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 ba

Mr Duncan-Smith offers a disingenuous and divisive comparison

Some time ago, actually it was a long time ago when I was in my early teens, someone close to me bought a table. It was an early flat pack variety. It came with a top and four legs. He followed the instructions to the letter screwing the legs into the top. But when he had completed it the table wobbled. One leg he explained was shorter than the other three; so he sawed a bit from each of the other legs. The table wobbled. One leg, he explained, was longer than the other three. So, he sawed a bit off. The table wobbled. He went on cutting the legs, but the table continued to wobble. Cut, cut, cut! By this time he had convinced himself there was no alternative to it.  He ended up with a very low table indeed, supported by four very stumpy legs and a bit of cardboard placed under one of them to stop it wobbling on the uneven floor.  Mr Duncan-Smith argues that we need a 1% cap on benefits to be 'fair to average earners'. Average  earners have seen their incomes rise by less tha

His way or none? Why I can't vote for Jeremy

There is an assumption that all would be well with the Labour Party if people hadn't expressed their genuine concern with what they consider the inadequacies of Jeremy Corbyn's leadership. If only, it is said, the Parliamentary Labour Party and his Shadow Cabinet had supported him, instead of undermining him, all would have been fine. If they had been quiet and towed the line, then the party would not have been in the mess it is in. So, should they have stayed silent, or speak of their concerns? There comes a point when the cost of staying silent outweighs the cost of speaking out. This is a judgment. Many call it a coup by the PLP. They paint a picture of a right-wing PLP out of touch with the membership.  This is the narrative of the Corbyn camp. But Jeremy Corbyn, over the decades he has been in politics, showed the way.  It was Jeremy Corbyn who opposed almost all Labour leaders and rarely held back from speaking out, or voting time and again against the party line. As