The Landscape is Changing?

Or

My Take on the Rise of UKIP

On Thursday 22nd of May 2014 an historic election was held in in the United Kingdom. Of course there was a possibility of it being historical anyway, whatever the outcome, because it may yet prove to be the final election to be held in the UK in its present form.  But the outcome was, as it turns out, an electoral "earthquake". For the first time since 1857 an election was won in Great Britain by a party that was not Labour, or Conservative or Liberal.  The winners, instead were the motley bunch of "fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists" that call themselves the United Kingdom Independence Party. As a result Labour are long of face, the Tories are terrified, and the Liberal Democrats are decimated. And all the major parties ask themselves "what will this mean in 2015?"

There has been (and will be) much analysis over why UKIP were successful, but here's some of my thoughts on the subject.

The Financial Crisis of the Late Naughties

This is the most often blamed cause of the rise of extremism that we are witnessing, and not without good reason.

We see from history that economic hardship encourages such social and political upheaval. Moderate governments are helpless to prevent poverty and hardship while the scapegoating offered by "extremists" suddenly takes on an appeal for people who are looking for someone to blame for the loss of their livelihoods.

Corruption

Tony Blair's government was going to be "whiter than white". David Cameron's government was going to be even whiter than that. How did that turn out?

Above all this we have the eternal image of the "Gravy train" that emanates from Brussels, with unelected bureaucrats, their faces eternally in the trough of public finance that funds their celebrity lifestyles. Was it they that handed out lessons in feathering your nest which were gratefully absorbed by British MP's as they filled out their expense forms?

The politics of Consensus

Margaret Thatcher's Conservative government pulled Britain, some would say irrevocably, to the right wing of politics, ending the nationalisation of industry and services and destroying union power. In response, Tony Blair's "New Labour" was nothing more than a watered down version of the 18 years of Conservative government that preceded it and left its indelible print upon Britain.

However "New Labour" themselves became so successful that in response to them, David Cameron moved the Tories to the left, and sang a song of hugging hoodies from his new headquarters in the North Pole, where he was determined to tell us how bad Global Warming was getting don't you know. And so we looked from blue to red, and from red to blue, and it was difficult to tell which was which any more.

The Liberal Democrats, who you would have thought might have been squeezed out of existence by this seeming amalgamation of Labour and Conservative, actually continued to profit from it until they had their first taste of real power, broke key promises and suddenly they were being beaten with the same stick they had used to beat the other parties.

With the main parties now indistinguishable, many of their policies will begin to look similar.  And so we ask ourselves, is there a consensus about certain aims of the parties? Are there things that we will be subjected to, whichever way we vote? What about something like mass immigration?  What about further integration with the EU?

And so as a reaction to this consensus UKIP emerges.

"The Political Classes"

The Conservative Party have always been open to the accusation of being upper class and elitist (though ironically their greatest icon, Margaret Thatcher, was famously a shop keeper's daughter), but since New Labour, and the dawn of 24 hour media coverage, politicians are more savvy, more patronising and less naturally sincere than ever before.  It's interesting how the internet has bought politicians both closer to us ("Twitter makes tw*ts of us all") and at the same time made more keenly felt our separation from them.

UKIP are attracting a vote from people who feel this party are speaking for "them" against this political elite. Again, ironic for a party that is lead by a former stockbroker.

Finally there are the votes from those people to whom UKIP represent a "change".

Is there a lesson to be learned from this? What do the people want?

1. They want trustworthy, transparent politics

2. They want politicians with character, and individuality

3. They want boldness perhaps?  Some more radical ideas?

4. They want somebody who not only claims to represent them, but somebody who is ONE of them.

5. They want a change

And perhaps another lesson is that we need parties that cater for a full spectrum of opinion, from right to left. When all of the parties are scrabbling towards the same patch of centre ground is this not the inevitable result? The emergence of a party like UKIP? The question that follows on from that is, if UKIP are now catering for those who lean more to the right, who will provide balance from the left?

The Green Party?

... And Finally...

So, in conclusion, will the landscape change?  I think it can, but only if more people become engaged in politics.  And maybe UKIP could help here - because to the people who support them, they are a breath of fresh air.  And if you want to stop them, there's only one thing you can do - you've got to get involved.

Some people would say "but the very existence of UKIP is dangerous".

To this I say good.

Because we need something with a little danger.  Because politics without danger is politics that lacks interest, and becomes the kind of politics that gives us interchangeable parties, an electorate that don't care, and a political elite that thinks it can do what it likes, with or without our consent.