UKIP is no aberration but a symptom of British politics’ dangerous malaise, writes Anthony Painter
The pattern is well established. Something surprising happens in an election. Those who were predicting an outlier moment suddenly move centre-stage. Bewildered politicians pop up to say how we must listen and learn. They generally then say whatever it is they were saying anyway in response to such learning exercises. Once the shock phase is over, the calm voices of experience step in and tell us that surprising things happen from time to time but normality is always restored. The machine is reset and off it chugs again.
And this has been pretty much the pattern following the United Kingdom Independence party’s performance in last month’s local elections. When the listening exercise begins in earnest, the sort of sentiment that may be heard will be along the following lines: ‘I went to the housing office with my husband to see about a council house and they said “you’ve got no chance, we’ve got to move the immigrants in first”,’ and: ‘A policeman told me you can’t get promoted now unless you’re a certain colour’, or ‘UKIP make you feel they agree with you about what you want.’
These sentiments are all lifted from Michael Ashcroft’s report on the United Kingdom Independence party, entitled They’re Thinking What We’re Thinking. And so a rational party comes up with symbolic policies to answer these concerns. It declares that housing allocation will become partly based on the time you have spent in the area. It says that police promotion should be based on merit alone not quotas for particular groups. It uses direct language – ‘I’ve heard it on the doorstep, so let me be clear.’ If you are the Tories, you tear yourself apart over a commitment to a referendum on our membership of the European Union in four years’ time. Don’t laugh; Labour could join in the fun at any moment.
So both main parties have ‘listened and learned’. In this mechanistic model of politics, people have attitudes and parties provide the ‘product’ – language and policy – that meets these. But this completely misunderstands the motivations of those who are attracted to UKIP. The category error is defining them as a ‘protest vote’.
Actually, UKIP is a distinctive position in British politics. It is a moral outlook that has a disdain for change, mainstream politics and its political elites, and reaches for a greater degree of cultural certainty. It is a set of values and a sentiment at once. The old attitude-demand and policy-supply model of politics is largely irrelevant in this environment – and largely reinforces negative attitudes of the mainstream.
There is one thing that is likely to win those gravitating towards UKIP back to Labour and the Conservatives (and it clearly gathering support from both parties, at a ratio of 2:1 former Conservative to former Labour, according to YouGov). That is the electoral system. However, contrary to popular supposition, this is not an unconditional choice of the lesser of two evils. It is a conditional return, temporarily, as long as some basic degree of competence is demonstrated. So it is not a set of policies and symbolic communications. It comes down to some very thin bonds of trust, which are just strong enough to cling on to the UKIP-tempted for a momentary pact for fear of something worse.
This is all rather more problematic than it sounds. Both main parties are doing their level best to dissuade uncertain voters from backing their cause. The Conservatives have descended into internal chaos that seems reminiscent of the Major era, except that it is worse. At least John Major stood up to his backbenchers. David Cameron, who we are expected to believe is the type of crack negotiator who can reset our relationship with the EU, simply caves at every single moment. Once the sharks smell blood then your fate is assured.
In Labour’s case, faced with the greatest national challenges for almost half a century, the party has decided to simply discard the notion of opposition as an alternative. Instead, on welfare, fiscal policy, economic policy, and almost any other area you care to mention, it simply opposes. Given Labour was in power when the crisis struck and so carries mistrust, this simply is not good enough. The barrier to entry for an uncertain voter to put their faith in Labour is very high.
It would not be in the slightest bit surprising if both parties ended up on less than 35 per cent in 2015. The choices that the next government has to face will still be tough. What sort of mandate will a party with less than 35 per cent of the vote have in very challenging times? Very little is the honest answer. Whenever it has to make win-lose decisions between different groups, or between interests and sound policy, then some of its backbenchers will oppose. The same sorts of backbenchers in both main parties disdain the notion of coalition. It diminishes their power after all. It will not be long before that 1970s word, ‘ungovernable’, creeps back into the political lexicon.
UKIP seizes upon this shambles in mainstream politics. When mainstream parties do not look the part, populist or non-mainstream parties appear attractive. The mainstream offer is one of governance and competence. Without this offer then what is the defence against a party such as UKIP? ‘You’ve got no answers’ does not work if the mainstream parties have few or the wrong answers. All that leaves the mainstream with is the electoral system. Party loyalty has crumbled. The class basis of politics has weakened. Charismatic leadership is hardly in abundant supply. It is first past the post, organisation plus vestigial historic and class allegiance which will sustain the UK’s mainstream parties. Its democracy will suffer as a result.
The UKIP surge places Britain within a European context. The populist radical right is a feature of many continental political systems including France, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Austria, and Denmark. Its Anglo-Saxon political system makes it hard for UKIP to establish itself. Despite predictions to the contrary, it is conceivable that UKIP will win seats in 2015. On the basis of its 2013 performance, the polling company Survation has calculated that the party would have won eight seats. It now has a rich dataset which will enable it to target resources. If it gets its organisation right, then expect to see one or two UKIP MPs after 2015 with perhaps a defection or two to go with them. This would be a base from which to grow, especially if the next government struggles.
Instead of the reflexive ‘listening and learning’ exercise or relying on first past the post, both Labour and the Conservatives would be better off addressing their own weaknesses. For Labour, that means addressing its weakness on the economy, welfare, and the deficit. On immigration it has made a start but so much more is needed in other areas besides. The government’s failures are such that Labour should be surging ahead now. We are beyond the point of sanguinity now: some serious decisions have to be taken and soon.
‘One Nation’ politics still has to make its choices. These choices will dismay some on the right and the left. The alternative is pleasing no one and ending up in no man’s land. And that is where both Labour and the Conservatives currently find themselves standing.
—————————————————————————————
Anthony Painter is a contributing editor to Progress and author of Democratic Stress, the Populist Signal and the Extremist Threat
—————————————————————————————