Yesterday, I indicated some doubts about what UKIP actually stand for in terms of specifics. Today, Diane James, the UKIP candidate in the Eastleigh by-election, claims that "UKIP is more than a protest vote - we stand for something".
So, what is that something?
"It is a simple philosophy. We believe power should and must be devolved down to the people, where it belongs. Decisions made that affect any man or woman's life should by and large be made with their consent, with as little interference from the paid agents of the state as possible."
I admit that, as a liberal, I have little problem with the first part of that, as far as it goes. Yes, I disagree that power should always be devolved downwards, looking forward as I do to the prospect of Creeting St Peter Parish Council debating our Free Trade Agreement with Mexico, but in principle, there is some common ground there.
However, I'm not sure how her views on consent and interference by the state tally with UKIP's expressed opposition to same sex marriage, for example.
And that is the weakness of her argument. It is a philosophy that defines how decisions are taken, not what those decisions might be. It is a philosophy that is everything to everybody, and nothing to anyone. It allows her to support selective education, even though that will reduce social mobility and life chances based on one set of examinations at the age of 11. Although, if the people were to vote against it in a local referendum, what would she do? What would be the impact of the reintroduction of selective education in a rural area like mine?
So, when Diane James claims that her Party's philosophy is comprehensible, I agree. On the charge of being simplistic, I suspect that she, and UKIP as a whole, are guilty as charged.
Cobbett, Hume and Locke would be spinning in their graves...
4 comments:
When talking to supporters of selective education, I ask the simple question but what if your child fails to get into the selective school? (Declaration of interest I passed the 11+ 55 years ago). This possibility does not always figure in the thoughts of supporters of selection, especially with the follow up that the money will not follow the failures. I use the word failure deliberately of course.
I don't know, maybe she has hit the nail on the head, though not in the way she intended.
It seems to me that UKIP don't feel they need to define what they stand for, because they believe the vast majority of the population, if they looked into their souls in a moment of deep personal intimacy, believe the same thing they do.
The interesting thing is that the same is fundamentally true of Labour and the Conservatives, but they've always used that as a centralising force; any victory for them is a mandate from the masses and any defeat is a result of some behavioural deviance from the one true way. UKIP are I think the first insurgent force to say, no, we represent the majority (something the Lib Dems and Greens say have never done)
I think that you've hit the nail on the head. If you assume that you'll be better off as a result of their proposals, you're minded to support them. But not everybody will, and the old 11+ tended to create winners and losers without regard for the future of those affected.
Hammering that message home might get potential UKIP supporters to reflect a little...
That makes sense, reflecting their general contempt for anyone who doesn't see things in black and white. The public claim to want politicians act decisively, yet most problems interact with other aspects of government. Simple solutions can often beget complex new problems and a good politician considers the benefits and the costs of his/her choices and seeks to understand them.
Post a Comment