Reasons why Ukip will underperform in the upcoming election

Robert Henderson

Editor’s note: Robert Henderson recently sent me a link to his article, “British Future report says 25% of British adults want all immigrants repatriated” which discusses a survey showing a great deal of hostility toward immigration in the U.K. The question then is why are we reading that Ukip is losing ground in the polls and not expected to get more than a handful of MPs. The most recent poll, published in the Telegraph, has Ukip at 13% and 3 MPs for the May 7 election. Given that Ukip rankshighest of all the parties in the popularity of their immigration proposals, the question is why. Many of his points apply also in the United States and  elsewhere.
1. Political inertia.  The first past the post system makes it  immensely  difficult for new parties to get established as a real political force because most British constituencies have large in-built majorities for either the Labour or Conservative Parties.  This is because the nature of the populations in those constituencies are such as to make a winning vote for the  Conservatives or Labour  candidate very likely, for example, Labour safe seats will lie at the centre of major cities and towns and old industrial centres  where thy continue to capture the White working-class vote and those of ethnic/racial minorities. Safe Conservative seats will  tend to be in the suburbs and countryside.   In many constituencies people will think there is no point in voting for anyone but the almost certain winner and often will not bother to vote if they do not support the party of the probable winner.
In the years since the Restoration in 1660 and the formation of the Whigs and Tories only one entirely new party (Labour)  has every formed a government in the UK , although the Whigs transmuted into the liberals and the Tories mutated into Conservatives  during the 19th century.  The fate of the Social Democratic Party formed by four dissident leading members of the Labour Party  in the early 1980s is instructive.  It managed to win by-elections and in alliance with the then Liberal Party managed to gain 25% of the vote at the 1983 General Election. That gained the alliance a paltry  23 seats out of 650.    By the next general election the SDP was a dead duck.   The problem for the alliance was that their vote was spread much more evenly across the country than the vote of Conservative and Labour  parties.  The same applies to Ukip.
2. The fear of being called a racist runs very deep in Britain.  This is unsurprising because almost every week there are stories in the media about people, normally white Britons, being involved in a “race row”.  These incidents  will frequently  result in the person losing their job, and increasingly people accused of racism are being sent for criminal trial. The police also have a regular practice of investigating people for “hate crimes” without any  real intent to prosecute — the intention  being  to intimidate individuals and, by their example,  the general population.
3. People are subjected to incessant politically correct propaganda on race and immigration.  Those under the age of 35 will have had it blaring at them all their lives, including hard-core indoctrination at school.  [Editor’s note: Today, listening to BBC radio while driving through Scotland, there was a comment  on the drowning of 400 African “migrants off the coast of Italy. The comment managed to discuss the Holocaust based on survivor accounts (the Nazis came to our farmhouse and shot our dog in sight of the child) and the British involvement in the slave trade in the 18th century (where slaves were huddled together in overcrowded ships), both of which she recalled from her school days; the message was that the U.K. must be open to such people. Endless empathy and compassion needed.]
This propaganda produces a strange state of mind in many . They  do not agree with the propaganda but they  f eel that opinions which go against the propaganda are somehow beyond the Pale.   Fear lies at the root of it but it manifests itself not in a conscious focused fear but as a general sense that something should not be done or said.
4. The mainstream media  in Britain give far less time to Ukip in general and immigration matters in particular than they do to other parties and political subjects.  When Ukip speakers get onto television and radio  they are almost invariably face a more hostile questioning  than those from other parties.  If they appear on panels  with other politicians or commentators they are invariably in a minority, normally a minority of one with chairman who is biased against them.   If there is an audience the audience will invariably be packed  with people who support the politically correct view of the world. As for the written media, they get much less opportunity to publish their views than the parties who oppose them.
5. Ukip send mixed immigration messages because they try to fit what they propose into a politically correct envelope.  They advocate a points based system  such as the Australians have.  Unless the numbers are severely capped this could mean more immigration than we presently have.  Ukip are advocating a cap of 50,000 per annum on skilled workers  (which would be far  more immigrants more than the British want),  but are saying nothing coherent about immigration through family reunion, students and asylum claims which forms the major part of immigration to the UK from outside the EU.
Then there is the rhetoric. Ukip claim constantly that race/ethnicity does not matter.  They  say that that their scheme for “ managed migration”  shows they are not racist because they want everyone in the world to have the same chance of coming here if they meet the skilled worker  criteria.  The idea that Black, Brown and Yellow migrants are to be substituted  for White European migrants is unlikely to appeal to the British public.
6. Ukip also embrace the free trade mania.  As a prime  justification for leaving the EU,  Ukip place alongside control of immigration the idea that we should leave because this will allow us “to trade with the world”.  Having seen what  “trading with the world” in the context of globalism has brought them even within the EU — offshoring destroying huge swathes of British jobs,  iconic British companies sold to foreigners in the most cavalier fashion and  claims that free trade must  by definition include the free movement of labour  (the reduction ad absurdum of classical economic theory)  — many of the British public are unwilling to jump from the EU frying pan into the laissez faire globalist fire.  That policy will alienate many.
7. Ukip are also for shrinking the British state radically. In particular Farage has made it clear that he thinks the  NHS  should be  replaced by  an insurance system whereby treatment is free at the point of use but the state ceases to own the medical infrastructure and employ the staff. The official Ukip policy is not for this,  but as Farage is seen as Mr Ukip, most voters will think the party is for the privatisation of the National Health Service. That is electoral poison in Britain.
8. The muddled thinking of electors. Many of those who say they want an end to mass immigration also support staying in the EU. This is nonsensical because unless we come out of the EU, immigration cannot be controlled.  This reduces support for Ukip because the “we want to stay in the EU” trumps the desire for immigration control.
9. A widespread  lack of discipline within Ukip, both in terms of promoting Ukip policy and personal behaviour, from Westminster candidates , MEPs and councillors. This all too often provides opportunities for the mainstream media to represent Ukip as at best as amateurs put of their depth.
This entry was posted in Devolution, Nationhood, Politics and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Reasons why Ukip will underperform in the upcoming election

  1. maverick says:

    U.K.I.P are afraid of the mass media and violent opponents ,so they go for the soft option which is the Poles ect. from the Slavic lands
    Farages reaction to Lee Rigby’s murder by African converts to Islam was “it is an isolated incedent” which was one of the feeblest of the party leaders.
    In my eyes Farage is little more than a city of London plant who is concerned about the “wrong types moving into the suburbs.and upsetting his lifestye..
    The real fly in the ointment is the S.N.P. ,the Scots are being canny in outflanking Westminister and the people of England in paticular by giving the S.N.P. a big majority .In a fwist of historical irony they now hold the whip hand over England and could give the polish jew Ed Milliband control over England while remaining free to pursue thier own policies at Holyrood .
    An English parliment is the only counterbalance to this but no major party is looking at it.

  2. Peter Brown says:

    I believe you to be in error in your description of the evolution of each of the current political Parties. You state that only one new party has come to prominence since 1660. This is perfectly true but 17th Century politics cannot be compared in anyway with 20th/21st Century politics.

    The fledgling Labour Party grew from the closing years of the 19th Century to form their first Government in 1923 (albeit by default as Stanley Baldwin (Cons) won the most seats of the three parties, it was a hung Parliament and he gambled that by allowing Labour to form a Government, they would fail to run the Country properly. He was wrong.)

    Labour had the support of the largest voting bloc, the ‘working classes’ which quickly gained impetus as their confidence grew. 1923 was the last election that the Liberal Party ever achieved 100 seats in Parliament. Since then, the Labour and Conservative Parties have alternated in Government with varying results.

    With the advent of Tony Blair in 1997, there was a radical change in the vote. Labour supporters continued to vote for the Labour Party but they were joined by a large proportion of the Electorate who were disillusioned by the Tory Party under Major and instead of using their usual tactic of voting for the Liberals as a ‘protest’ vote, voted for the charismatic Blair and his ‘New Labour’. Blair made no secret of the fact that he wished to change the ethos of the Labour Party to make it more ‘electable’ but in the process, alienated many of the traditional Labour Vote. It is arguable that it was this time that saw the advent of a large proportion of ‘Career’ politicians. As the Labour and Tory ‘Conviction’ Politicians retired, they were often replaced by placements ‘parachuted’ into place by the Party Leaderships with no connection to the Constituents they were meant to be representing. This has led to a general dissatisfaction in the Electorate as a whole in that the general feeling was that no particular party truly represented their Constituents and, compounded by the ‘expenses scandal’ led to a widespread feeling that ‘All Politicians were the same’. The result has been that many of the Electorate just ceased to vote at all on the premise that there was no point in voting for any party if the end result was more of the same.

    A large proportion of Labour supporters continue to be loyal to their Party, not least because they have been indoctrinated with a ‘Class Hatred’ nurtured by the Unions to which many belonged but also because their forebears were of the same opinion. Many do in fact vote Labour simply ‘because their Dad did’ even though they are dissatisfied with the particular politician that they are voting for.

    This is not always true. On occasions, the Labour voter becomes so dissatisfied with the poor performance of a Labour Government, that they will either abstain from voting or some will vote Tory as occurred with the Thatcher Government in the 1980s and almost occurred in 2010. Despite the Brown Government almost ruining the finances of the Country, Cameron failed to get a majority because he too was tainted by the fact that he was seen as another ‘career’ politician.

    Which brings me back to UKIP. Many older voters across the political spectrum are strongly patriotic because they were and are closest to the destruction of the Second World War. This, strangely, is also very prominent in many of the younger people in their twenties and thirties in the Labour ‘strongholds’ in the North of the Country. Prior to gaining their two Parliamentary seats recently, they came second in each of the 8 by-elections they previously fought and also came within a whisker of winning the Heywood and Middleton by-election. This was despite the fact the UKIP polled only around 3% in each of the constituencies in 2010. Nearly all of these by-elections were in strongly Labour held territory. There is a great deal of Labour Militancy in these areas but in the privacy of the ballot booth, many changed their allegiance and a very large percentage of people who had not voted for years, saw in UKIP a chance to change the mould of British Politics once again. This brought UKIP from very low in the vote to being strong second place contenders. The natural patriotism of many in the North may also sway them away from voting Labour because of the threat of the SNP in coalition with Labour will be seen as detrimental to ‘their’ Country.

    This attitude, despite the polls to the contrary, is seen in the regard that Nigel Farage is held by so many. Even if people do not entirely agree with his politics, they admire his forthrightness. He is regarded as a ‘straight talker’ who does not succumb to the lies and obfuscations seen in other politicians and there are many who will give UKIP a chance simply because they are a breath of fresh air in politics. Having been on the ground at some of these by-elections, I have been asked by many whether there will be a UKIP Candidate at the next Election because up to then, they did not have the opportunity to vote for a UKIP Candidate. There is a huge groundswell of support for UKIP out there, especially in the North. Do not be surprised if many of the ‘floating’ vote and those that have not previously voted, come out in favour of UKIP.

  3. I sincerely hope you are correct, Peter. It is not that I want Ukip to fail, merely, that I can see they could do even better.

    • CanSpeccy says:

      Isn’t most likely that UKIP is puppet of the security service and that that Farage threw his chances just as did Nick Griffin of the BNP at the previous election? Why else would he appear just before the election in a U-tube video flanked by Pakistanis with villainous beards, to assure everyone that he loves immigrants and more immigration. In the end people didn’t vote for him because in their hearts they knew he was a lying phony: a fact that cannot be disputed after his refusal to resign after failing to win a parliamentary seat, something he had previously said he would have no option but to do.

      • Peter Brown says:

        I am afraid that you have been reading too many conspiracy theories to suggest that Farage is a puppet of the Security Services.

        I would suspect that Farage was seen with as many ethnic supporters as he could to counter the rabid screams of ‘racism’ from the Left and right wing media. UKIP gained almost 4 million votes, more than the SNP and the LibDems combined. I believe that he would have gained far more votes had there not been a threat of an SNP/Labour coalition which would have been the worst case scenario for Britain and caused many that would have voted for UKIP to play it safe by voting Tory. Even another 5 years of Tory/LibDem coalition was deemed preferable to the alternative.

        As to his resigning; you know that he did. However, he was persuaded unanimously by the UKIP Executive to stay on. What would you have done in the circumstances?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s