Characterising UKIP?

[ViolentPanda]

So in a different context the demonstrably false claims you made would have been true? What kind of economics forum is it? Counter-factual economic history or something?

The above is why I wondered whether ffsear holds a bachelor's degree in economics.

 

[SpookyFrank]

So in a different context the demonstrably false claims you made would have been true? What kind of economics forum is it? Counter-factual economic history or something?

To be fair, counter-factual economic history is what all neoliberal policy is founded on.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

While I'm sure it's not at all UKIP policy, I can't help thinking that it wouldn't be at all surprising if a lot of their supporters would also support re-nationalisation and other 'left wing policies' discussed in that City AM article, assuming they were on the table.

A few of them might even be fantasizing that UKIP would adopt such policies by way of protecting some 'traditional British way of life' from externally imposed change.

No fewer than 45 per cent of the public believe that the state should have the power to control private rents, against 43 per cent who don’t; it was 74-18 for energy prices and 72-19 for public transport. Tory voters don’t support the first of these but back the other two.

Shockingly, 35 per cent of the electorate back such potential price controls on food and groceries, though 55 per cent don’t; perhaps the price-fixers need to acquaint themselves with the (horrible, product-less, queue-based, rationed) shops that used to exist in the Soviet Union during the bad old days.

As to the second question, 67 per cent believe Royal Mail should have remained in the state sector, against 22 per cent who back privatisation (the coalition, of course, has just sold the company).

By 48-43 per cent, even those intending to vote Tory don’t back the privatisation; among Ukip voters, it’s 67-25. Centre-right voters in the UK are not all classical liberal supporters of capitalism; in fact, many are poujadistes or economic nationalists.

There is overwhelming support for the nationalisation of energy companies – 68 per cent to 21 per cent. <snip>

http://www.cityam.com/article/1383618852/there-sadly-mass-support-nationalisation-and-price-controls

It's almost like the UKIP's game is to mobilize the fear associated with falling living standards and with economic security being eroded by neo-liberalism and the groundswell of distrust of the political classes associated with these changes, and to blame it on a nice simple narrative about EU and immigration and 'traditional British ways' vs 'nanny state', while keeping their own extreme neo-liberalism under wraps.

I've recently had several conversations with UKIP supporters where they've kind of gone into angry denial when I started saying things like 'You do understand that they're ideologically committed to privatizing the NHS and dismantling the state pension system don't you?'

So I'd tentatively characterise them as a right-wing populist con-job in the tradition of Thatcherism.

 

[brogdale]

So I'd tentatively characterise them as a right-wing populist con-job in the tradition of Thatcherism.

...and pretty much any other administration you care to name; the parties of capital tend not to emphasise in whose interest they govern.

 

[Bernie Gunther]

...and pretty much any other administration you care to name; the parties of capital tend not to emphasise in whose interest they govern.

Well, the reason I mentioned Thatcherism in particular is that particular quality of mobilising mass support from people effectively voting (to a large degree) against their own interests, of which Thatcherism is a strong, but by no means unique example.

 

[brogdale]

Well, the reason I mentioned Thatcherism in particular is that particular quality of mobilising mass support from people effectively voting against their own interests, of which Thatcherism is a strong, but by no means unique example.

Yep.

 

[treelover]

No fewer than 45 per cent of the public believe that the state should have the power to control private rents, against 43 per cent who don’t; it was 74-18 for energy prices and 72-19 for public transport. Tory voters don’t support the first of these but back the other two.

I wonder if the 43% against includes private tenants, not aware of their own interests?

many of the others will be BTl'ers.

 

[Roadkill]

It's almost like the UKIP's game is to mobilize the fear associated with falling living standards and with economic security being eroded by neo-liberalism and the groundswell of distrust of the political classes associated with these changes, and to blame it on a nice simple narrative about EU and immigration and 'traditional British ways' vs 'nanny state', while keeping their own extreme neo-liberalism under wraps.

I think that's pretty much exactly it, and they played a blinder this year in ditching the right-wing 2010 manifesto and then keeping quiet about policies other than Europe and immigration. That can only take them so far, though, because they're going to need a manifesto for the next election and it will be a difficult line to walk to maintain their appeal to the pretty disparate voters who've backed them this week. Be interesting to see what's in September's outline manifesto launch in Doncaster.

 

[steeplejack]

personally I hope a diehard traditionalist faction within the party insist on the "ladies and gentleman to be properly atired whilst eating in hotels" as a redline deal-breaker for the next manifesto

(I'll be astonished if the next manifesto isn't a wishing-upon-a-star right wing farrago, the sort of thing produced when you shred the annual minutes of the No Turning Back group from 1986, feed them into a blender and re-assemble in random order.)

 

[Wilf]

Whilst they might have robbed the BNP of their votes, I think there's mileage in analysing them in relation to the Tory Party as much as the far right. They're the bit that lost out, the bit that hates Cameron, the bit that got deselected. They're the bit that missed out on all the 'modernising' trends of Blairism and Cameron's gay weddings. They're also the small business strand of capital, the bit that really does think that x, y and z are political correctness gone mad. Perhaps more nationalist than racist - a point I've agreed with on other threads. Same time, it would be daft to argue there isn't a seam of racism running through them. It's tied in with contempt for the poor as in the Romanians thing, but the number of their candidates who end up spewing racist shite on twitter are pushing it towards 'if it walks like a duck' territory.

Edit: if he had been a small businessman, Godfrey Bloom would have been the true essence of UKIP. Farage is more the calculating politician.

 

[brogdale]

(I'll be astonished if the next manifesto isn't a wishing-upon-a-star right wing farrago, the sort of thing produced when you shred the annual minutes of the No Turning Back group from 1986, feed them into a blender and re-assemble in random order.)

With respect, I think this misses the point by some margin. UKIP do not need to, or probably want to, openly advertise their neo-liberal ideology to the electorate, they merely require further populist 'policies' to ensure electoral support. Why would they seek to put off their newly generating 'core' vote? Theirs is not going to be a manifesto for government so they can pretty well include whatever they think will have widespread appeal; there's no danger of them ever being held to account on the document.

Its been said before; their 'game-plan' is too achieve enough parliamentary representation to effect a referendum leading to EU withdrawal. With that achieved they could, (theoretically like Marx' state) wither away and let 'normal' neo-liberal/bourgeois polity crack on. We would then be exactly where UKIP's atlanticist, neo-liberal zealots would want us to be.

 

[Dogsauce]

Given a referendum (yes, I know it won't happen) there's a reasonable chance that people would vote to stay in - think it's fairly balanced in recent opinion polls. Would UKIP piss off and shut up in the wake of a vote to stay in?

 

[brogdale]

Given a referendum (yes, I know it won't happen) there's a reasonable chance that people would vote to stay in - think it's fairly balanced in recent opinion polls. Would UKIP piss off and shut up in the wake of a vote to stay in?

Very much doubt that they'd pack-up if they 'won' tbh.

 

[DotCommunist]

Very much doubt that they'd pack-up if they 'won' tbh.

they don't like europe but they like europes shilling etc

 

[articul8]

So I'd tentatively characterise them as a right-wing populist con-job in the tradition of Thatcherism.

I'd say the difference, maybe, is that people aren't (yet?) electing UKIP to run anything but to make a stink. People who can be bothered to vote at Euro elections often just want to say "eff youse all" to politicians, particularly politicians they neither know nor care about. There'll be some of this at the General, but there'll be a bigger pull towards damage limitation and keeping the Tories out. I don't know how many people who didn't vote on Thursday will emerge to vote UKIP at the GE. Some perhaps but not all that many would be my guess.

 

[butchersapron]

How much of the current UKIP vote do you estimate will have keeping the tories out as their primary motivation in the general election?

What have you based your final line guess on?

 

[steeplejack]

With respect, I think this misses the point by some margin. UKIP do not need to, or probably want to, openly advertise their neo-liberal ideology to the electorate, they merely require further populist 'policies' to ensure electoral support. Why would they seek to put off their newly generating 'core' vote? Theirs is not going to be a manifesto for government so they can pretty well include whatever they think will have widespread appeal; there's no danger of them ever being held to account on the document.

Its been said before; their 'game-plan' is too achieve enough parliamentary representation to effect a referendum leading to EU withdrawal. With that achieved they could, (theoretically like Marx' state) wither away and let 'normal' neo-liberal/bourgeois polity crack on. We would then be exactly where UKIP's atlanticist, neo-liberal zealots would want us to be.

for goodness sake, I was being tongue-in-cheek. Stop being so po-faced.

 

[J Ed]

How much of the current UKIP vote do you estimate will have keeping the tories out as their primary motivation in the general election?

What have you based your final line guess on?

What do you think?

 

[butchersapron]

Pretty much fuck all.

 

[DotCommunist]

for goodness sake, I was being tongue-in-cheek. Stop being so po-faced.

po-po-po-po poker face

 

[brogdale]

for goodness sake, I was being tongue-in-cheek. Stop being so po-faced.

I obviously missed all the of clues signifying your post to be humorous content, and realise that my attempt at a considered reply represents wasted effort.

 

[articul8]

How much of the current UKIP vote do you estimate will have keeping the tories out as their primary motivation in the general election?

What have you based your final line guess on?

Well, we simply don't know. But we can't assume that motivations at a GE are the same as at locals/Euros. Some UKIP voters might well think twice about whether they want to risk another term of Tory government - because the issues thrown up by a General Election are much wider than the Euros.

The danger of UKIP is that the main parties panic and rush on to their agenda. By far the better strategy for Labour would be to offer an in/out referendum, offer more positive reasons to vote Labour and deal with immigration only in the sense of talking about ending exploitation and raising the floor for all workers - none of this stuff about withdrawing translation services and forcing people to integrate.

 

[butchersapron]

Well, we simply don't know. But we can't assume that motivations at a GE are the same as at locals/Euros. Some UKIP voters might well think twice about whether they want to risk another term of Tory government - because the issues thrown up by a General Election are much wider than the Euros.

The danger of UKIP is that the main parties panic and rush on to their agenda. By far the better strategy for Labour would be to offer an in/out referendum, offer more positive reasons to vote Labour and deal with immigration only in the sense of talking about ending exploitation and raising the floor for all workers - none of this stuff about withdrawing translation services and forcing people to integrate.

You said that come the general election more ukip voters will be voting to prevent a tory govt than protest voting for ukip. What did you base this reading on and what are your estimates for size of these two groups?

 

[Dogsauce]

I could see some situations where UKIP would be the only viable opposition to the Tories, and where that might be an attractive option if you really hate the Tories - even if they're further to the right even I'd still be tempted (depending on the candidate) if it was the only way of getting rid of someone sinister like Fox or Letwin - rather some clumsy amateur 'common sense' reactionary than a slick neoliberal schemer.

 

[butchersapron]

I could see some situations where UKIP would be the only viable opposition to the Tories, and where that might be an attractive option if you really hate the Tories - even if they're further to the right even I'd still be tempted (depending on the candidate) if it was the only way of getting rid of someone sinister like Fox or Letwin - rather some clumsy amateur 'common sense' reactionary than a slick neoliberal schemer.

So could i - but he's suggesting current UKIP voters are going to leave UKIP in order to stop the tories getting in (i.e vote labour really) and in greater numbers than those who'll stay in order to register a protest vote. I think that's head--in-sand madness when the last two studies showed 51% and 63% of local/euro UKIP vote currently intending to vote UKIP at GE. Of course some will simply go back to labour and always intended to - but a majority of the 4.5 million who just voted for them? That's startling complacency And a sort of mirror image of the it's 1933 the nazis are here stuff we've also seen.

 

[articul8]

So could i - but he's suggesting current UKIP voters are going to leave UKIP in order to stop the tories getting in (i.e vote labour really) and in greater numbers than those who'll stay in order to register a protest vote. I think that's head--in-sand madness when the last two studies showed 51% and 63% of local/euro UKIP vote currently intending to vote UKIP at GE. Of course some will simply go back to labour and always intended to - but a majority of the 4.5 million who just voted for them? That's startling complacency And a sort of mirror image of the it's 1933 the nazis are here stuff we've also seen.

I'm not suggesting that - though some might well. I'm suggesting that THOSE WHO DIDN'T VOTE are more likely - if they are to turn out a GE - to turn out for Labour than to vote UKIP.

 

[butchersapron]

I'm not suggesting that - though some might well. I'm suggesting that THOSE WHO DIDN'T VOTE are more likely - if they are to turn out a GE - to turn out for Labour than to vote UKIP.

Ok, not how your post #73 reads to me, but fair enough. I think there's only one party with the wind in it's sails sufficient enough to enthuse non-voters to turn out next time. There undoubtedly is a fair number of can't be bothered with the euro or local elections types out there, but i can't see why they would exist in greater number for labour supporters rather than tory - i imagine they're pretty similar. Hence no boost in labour vote over tories, but rise in total vote for both. UKIP - well, if you're saying this is their max vote, that they are unlikely to attract previous non-voters, i think you're wrong. Like the BNP, i think a lot of their support is actually from previous non-voters - of which there are effin' loads.

 

[belboid]

There undoubtedly is a fair number of can't be bothered with the euro or local elections types out there, but i can't see why they would exist in greater number for labour supporters rather than tory

polls do tend to show those saying they'd vote labour are less likely to turn out in most elections. if Miliband can enfuse them, or the tories make themselves look really evil, then they'll get a higher proportion coming out. Neither of those things look particularly likely at the moment tho

 

[articul8]

I think that this will prove to be UKIPs high water mark - they might do well in a very limited number of target seats (like wherever Farage chooses to stand). My guess is that most of those likely to be responsive to UKIPs message have already been reached. If you don't vote UKIP at the European level, you're less likely to be motivated out by then at a General, where the debate becomes "who would it be least worst to elect" and isn't a "free hit" in quite the same way.

 

[butchersapron]

I think that this will prove to be UKIPs high water mark - they might do well in a very limited number of target seats (like wherever Farage chooses to stand). My guess is that most of those likely to be responsive to UKIPs message have already been reached. If you don't vote UKIP at the European level, you're less likely to be motivated out by then at a General, where the debate becomes "who would it be least worst to elect" and isn't a "free hit" in quite the same way.

I don't get why you think a doubling of turnout (roughly) will not lead to any extra voters for the only party with the wind in its sails. And i'm not here talking about individual seats, i'm not asking if they'll get an MP.