Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The big question is what exactly does UKIP want?
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The big question is what exactly does UKIP want?
This parliament has been about as kind as possible to UKIP. The Conservatives and Lib Dems are both having to make unpopular decisions in government (and opting to make other unpopular ones to boot), while coalition pulls each party from its core vote. Labour has not fully recovered from its own time in office. None of the three leaders is well regarded. That provides a massive opportunity for…
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Farage is well past his sell-by date.
So he wins his referendum on the vague promise of a treaty, and the treaty then gets stopped by one of the hundred-plus veto points involved, quite possibly vetoed by Britain itself in their referendum on the treaty (as opposed to the one on the EU). Eurosceptics will justifiably say they've been robbed, and we're right back where we started.
Referendum 1. In, Out, Shake it all about
Referendum 2. Acceptance of negotiation outcomes
Cameron has been prevented from offering a two step referendum by his tactical position in the run-up to 2015 (only realistic option to get any referendum is to vote Tory) and by the Scottish Independence referendum where he had to avoid a 'devomax' middle option.
If returned in 2015, he will have the freedom to change policy, either in response to a realistic EU timetable or, if in Coalition, by agreement with his partners.
The key will be to get Referendum 1 done as soon as possible with Referendum 2 on an elastic timescale.
During the Eastleigh campaign, I was quite impressed that Diane James managed to make the EU relevant to almost anything she was asked. Didn't seem to lose her any votes.
Basically what you've described is "out" getting defeated by a promise of euro-sceptical reforms that, for hard-to-understand reasons involving domestic politics in foreign countries, proceed to crash and burn, leaving them with nothing repatriated, an adverse referendum result hanging over them, and 15 years wasted.
I believe Cameron, or more particularly Hague, is genuinely committed to EU reform and that they consider defined and realistic negotiation goals to be achievable. Already they have succeeded, at least to a certain extent, in getting their position supported and discussed by key EU Members.
This term has seen the FCO deployed on a thorough and systematic review of EU competencies which should form the basis for next term's negotiations. I am convinced a clear and transparent agenda, carefully worked for feasibility and balance of interests, would be welcomed and trusted by the majority of the UK electorate.
Can't control the borders without coming out of the EU - very simple, very effective.
Where I'd depart from the conventional strategy is that I don't think UKIP should be aiming for a referendum any more. Referendums are a strategy for people with a marginal case to move the ball up the pitch, and their case is no longer marginal. They should return to traditional British constitutional values (parliament decides) then try to get a majority between themselves and Con to leave the EU.
UKIP's coalition is broad and heterogeneous just as other parties are - the arch-conservative and libertarian wings don't seem to get on. They do have a clear target to work on, and perhaps a single clearer metric of success and failure than is available to other parties. But they lack a common vision of what a "free" UK and British society is meant to look and feel like, and strategically on how to replace the EU - a sort of EFTA, or a retreat into NAFTA, or a mid-sized free-trading fish in the global pond, or an economically incongruous Commonwealth Bloc, or what? (The existence of an official policy on an issue doesn't mean the rank-and-file homogeneously support it.)
It's also asking a lot for the UKIP leadership to develop a clear and coherent strategy. For one thing they need to be able to respond flexibly to events which it's difficult to plan for and timetable (particularly compared to more powerful parties who actually have some influence over the news schedules). For another, any such plan has to rely on fewer resources in terms of cash, brains, airwave power and feet on ground. Finally there is the structural issue of what the organisation can deliver. If running the Lib Dems is like herding cats, what on earth is running UKIP like?
In a choice between a couple of seats or a bigger slice of the vote, I'm sure they'd take whatever they can get, but I'm not convinced they actually have much organisational or situational capacity to choose between priorities. That might sound strange, but given the way they have had to "buy in" policy in the past, they may not even have the wonkpower to carefully tailor policies to strategic goals. In campaigning, they are better at air war than ground war, which is harder to focus geographically, and compared to other parties their ability to bus campaigners into marginals or target key voters by database is limited.
FPTP is still going to clobber them, but if they can get up to a solid 15%, and the LibDems end up out of government and recover to maybe 20%, maybe sooner or later the voting system gets changed. (RodCrosby's posted some stuff before about how when the effective number of parties in a system gets big enough, they tend to reform their voting systems one way or another.)
PS Agree with the rest, especially the first paragraph.
Farage is very English so that will be a handicap in some places e.g. Scotland, Wales, Liverpool but won't hurt everywhere else. Eventually if there are local sub-leaders for those places then that will sort itself.
Also people with one regional accent don't necessarily see someone with a different regional accent as "one of us" so having a posh accent isn't the problem it's supposed to be - the problem with it is it usually goes with not having a clue what's going on in the less leafy areas not the accent itself. On balance the BBC accent is prob best imo as it's the most neutral but in this country no accent will suit everywhere.
There have always been and always will be trolls at all ends of the spectrum, and pointless unpleasant arguments. I think it's a function of the medium - I was reading through some ancient USENET threads today in which several esteemed professors of statistics got very heated with each other over an obscure technical topic. Politics is something that gets people's blood pressure up rather more than that, though it's true there are some calmer places online for UK politics and polling discussion. For me PB is superior because it has excellent quality of analysis (particularly from OGH but also his impressive guest writers) and some very heavy-hitting, well-informed people in the comments.
Of left-wing trolls past, I miss Ash actually. Perhaps he wasn't a deliberate troll at all, though it wouldn't surprise me if he was really a conservative pretending to be a particularly irritating leftie just to wind people up. Haven't seen him for a couple of years, but he was the reason I delurked - something he wrote wound me up so much that I had to write a riposte, as nobody else had bothered! I have later come to realise that the reason they hadn't bothered was because everyone else had learned the art of skipping over such stuff. Which is an internet survival skill I fear.
I echo your sentiments on the way this site has developed.
Things seemed to change after the 2010 election. Today it seems joyless.
I remember writing long posts on how my German Shepherd Heidi would take part in some allegedly scientifically valid rigmarole to decide who would win whatever it was, and people would enter into the tongue in cheek aspects, realizing it was not entirely serious, and it would be fun.
That bonhommie and good fellowship seems to have largely disappeared, replaced by a much more partisan and humorless, smaller group of posters. Where art thou Martin Day?
I visit this site much less than I used to do, and post less too. There seem to be more personal atacks than previously.
Having said that, I would like to place on record my support for the site and wish it every success.
I wonder if Lynton Crosby ever thinks he's been hired by the wrong team!
I am curious as to why you think that UKIP need to answer big questions about their identity. Lets face it the Lib Dems have managed on a strategy of being all things to all men on a per constituency level for decades and they are now in power.
On the topic of what UKIP should do referendum wise, and here I share an interest with UKIP though I am a booer for very different reasons to most of the UKIP voters, I believe a referendum with Cameron in charge and both labour, and the lib dems on side with keeping us in would be an absolute disaster for the BOO side. Frankly the BOO case would be horrendously outgunned in the propaganda stakes when against three main parties, the bbc, the EU funding that would be forth coming etc.
The only conclusion therefore is you believe we are better off out is to hope the conservatives do not get in again. While the lymp poles and Nabavi's will tell us this is a disaster for britain frankly for both myself and I suspect for many UKIP voters I see labour and conservatives as very much two cheeks of the same arse.
Both are europhilic centrist social democrats at heart and the only difference between many of their policies is the name they use as a heading
The likes of Sean Fear are a good catch indeed! But however formidable the organisational skills of such a corps of recruits, they'll face severe challenges. Less resources to call upon from higher up the chain, less footsoldiers to deploy lower down the chain (membership doesn't mean activism), and the troops are rabblier and less experienced. To be frank: there are really sound guys in UKIP (I'd happily vote for Sean) but also a high nutter coefficient. Bad enough that before sending someone canvassing, I'd want to vet them. Yet they don't even seem able to comprehensively vet their own candidates.
I've wondered if UKIP has an organisational pyramid bulging in the wrong place. Cut out the uninvolved members who are nothing more than a vote-bank and cash-cow, so we only look at "activists", the "middle ranks", and the "big fish". I suspect UKIP bulges in the middle (disproportionately compared to other parties, not necessarily in absolute numbers), with relatively few top people. Other parties have layers of wonks, back-benchers and serious regional politicians (assembly members, mayors etc) before the inner sanctum of leadership.
A long-standing Lib Dem councillor with executive experience in local government, is in no place to consider replacing Nick Clegg. While UKIP has come a long way from the Kilroy debacle, its leadership level is not that far removed from a large pool of strongly-opinionated people who must occasionally think "I could run this show better myself". Not a great recipe for stability at the top, nor for leadership to have a strong hand to push the party in whatever direction it finds strategically desirable. In fact, with a relative deficit of brains at the very top (not perjoratively, I mean the lack of think-tankers, advisers, strategists, pollsters, the fabled writers of algorithms) their ability to craft a strategy at all is limited. Internet forums pay testament to a glut of armchair strategists in the mid-ranks, however. Meanwhile, the activist-pawns, that any grand strategy would rely on pushing around the board to achieve their greatest impact, are currently conspicuous by their absence. Since the activist class of all parties is dying out, maybe this disadvantage will be less serious in years to come, but for now ground war beats air war.
"I am curious as to why you think that UKIP need to answer big questions about their identity."
Quite - that particular faux pas did for Cam&Os in January2010. They rolled out detail policy statements, took loads of flak and entered GE campaign with a collection of hostages to fortune. Far better to adopt Blair's 97 minimalist "pledge card" approach.
My feeling is that the party is likely to muddle along, and that even if the leadership develops a highly-planned strategic vision on these issues, they may struggle to push it through their party and its success is at the mercy of events beyond their control anyway.
The Lib Dems have long sorted those issues out. Although a diverse party, they do have some core common ground and a very strong sense of self-identity. At heart they know that they want to play the "just another set of politicians" game, and are fiercely opposed to being labelled a protest vote. They want to see policies put into action on a whole spectrum of issues. To do this they seek representation at local, regional and national level (with strategic considerations forcing them to carefully prioritise their targets). They would rather accept a coalition deal as the price of going into cabinet, than hold out for a majority themselves, or be a "testimonial party" that never seeks power but simply ensures that its beliefs are represented in parliament. (Contrast e.g. the Party for Animals and Reformed [Calvinist] Party in the Netherlands.)
Spain turns back the clock on abortion:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/20/spain-government-restrictive-abortion-law-opposition
Ah I was reading it more as explain to the electorate rather than internal soul searching.
However even then I am unconvinced as it became pretty apparent that the lib dems seemed to be two parties under one roof when they hit power and there were significant fractures between the labour lite and orange book side of the party.
Watching how UKIP progress is going to be interesting certainly and I am sure there will be inflection points along the way which will significantly change the narrative
@ZenP spot on about Europe. I believe that all the vitriol we see on ConHome between Cameroons and Kippers about all sorts of peripheral issues all stems from the simple fact that the Tory leadership is working towards killing off the EU issue, and hence the whole sceptic movement, with an in-vote at some opportunistically timed and presented referendum. Tory success therefore presents an existential threat both to UKIP and to BOO inside the Conservative Party.
At the beginning of the coalition, many Tories I know were convinced it would lead inexorably toward a permanent split within the LibDems between left and right. Inside the party there is almost no sign of that happening, although a painful 2015 result would raise the question of how much of the long march was in vain, or can quickly be recovered.
But the irony of that initial Tory self-confidence is that theirs is now the party where some sort of long-term realignment may be very difficult to avoid? Not least because they also face growing demographic and geographical challenges, and defeat in 2015 (which many of them see as anything other than a majority win) would raise the Q of whether the Tories will ever form majority government (without exiting the scots!) again; a question they will find very painful even to face.
The only answer I can give, and this from a personal viewpoint, is that the majority of UKIP members and supporters, are interested in a lot more than withdrawal from the EU. Power to affect the daily lives of Britons is what we really want, and need. How we get there is indeed the only question worth considering.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_withdrawal_from_the_European_Union#2013
I haven't gone through it all but I reckon a lot of their other stances would have majority support compared to the mainstream, three-party-consensus alternatives.
"The fact remains that a vote for UKIP means a Labour govt in 2015 - end of."
Even if Labour are on <35% ?
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/449811/FARAGE-ON-FRIDAY-Working-classes-are-the-bedrock-of-Ukip-vote-not-disaffected-Tories
That sounds truly chilling. Not to improve the lives of all citizens, but 'affect' a small subset.
How do you class 'Britons' ?
But does that still hold true ? In its early days UKIP just took votes off the conservatives, increasingly it's starting to balance out meaning the momentum is more with left wing switchers rather than right wing. As the protest party it will pick up votes and Labour is vulnerable on the "taking people for granted" axis. I can see Labour holding its 2010 LDs but that it will lose a slice of traditional voters. Primarily that makes me think Labour will drop below 35% in the next year or so.
"what's also true is that they're very likely to take more off Con than off Lab."
The Bown constituency surveys are the first hard evidence that UKIP support is lumpy, like the other 3 parties. Assumptions of 0MPs on 15% and "very likely to take more off X" are lookling more difficult to justify.
FWIW I agree that their support would be a bit more concentrated than the Baxter numbers are assuming and they may well win seats on 15%, but from the point of view of who gets a majority the number of seats they'd end up with still doesn't really figure. For example, 15% and 10 seats would be a great achievement, but probably wouldn't affect who became PM.
What I would say is that if Labour form a government the proportion UKIP take off them will grow, and the proportion they take off Con will shrink. It may not quite balance out, but it'll certainly be less lop-sided.
"what is it in the Bown surveys that leads to that conclusion?"
The differences between the estimated national UKIP support level and the bown'ed constituencies.
On your projection below, Id say it's more likely Con 30 Lab 30, as a lot of the Tory defectors have already switched and the Labour ones are only now thinking about it.
Surely the basic weakness of the UKIP position is the Amazon factor. Companies of their size, and there will soon be more of them, will increasingly be able to thumb their noses at "conventional" nation states tax regimes with a consequent effect on those nation states tax revenues.
Secondly it is being assumed that conventional political action is essential for a party's growth; canvassing, leafleting etc. I've done my share, and I wonder. Look at organisations such as 38 Degrees and Avaaz.. They can muster considerable support for political positions and will, I suggest become increasingly important in years to come.
Third. In the last couple of elections there have been internet campaigns for vote-swapping .... you vote Labour in X and I'll vote LibDem in Y. Did they have any effect, and are they likely to be seen again?
http://www.markpack.org.uk/47012/how-ukip-is-damaging-labour-reprised/
Journalists: Feckin' useless! Case-in-point: [Src.: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/10532252/Del-Boy-to-return-to-British-TV-screens.html ]
Would not trust them to run a bath....
Named all 4 parties equally and diff sample size, I believe.
12% of electorate, or 66% majority increase, is hardly a marginal seat criterion.!
Yes I think I saw this before. My conclusion was that as the seats up in may13 were mainly Con, the gross results masked the greater % lab-->UKIP change.
I reckon Farage, and who ever he listens to, spotted it some time ago, hence the emphasis in
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/449811/FARAGE-ON-FRIDAY-Working-classes-are-the-bedrock-of-Ukip-vote-not-disaffected-Tories
"To be frank: there are really sound guys in UKIP (I'd happily vote for Sean) but also a high nutter coefficient. Bad enough that before sending someone canvassing, I'd want to vet them. Yet they don't even seem able to comprehensively vet their own candidates."
MyBurningEars Vetting Form :
Allocate points if found on unannounced 3am visit :
1. Brocoli and tufu quiche in fridge - 10 points
2. Any vegetarian quiche in fridge - 5 points
3. Pastel colour painted kitchen table and chairs - table 2 points, chair 1 point each
4. IKEA rugs in orange/gold colours - 4 points
5. Signed LibDem leader photos - Clegg 10 points ..Ashdown 7 .. Kennedy 5 .. Ming 3
6. Back issues of "Focus" literature - 2 points each
7. Historic "Winning Here" leaflets - 1 point each
8. Sandals - 5 points per man made pair .. 2 points for leather
9. Beard trimmer - Male 10 points .. Female 25 points
10. Gay householder - 10 points
11. Black householder - Hit jackpot 100 points
12. Druid tendencies - 10 points.
13. Nigel Farage dart board - 8 points
14. Copy of Mike Smithson's autobiography - "The Bald Truth" - 50 points
But looking at the fundamentals if you're a bloke in a northern or urban constituency, who's seen the manufacturing companies around him being closed from outsourcing, had to take a pay freeze to survive, you kids are struggling to get a job, your town is changing because of immigration, you can't protest about it or you'll be called a racist, you pension was wiped out by Brown, you think the EU is a con, your MP is an Oxbridge posho from London and all of this happened under 13 years of Labour. Why would you keep voting for them ?
Head of health and social care regulator David Prior says NHS has been damaged because criticism was not tolerated":
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/nhs/10531183/NHS-on-brink-of-crisis-because-it-became-too-powerful-to-criticise.html
And VAT is a bigger source of revenue than corporation tax. You could make an argument that lower corporation tax rates would lead to higher wages > increased income tax revenue.
2. How effective is spam? A piece on Labour list suggested that one predictor of UKIP success was a popular local pub!
http://labourlist.org/2013/05/how-should-labour-tackle-ukip/
3. Electoral Calculus' 2006 analysis of the Con/Lab gap suggested that tactical voting gave Labour a +16 seat advantage over the Conservatives.
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/conlabgap.html#tactical
I don't see that tactical voting is especially likely to have a negative effect on UKIP. They might be beneficiaries.
I can see 2015 being a "bedrock" election where the big 2 are cut right back to their core support as protest parties UKIP\LD\SNP suck up a lot of the floating voters\NOTA vote. On balance that should be to labour's advantage but it still means an HP.
2010 local elections: Con 35%, Lab 27%, LD 26%
2010 general election: Con 36%, Lab 29%, LD 23%
"How did you vote last time? How will you vote this time?". It's not infallible, but it's pretty reliable."
Frankly that has to be seriously questioned in a 4party system, with one collapsed party and another insurgent since the last election. eg Populus' adjustment is out by over a 100% for current (consistent) UKIP results.
2. Labour spinners want the baseline to be 2010 voters for a reason - it leaves out the bloc who stopped voting between 1998 and 2010.
Bit sleepy, but the central premise of the article hits the nail on the head. It'll determine how UKIP go: for tactical voting to bolster sceptical candidates' chances, or with the purple fever approach of voting UKIP even if the likely result (in a constituency) is to let a very pro-EU candidate win in a tight contest.
I still plan on voting UKIP at the euros, but (to try and rid the nation of the scourge of Balls) am nailed on for the blues come the General Election.
2. Not surprised.
3. Thanks for that. Unde
Should read.
1. Agree about UKIP's tax position.Or lack of it. Take the point as well about the comparative revenues from VAT and CT, but tax isn't the only issue. Companies like Boots, now owned outside the EU, appear to be consistently placing more demands upon staff for the same, or even lower, wages.
2. Not surprised.
3. Thanks for that. Underlines my view that many Tories would prefer a Labour win to a Lib Dem one, if their own candidate is a no-hoper. Wonder if that will be the same in 2015.
And yes, we have yet to see what effect tactical voting will have in somewhere like, say, Eastleigh. Collapse in Tory vote perhaps?
I think UKIP have given up on the Conservatives as an anti-EU vehicle, and they're seeking to replace them.
Any fanatic want to bet that they will win a Westminster seat in 2015? Bookies odds are poor.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/dec/20/ukip-godfrey-bloom-interview-punch?CMP=twt_gu
I see Godfrey is contemplating westminister in 2015. Doncaster North would be fun.
Lab struggled to get the Doncaster mayoralty in 2013.. from UKIP.
(edem have all gone UKIP up there)
How do you define 'Britons' ?
The main parties often put EU referendum offers in their election manifestos, none of them deliver.
"So how are they going to get a referendum any time within the next 10 years ?"
If lab lose 4-5% pre May14 then your 30/30 seems quite possible. Farage has said several times Lab will likely go into the GE with a Referendum manifesto offer. Ed might actually do it if he thought he'd edge out of HP into lab majority.
Despite this far superior performance the 1987 GE showed the Alliance slipping back slightly .and it is easy to conclude that the much weaker UKIP performance this year will lead to zero seats in 2015 .
Their current "2017" offer is, I think, just a repackaged manifesto offering, that they have no intention of following thru on.
The 2017 referendum is currently going through Parliament. If it gets through then not having a referendum would require, I think, a vote in the Commons at least.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dFZZaXFjaVVfd1k1Sl8wa2ZMMXYydmc&type=view&gid=0&f=true&sortcolid=-1&sortasc=true&rowsperpage=2210
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/8847123/EU-referendum-how-the-MPs-voted.html
It's just a box ticking exercise on a manifesto offer for them.
But the latter is worse for Lab than Con, because when the winning side comes back from the negotiations proudly clutching a small horse with a toilet paper tube taped to the top of its head, a Labour opposition would probably feel obliged go go along with it to avoid derailing the referendum campaign, whereas a Tory opposition would immediately denounce the sell-out.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2013/dec/20/tax-meat-cut-methane-emissions-scientists
How many years has temperature plateaued for? 10? 15? 20?
Mr. Tokyo, I concur. I would be surprised if Labour back a referendum.
PM is the prize for Ed or Dave.
this is the last chance for both of them.
All the rest is of lesser importance.
10 MPs voting in parliament probably won't affect who becomes PM but the effect of 15% of those voting casting their ballots for UKIP might well do.
"The steady and unaccountable intrusion of the European Union into almost every aspect of our lives has gone too far. A Conservative government will negotiate for three specific guarantees – on the Charter of Fundamental Rights, on criminal justice, and on social and employment legislation – with our European partners to return powers that we believe seek a mandate to negotiate the return of these "