Skip to main content

Farage doesn't have a mask

No surprise that UKIP did well in the local elections. It was anticipated. It would be wrong to dismiss it as a 'simple' protest vote - something is afoot. Old party loyalties are being broken. What is striking is how easy it has been for Tory voters to switch to UKIP. The worry for Cameron is that, according to a YouGov survey so many of them will not return for the general election next year - well we will see.

Labour should be worried too but their result in the local elections has been better than many had thought in large part because they did well in London where UKIP did badly. On the basis of the local election results, and that should always be treated with caution, the Lib Dems would lose about 20 seats in the general election - hardly the stuff of what Nick Clegg likes to call 'a party of government'.

Nick Clegg has said that Nigel Farage's 'Mask has slipped'. Frankly Farage doesn't have a mask which is why he is appealing to voters who believe that politicians don't tell it straight. And even if he does and the mask slips the problem for the Tories, Lib Dems and Labour is that too many voters like what they see.

UKIP is tapping into some genuinely felt discontent. Unless the main parties address that then normal politics won't be resumed for some time, even supposing it would be a good thing.

Essentially Farage and UKIP are in a win-win situation. If they are dismissed as racist then it appeals to a deeply felt concern that immigration is challenging local communities and identities. The reality of statistics doesn't make any difference. If people feel 'threatened' there is no point in telling them they have nothing to fear. It simply adds to the feeling of disconnection of politicians at Westminster.

For many 'multiculturalism' is synonymous with their own communities and culture being challenged. They feel 'swamped' whether it is statistically correct or not. In politics 'feeling' matters.This is why Farage's use of statistics works no matter how barmy. If people feel there is a 'threat' from massive EU migration then that is what they feel and frankly they don't believe it when they are told they are wrong. This is one reason why Farage bested Clegg in the debates - statistics were irrelevant and Mr Farage knows it. When he said that over 400 million EU citizens could move to the UK he was strictly speaking correct no matter how absurd the notion that they would. What people are concerned about is that they could not that they necessarily would - and there you have the conundrum for Cameron, Clegg and Milliband. Many people feel that the UK is 'an overcrowded island' and that immigration is a problem. It isn't easy to persuade them otherwise when their children cannot afford to buy a home.

The left in British politics need to square the circle. It can't go on ignoring the issues. But the key question is how - that is not easy to answer!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Ian Duncan-Smith says he wants to make those on benefits 'better people'!

By any account, the government's austerity strategy is utilitarian. It justifies its approach by the presumed potential ends. It's objective is to cut the deficit, but it has also adopted another objective which is specifically targeted. It seeks to drive people off benefits and 'back to work'.  The two together are toxic to the poorest in society. Those least able to cope are the most affected by the cuts in benefits and the loss of services.

It is the coupling of these two strategic aims that make their policies ethically questionable. For, by combining the two, slashing the value of benefits to make budget savings while also changing the benefits system, the highest burden falls on a specific group, those dependent on benefits. For the greater good of the majority, a minority group, those on benefits, are being sacrificed; sacrificed on the altar of austerity. And they are being sacrificed in part so that others may be spared.

Utilitarian ethics considers the balan…

Keir Starmer has a lot to offer

The Labour Party is in the process of making a decision that will decide whether it can recover from the defeat in 2019 General Election.  All the candidates have much to offer and are making their case well.

No doubt for some the decision will be difficult.  Others may well have made up their minds on the simple binary of Left-wing-Right-wing.

The choice should be whoever is best placed to pull the party together.  Someone who can form a front bench of all talents and across the spectrum in the party.

That is what Harold Wilson did in the 1960s.  His government included Roy Jenkins on the right and Barbar Castle on the left; it included Crossman and Crossland, and Tony Benn with Jim Callaghan.  It presented a formidable team.

Keir Starmer brings to the top table a formidable career outside politics, having been a human rights lawyer and then Director of Public Prosecutions.   He is a man of integrity and commitment who believes in a fairer society where opportunities are more widel…

No evidence for vaccine link with autism

Public health bodies are worried that an alarming drop in childhood vaccinations is leading to a resurgence of diseases in childhood that we had all but eradicated.  Misinformation and scare stories about the harmful effects of vaccines abound on the internet and in social media.  Where they are based on 'science', it is highly selective, and often reliance is placed on falsehoods. 
Conspiracy theories also abound - cover-ups, deception, lies. As a result, too many parents are shunning vaccinations for their children.  So, what does the published, peer-reviewed literature tell us about vaccincations? Are they safe and effective, or are there long term harmful effects? 
A new report now provides some of the answers.

New evidence published in the Cochrane Library today finds MMR, MMRV, and MMR+V vaccines are effective and that they are not associated with increased risk of autism.

Measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella (also known as chickenpox) are infectious diseases caused by …