is EU withdrawal.
Without this as UKIPs main plank they are nothing.
UKIP has gone for the populist approach poaching policies from high profile protest groups such as No2ID, Countryside Alliance, Taxpayers Alliance etc.
Other policies appear to have been copied from the Conservative 2005 General Election Manifesto.
Of course UKIP can come up with these popular policies becasue they will never actually get an MP or get into power to implement them. (unless we change the electoral system and have proportional representation).
UKIPs next plan is to stoke some Islamaphobia in the hope of some national publicity so they can be seen to be saying something about Muslims.
So you say, yet the whole point I am making is that they have a coherent and manifestly classically liberal broader platform… they are the only party talking about small government, not just no-government-from-Brussels.
… and I assure you all those organisations are delighted. Poaching? Agreeing with a pressure group’s policies is not ‘poaching’, it is called ‘supporting’.
Thanks, I needed cheering up and I have just spent the last few minutes howling with laughter. The notion that the Tory Party under ‘Dave’ Cameron is making rude noises about Big Government is hilarious. ‘Dave’ has been falling over himself to tell us that we will be paying more ‘green taxes’ and be subjected to more, not less, regulations and that the Big Government legacy of Tony Blair is safe with him. He has openly called for redistribution of wealth for Christ’s sake, so the notion the Tory Party has any similarity to UKIP is clearly incorrect in 2006. There is damn little ‘conservative’ and nothing whatsoever ‘classically liberal’ about the Tory Party any more whereas UKIP would seem to be both in spades.
I am sure that is what Liberal Party thought in 1921 as it had been one half of the two party system since 1839. And guess what happened to them in 1922…
Cool. I do that all the time. Islamophobia, that is, though perhaps Islamo-fascist-phobia might be more correct.
Richard,
UKIP’s deputy leader and head of policy, DCB, is the only person in such a position to determine party policy who has embraced the “No Preference, No Prejudice(Link)” approach which simply pledges to treat all Britons equally blind to their age, race, religion, sex or sexuality.
The old Tory lies intended to stop us spreading our message are no longer working, I’m afraid.
I really like what is happening at ukip. A real small government, straight-forward and honest common sense approach.
Remember, Michael Ediae, a passionate Tory activist actually described Cameron’s remarks on the a-list last week as “the most racist thing anyone’s ever said”.
And that’s from his own side!
Concerning the EU/EFTA issue that I raised above, are their any more views on these 2 questions in particular.
(i) Is it UKIP policy to leave the EU but join (or is that remain in) EFTA? Or is it their policy for the UK to be outside of EFTA as well as outside of the EU?
(ii) If the UK “downgraded” from EU to EFTA, what are the most valuable things that are lost? And I mean things somewhat better defined than “ever closer union”?
Best regards
I rather think Muslims are rather good at stoking the fire of anti-Muslim sentiment. Whether it be blowing up 52 innocent people and a large minority of the their community expressing support for it or the protests against free speech we see every so often.
Just because UKIP does not want to participate in the “group think” of the other parties that Islam is a Religion of Peace does not mean they are anti-Islam.
I don’t know what UKIP policy on EFTA is, but if there is a desire to remain in any European trade agreement it would possibly be the EEA (and all the regulation that comes with it) since all EFTA countries bar Switzerland are in it. The other option would be to simply run a national trade policy and either negotiate a bilateral treaty with the EU or rely on WTO rules. Joining what is left of EFTA may technically be an option, I just doubt there is any point in doing that.
UKIP are a breath of fresh air. The Lib Dems are bonkers, the Greens are even more bonkers, Labour are so drunk with their success they have actually decided they are this county’s natural party of government. “Dave” is so star-struck by Labour’s grandstanding that he has decided the only option for the Tories is to copy the Labour blue-print. I have firmly come to the conclusion that “Dave” has not a shred of moral fibre in his being and will do whatever he thinks he needs to do to get in power. What he doesn’t realise is that enough of the electorate are sick to the back teeth with Blairism and want an alternative, not a clone.
“Dave” seems to have spent most of the last x-months cosying up to the greenies and then bang, straight out of left-field he is wittering on about the importance of marriage and the family. Do I detect that he felt he’d spent too much time recently hanging with the Guardianistas and thought it was time to throw a scrap to the Daily Mail reading blue-rinse brigade? Am I being cynical, or is he a just a wanker?
I listened to the podcast of Brian talking to Perry. I guess I now know what a meta-context is but I would never admit to it. Perry didn’t exactly use the word “sexy” but he was damn right to insist Samizdata had to look cool. As someone who knows a little HTML I know a bit about such things and quite frankly, UKIP will keep on looking like a collection of Colonel Blimps to the MSM while they have a website which looks like it was knocked up in a shed. In a shed, on a ZX Spectrum, possibly by that yokel who pannelled Beagle 2 into Mars*. And the colour-scheme defies belief. And that pound sign logo. They paid for that?
*I have never been embarrassed to call myself English until I heard him. We once had Blue Streak and Black Arrow and we ended up with that sodding bloke building things in a shed in Milton Keynes. The spirit of Newton, Maxwell and Dirac has been somewhat diluted of late.
What’s in a name? How about ‘The Freedom Party’
Free from the EU
Free from Big Government
Free to Rule Ourselves
Freedom, however, is not an easy path. It requires self discipline, the acceptance of personal responsibility, freedom to make mistakes and the necessity of accepting the consequencies of our actions – but it is worth it.
NickM: What he doesn’t realise is that enough of the electorate are sick to the back teeth with Blairism and want an alternative, not a clone.
Unfortunately many people do not know what an alternative really is. They have a virus-ridden, clunky Microsoft PC, so they want an alternative and go and get a new soon-to-be-virus-ridden Microsoft PC because that is all they know and “cos me Nan’s always bought one”. Ford UK lives off this mentality.
But, NickM, I totally agree with your assessment of the website. Marketing IS important. Branding DOES matter. People are hard-wired to cleave to winners. People might agree with somebody’s viewpoints, but they want to belong and support the WINNER who has the viewpoints they agree with, the glossy coat and the impression of backing and access to resources. It might be odd, but it would not surprise me if people filter on winner first, then select amongst the potential winners who they will back. I guess this is primeval, as if you are on the losing side you might just get a Tapir jawbone whumped into your noggin.
P.s. Don’t get me started on Blue Streak (simplicity) or I will mention the Rotodyne.
The trouble is they probably got someone kid who is “good with html” instead of spending a few bob on a proper site. T
TimC,
The Fairey Rotodyne. Ah well. How much exactly did the US spend to develop the V-22 Osprey again? And by the way Tim, I haven’t even mentioned TSR-2 or the P1154, or the Avro 730.
1,2,3 (in chorus) Harold bloody Wilson.
Nice thoughts on the psychology of winners. I think you’re right. I’ll just add something. I’m married now but back in the days when I played the field (so to speak) I always seemed to get more girls after me when I was already dating someone. I think this was because I was more likely to be perceived as a winner if I’d already pulled.
Osprey indeed – I wonder how the Rotodyne would perform in Afghanistan, faster and less complex than the Chinook, even, let alone Osprey. Simplicity. Again. By now they would have been beefy enough to be able to drop in heavy armour right where it was needed.
TSR2, P1154. Sandys? They should have listened Jerry Anderson…
Yes. H “B” W. White heat of technology, but not much light.
As Mark Steyn is fond of pointing out, people who rant on about “Islamophobia” are the ones who really suffer from it – i.e. they are afraid of Muslims.
This is really why they oppose an open examination of the theology of Islam, the life of Mohammed and the history of the actions of organised Islam. The “liberal” elite are not pro Muslim – they are just scared of them (i.e. real “Islamophobia”).
The same people who demanded that the taxpayers pay for such things as “piss Christ” (the crucifix in a jar of urine) and denouced resistance to paying for such stuff as “censorship”, oppose printing such things as the Danish cartoons of Mohammed in newspapers. This is not “sensitivity” to religious beliefs (they have nothing but contempt for religion) – this is fear of violence from Muslims.
When confronted with the threat of violence from a large group of people the establisment have shown themselves to be cowards. And they hide their fear (their Islamophobia) behind a lot of “mulitcultural” blather.
As for the U.K.I.P.
I do not think that it should make a big thing of the Islamic issue – there are more important things in the United Kingdom. However, it should (of course) oppose any laws attacking freedom of speech concerning Islam.
UKIP is Bound struggle as what passes for the British are conditioned to voting left Right Left Right Left Right they Can’t tear there selves away from The Tired Trio of Lib Lab Con. It would mean that they had to Think for there selves and leave the Sheep like flock, Right out of there comfort zone