We all have a good idea of where Labour and the Tories stand when it comes to healthcare and the National Health Service in this country, but what about the latest entrant on the political playing field – the United Kingdom Independence party? You could be forgiven for being slightly confused by its position, and it would appear that you are not alone. The party itself seems to be in a constant state of disarray when it comes to the issue.
Back in 2012 Nigel Farage was recorded proposing an ‘insurance-based system of healthcare,’ suggesting that he places more faith in the marketplace to deliver a high-quality service than central government; putting profits before patients. This was followed by recommendations to charge patients to the see their GP and the declaration from Paul Nuttall, deputy leader of the party that, ‘the very existence of the NHS stifles competition.’
Sensing strong public opposition to any suggestion of privatisation the party has subsequently distanced itself from this position and replaced it with a drive to protect a state-run NHS, delivered with such zeal that it could rival any Labour politician. As we saw during the by-election in Rochester and Strood, when it became apparent that people had real concerns about healthcare and the local hospital, Ukip shifted the focus from its usual lines on immigration to the NHS. Ironically, the campaign was fronted by the same man who voted 18 times in favour of the health and social care bill as a Conservative member of parliament.
So does it now come as surprise that Farage has returned to his initial stance, declaring just this week that replacing the NHS with an insurance-based system is a ‘debate that we are all going to have’? It really should not be.
Ideologically, Ukip does not have its roots in left-leaning values and neither do its newest recruits – Douglas Carswell and Mark Reckless. I suspect their views sit more in line with their party’s leader. But therein lies the problem for Ukip. Much of Ukip’s support, from those who vote for it as well as its members, wrongly stems from the belief that, unlike the established parties, they offer an alternative no other party can. Ukip is perceived to not be plagued by the elitism which blurs other politicians understanding of what life is like for many people in this country. Only in the United Kingdom could you have a perceived anti-establishment figure who was educated at Dulwich college and spent his younger years driving Enoch Powell around. This is juxtaposed against the party’s origins based on libertarian values that sought independence from the European Union, predominately threatening the Eurosceptics within the Conservative party and stealing votes from the right.
Farage’s thirst for political victory meant that it did not take him long to realise that, while its policies on immigration may resonate with some members of the public, there was an expectation for the party to offer more. In recent months we have therefore seen an attempt to pitch Ukip as the working man’s party. And it has resonated with the electorate. During the by-election I spoke to numerous people who stood firm that they never have and never would, vote Conservative as the party is out of touch. For them the choice was a simple one – between Ukip and Labour. This approach, however, is unlikely to be sustainable, and we could see the leadership’s ideology and the expectations of its membership come to a head, proving disastrous for the party.
The recent debate on the NHS is the latest reminder of this, but I suspect there will be others as the ‘people’s army’ struggles to find its true identity.
———————————-
Naushabah Khan is parliamentary candidate for Rochester and Strood. She tweets @naushabahkhan