UKIP to swing Thatcher's handbag at Cameron

An interview with Nigel Farage MEP on last night's Westminster Hour confirmed UKIP's determination to undertake a significant repositioning and attack Cameron's Conservatives from the right (see our 15 January post here).

Mr Farage told his Radio 4 interviewer that there were now three social democratic parties in British politics and that UKIP was repositioning to the centre-right because no-one else was there.  David Cameron, he said, had abandoned traditional conservative territory on school reform, tax policy, immigration and protecting the greenbelt and this had given UKIP a tremendous opportunity.

He did not disagree with the interviewer's contention that UKIP was trying to pick up the Thatcherite torch and said that UKIP was now determined to reach the many stay-at-homes who had stopping voting for the Tories or any political party in recent years.

He said that UKIP was talking to Conservatives in the Lords and Commons and that he hoped that a straw would soon break the camel's back and a defection would occur.

The danger in UKIP's strategy - apart from looking very opportunistic - is that it will frighten the non-Tory-minded voters who have supported UKIP in the past. Although 45% of UKIP's supporters came from the Tories at the 2004 European Elections (according to an ICM/ Guardian survey at the time) 20% had been Labour voters and 11% had crossed from the LibDems.  A decidedly Thatcherite UKIP may also upset some of its MEPs and other leading members who have been UKIP supporters because of a Shore/Benn-like Euroscepticism, rather than because of any the party's domestic policies.  The whole Kilroy-Silk episode showed how UKIP was capable of vicious infighting and this strategy may yet cause more internal problems.

After gaining 16.1% of the vote at the 2004 European elections UKIP failed to come close to winning any seat at the 2005 general election.

Comments

[Jonathan Sheppard]

Surely UKIP will be welcoming a Conservative Government with a healthy Euro scepticism at its heart rather than fighting against such an eventuality? But perhaps that it too sensible a thing to hope for....

[malcolm]

Perhaps Mr Farage wants to adopt a UKIP 'core vote' or '25%' strategy!
Welcome back Jonathan,hope you had a good honeymoon.

[Jonathan Sheppard]

Maybe he does - but following the Kilroy saga I think UKIP have been seriously damaged.... Thanks for the good wishes... not wanting to make you healous but I am in a lovely spa hotel - temp about 32 degrees - and have another week left!!

[Chad]

"Surely UKIP will be welcoming a Conservative Government with a healthy Euro scepticism at its heart rather than fighting against such an eventuality?"

No, they despise the Tories.

It is completely illogical, but rather than focus on the pro-EU parties, they seek to destroy the most eu-sceptical for historic reasons (Tories took us in, Heath lied etc etc). You only have to look at their forum to find the Tories consume most of the debate.

UKIP is a mess. There is a positive core of modernisers (the Lechlade group) who, quite understandably are appalled at the unilateral shift in direction by Farage.

Taking into account that the BNP are better organised, the impending emergence of the New Party (with their EU withdrawal policy integrated rather than being the only policy), the English Democrats and (hopefully) the Tory withdrawal from the EPP, there really does not seem to be any space for UKIP, whichever direction Farage seeks to take them to.

UKIP's membership and donations are in freefall. It is not quite in a Veritas state yet, but by alienating the very members who could (still a big if) turn things around, the party is beginning the process that will lead to its onw demise.

I think that will be a good thing as UKIP (with its cartoon politics perfectly embodied by their UKIPMan) is a distraction to EU withdrawal, dragging the debate out to the fringes, when in fact it is a core requirement (imho) , essential to small government.

[Richard]

"Taking into account that the BNP are better organised, the impending emergence of the New Party (with their EU withdrawal policy integrated rather than being the only policy)"

I'd forgotten about the New Party. They seem to be a small-government Conservative Party. They look like more of a threat than UKIP. What do people make of them?

[Chris Palmer]

Speaking of the Conservatives and the EU, when is Roger Helmer actually going to be welcomed back into the party fold?

[Chad]

"New Party...What do people make of them?"

They have published a full manifesto which is available in pdf form on their site.

There does seem to be some confusion in it about tax (calling for a single flat tax but later using NI to fund a personal equity scheme) but they are receiving funding (about 100k per quarter) and apparently are now ready to stand in local elections (100+ candidates I believe).

Overall, they are a much more professional looking outfit than UKIP, my criticism would be that they seem to be a pick-n-mix of popular policies rather than having any values base, which is perhaps reflected in the name which gives nothing away and is basically meaningless.

Still, the members I have conversed with have been moderate and intelligent, so I wish them well.

[Chad]

..and they champion that radical ideal of low taxation!

[Richard]

Kilroy boosted and then destroyed UKIP. Without the media spotlight they are nothing. They lack the notoriety of the BNP which further undermines their chances of gaining public attention.

Using UKIP as a protest vote is only really effective in the European elections because they are still perceived as a single issue party. Even though they did well last time they are still ignored by the government because they are viewed (rightly or wrongly) as right-wing Tories. Protest votes for the BNP are ironically more effective because the threat is seen as more dangerous.

[Chad]

With the emerging small parties all looking to the centre-right, hopefully that will reinforce the Conservative agenda is indeed the right way forward.

As soon as (as long as) we pull out of the EPP, we will be able to attract back members who have drifted to the anti-EU parties. Most people are just seeking the party that is mostlikely to achieve (rather than just espouse) the closest to their own aims.

We should not underestimate the protest vote, and just because UKIP are in a downward spiral to oblivion, we should not write off the possibility of a different and more potent vote-splitter.

Let's get out of the EPP now! (oh and promote low taxation as a core goal)

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"As soon as (as long as) we pull out of the EPP, we will be able to attract back members who have drifted to the anti-EU parties."

I hate to argue with you Chad, but I think you'll find most of the members who drifted to anti-EU parties couldn't give a toss about which obscure continental grouping the Conservatives are aligned with.

[Chad]

Hi Daniel,

Hanging around the anti-eu forums (as you do, well I do, someone has to) it has become clear that most people are not committed to their current party but the one most likely to achieve EU withdrawal, or at least begin the process of returning powers.

Many of the people are quite clear that they would come over to the Conservative fold if we withdraw from the EPP. Many of these were hoping that Liam Fox would win the leadership bid.

But yes, I agree, I was a bit loose with my language, I agree that this group is not the ex-Tory element of UKIP who are generally very bitter and beyond reason, but floating voters desperate to oppose the federalist project.

You're right, I'm wrong.. sorry.. ;-)

[Tory T]

Is there some strange attempt to boost the absurd New Party going on here?

It's been around for at least three years and is the plaything of a odd businessman, Robert Durward, who has enticed a couple of egotistical fantasists to join him.

http://election.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=733&id=91642003

The internet is a great thing but one of its downsides is that any prat with a few quid (or website design skills) can create a Potemkin village-style organisation online. Uninformed folk can't tell if it has substance or only really exists in virtual reality. Often this is used to con money out of the unweary but, occasionally, it provides a mechanism for a few nobodies to persuade others to take them seriously.

[Martin]

Good.

The public saw that Blair was serious about ditching socialism when people started threatening to try and take the votes on the left wing. Arthur Scargill's party was a joke, of course, and the Labour heartlands stuck with Blair. What other serious choice could they have made? Meanwhile the electorate knew that the most hardcore old school nutters were no longer represented by the Labour Party. That made it more attractive as a potential Government.

Now, the current situation with Cameron bears comparison. UKIP are welcome to the right wing. Good riddance. Not only will it reinforce Cameron's message to the public that the party is losing its most unattrative policies and personalities, but the simple psephology of it is that every vote won in the centre is worth double one lost on the right. In the centre, you take votes away from your opponents as well as gaining them yourself. Besides, just as Labour's heartlands swallowed their frustrations in order to achieve power, so will Tories'. No other option is realistic winner for them

[Sean Fear]

That's a remarkably complacent post, Martin.

[Chad]

"Is there some strange attempt to boost the absurd New Party going on here?"

No! They have just come to life again apparently and will be putting candidates up for election.

It has certainly attracted the attention of several disillusioned UKIP members, hence the reason for mentioning it.

[Julian H]

Martin - spot on.

[Richard]

"The internet is a great thing but one of its downsides is that any prat with a few quid (or website design skills) can create a Potemkin village-style organisation online."

It's a pity really as their manifesto is actually very attractive. Ironic that they are standing in Scotland on such a free-market manifesto bearing in mind Scotland's traditional love of the welfare state.

[michael]

"the simple psephology of it is that every vote won in the centre is worth double one lost on the right. In the centre, you take votes away from your opponents as well as gaining them yourself."

I have to agree with you Martin. Labour held it's massive majority in 2001 because middle england carried on voting Labour in the marginals. The biggest swings against New labour were in the ultra-safe Labour seats where they could afford to lose votes to the left.

[Sean Fear]

It's a bit more complex than that, Michael. Votes won from the Lib Dems in Con/Lab contest don't count twice, and votes won from Labour in Con/Lib Dem contests don't count twice either.

Our vote is spread more evenly across the country than Labour's vote (which has virtually disappeared in rural England). Our strongholds are nothing like as impregnable as Labour's strongholds - hence we don't have the luxury of being able to write off votes in the way that Labour can.

We can't win just on the basis of our core; and we most definitely can't win without them - and that means we have to motivate them.

[Phil Jackson]

the simple psephology of it is that every vote won in the centre is worth double one lost on the right. In the centre, you take votes away from your opponents as well as gaining them yourself.

Sure. That's why rightist Maggie lost 3 general elections, and the leftist Major did not go down to the worst election defeat in 150 years.

Nice theory, Martin.

[michael]

Sure Sean, but what we can't do is have it both ways in terms of message. in modernisisng and repositioning the Party we can't now start mixing in core vote messages at the first sign of difficulty. New Labour held firm and took the risk of losing traditional Labour supporters to hold onto middle-england.

While I don't want to lose any of our core votes, I put a higher value on attracting back those middle class voters we have lost since 1992 - one nation Conservatives who have been voting New Labour, Lib Dem or not voting at all.

The fact that our vote is spread more evenly across the country is an indictment on the Party machine and our inability to stack up votes!

[michael]

Phil you have it totally wrong! Maggie won 3 elections not because she was 'rightist' but because she was able to appeal to the middle class and the aspirational working class. Aspiration was the key to electoral success, just as Blair achieved in 1997.

On John Major - he won more votes than Tony Blair in 1997! Problem was, he didn't pile them up in the right places.

[Chris Palmer]

"On John Major - he won more votes than Tony Blair in 1997! Problem was, he didn't pile them up in the right places." - Michael

Are you sure that is factually correct? I would say not.

[Phil Jackson]

I put a higher value on attracting back those middle class voters we have lost since 1992

I suspect that almost all of those people are public sector managers (the bureauclass?) whose numbers have burgeoned under Labour, and – as they already have two centre-left parties to choose from – why should they risk a vote for us? No matter what Cameron does we are always going to be seen as the most potentially anti-statist of the three (and so we should be).

Instead of regarding the core vote as an arithmetical deadweight we need to view it instead (and somewhat metaphorically) as an army to be invested with confidence and heightened morale, and thus made attractive to other slivers of society. Thatcher did this in 79 and attracted the upwardly mobile blue collars (white van man) and both Bush and Aussie Howard have driven socially ‘downward’ in their appeal. We’ve done it before and we can do it again. Chasing after Graunoids is a waste of time. Who needs ‘em?

[Phil Jackson]

Maggie won 3 elections not because she was 'rightist' but because she was able to appeal to the middle class and the aspirational working class

She certainly appealed to the 'aspirational' workers, but most of them had always had profoundly conservative values. One should not equate 'working class' with being Left. Most proletarians have traditionally voted Labour either for (a) pragmatic reasons or (b)inverted snobbery (chippiness). Leftist idealogy on the other hand is almost entirely a concoction of discontented bourgeois intellectuals and essentailly serves the power-seeking needs of the intelligentsia and the bureacracy.

[Phil Jackson]

Apologies for (a) spelling and (b) sounding like an anarchist (I used to be one).

[Sean Fear]

Like any successful right of centre party, we need to enthuse core supporters, new voters and swing voters - which is how Maggie won.

The fact that our vote is spread more evenly than Labour is not necessarily an indictment of our organisation - it's just the way it is. Labour are the only party that can count on tribal support now (and that's in decline). We have to work simply to keep the support we have.

[malcolm]

Chris, Micheal was quite factually correct.

[Phil Jackson]

1997 votes

Labour - 13,518,167

Conservative - 9,600,943

[johnC]

No, Michael was completely wrong.

In 1997, Labour got 11.3m votes (43%) and
the Tories 8.7m (33%). The spread of votes is normally slightly advantageous to Labour but not that much.

[johnC]

Sorry Phil you are right - I was looking at the England only votes. But the principle is the same.

[malcolm]

I assume Michael meant that John Major won more votes in 1992v than Blair did in 1997.Despite that our majority in 1992 was tiny compared to Blairs as our votes were more evenly spread.

[Phil Jackson]

I was going by wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UK_general_election,_1997

[Gareth]

Do you think the fact that Margaret Thatcher had to fight Michael Foot might have helped her along a bit? Even then we barely scraped 42% of the vote.

[michael]

Phil, I don't associate working class with left-wing politics. Quite the opposite. Some of the strongest hangers and floggers I know are lifelong Labour voters. Many of them were attracted to Thatcher because she transcended left-right loyalties to appeal to aspiration. In short they voted for Maggie rather than Conservative.

I agree with Sean, "We have to work simply to keep the support we have." BUT I don't think that should be to the exclusion of floating voters which has been the consequence of core vote strategies since 1997.

In '92, John Major had a real narrative - opportunity for all. It chimed perfectly with his own journey from Brixton to Downing Street. We looked like a Party that cared and Major sounded like a man you could trust.

We need that sort of narrative now. We need to go from core votes to more votes!

[Sean Fear]

Beating Michael Foot in 1983 wasn't hard. Pushing up our vote from 35% in 1974 to 43% in 1979, against someone as well-liked as James Callaghan, was an impressive achivement.

[michael]

Thanks Malcolm - I was saying that in 1992, Major got more votes than Blair managed to achieve in 1997. compare the majorities though! ouch.

The only point I was making is that a one-nation message isn't a vote loser.

[Old Hack]

"He (Farage) said that UKIP was talking to Conservatives in the Lords and Commons and that he hoped that a straw would soon break the camel's back and a defection would occur."

Was Farage sober when he appeared the Westminster Hour?

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Beating Michael Foot in 1983 wasn't hard."

Then perhaps you'll explain why we were on course to lose until those boisterous Argies intervened?

[Sean Fear]

We weren't. The polls had turned in our favour by Spring 1982.

http://www.mori.com/polls/trends/voting-all-trends.shtml#1982

Of course, Margaret Thatcher's resolute response to the Argentine invasion ensured that we won a landslide. But we'd have won anyway. Firstly because the government's economic policies were starting to bear fruit; secondly because Labour left no stone unturned in their determination to lose.

[Andrew Woodman]

'secondly because Labour left no stone unturned in their determination to lose.'

Like us during the past 2 elections or is that unfair?

[William Norton]

The Foot 1983 manifesto was, famously "the longest suicide note in history" (a quote attributed to about half a dozen people).

What would a Tory equivalent manifesto look like?

[Editor]

I thought it was Gerald Kaufman, William?

[Sean Fear]

I think that Labour's campaign in 1983 (and manifesto) was a good deal worse than ours in 2005.

[Andrew Woodman]

Here's the 1983 Labour manifesto. Quite a good laugh actually. Ours wasn't as bad as this so I was being unfair.

http://www.labour-party.org.uk/manifestos/1983/1983-labour-manifesto.shtml

[William Norton]

What goes around comes around. The 1983 Labour Party manifesto "New Hope for Britain" has the same name as a 2005 speech to the CPS by David Cameron. It's also a UKIP slogan.

[Andrew Woodman]

Let's hope for a different result William.

[Rob Largan]

Is that the same speech Cameron denounced Thatcher?

[Richard]

We weren't. The polls had turned in our favour by Spring 1982.

http://www.mori.com/polls/trends/voting-all-trends.shtml#1982

I am bemused as to why there are categories for the Libs, SDP and the Alliance. The Alliance was the Libs and SDP combined! However, the Lib and SDP figures do not add up to the Alliance figures. Perhaps it means people were asked whether they'd like a Liberal government, an SDP government or a government of both combined.

[Jon White]

Whilst the issue of Europe is (quite rightly) an important consideration to the patriots like myself and others who regularly post here, the sad fact is that for the majority of voters it is completely irrelevant. They couldn't give a monkey's, quite frankly.

When are we going to learn that, instead of tearing ourselves apart over it as we have for the last 15 years?

The wisest electoral saying in recent years was Clinton's 'It's the economy, Stupid'. That is why Blair has won three times - because the public PERCEIVE that they are well off.

Instead of worrying about UKIP, we should be directing our energies at showing just how untrue it is that the ecomony is in good shape. We have to be trusted once more by the elctorate as the best party for fiscal probity. Once we do that, then we have a chance.

[verulamgal]

"Let's hope for a different result, William"

Under Cameron's leadership? What a laugh; I'm not holding my breath

[Gareth]

"Pushing up our vote from 35% in 1974 to 43% in 1979, against someone as well-liked as James Callaghan, was an impressive achivement."

There was just the small matter of the winter of discontent and the economic record of a Labour government that made Wilson's between '66 and '70 look successful.

[Ted]

Gareth,
In hindsight it might look obvious Labour would lose but people remembered the three day week under Heath, Callaghan was a relatively new and popular leader and turning that around wasn't an easy thing to do. There was a general acceptance of managed decline, income & price policies etc and as Germany showed in its last election even when things are bad people aren't always willing to go to the alternative.

[Sean Fear]

It doesn't alter the fact that Callaghan was more popular than Thatcher in May 1979, Gareth.

No other Conservative leader has been able to persuade people who'd never thought of themselves as Conservatives to vote Conservative.

[Gareth]

The Conservative share of the vote in 1979 was 3% lower than Ted Heath got in 1970; only 1% more than Ted Heath got in the Labour landslide of 1966; the same share Alec D-H got in 1964 and 6% less than Supermac got in 1959.

What makes you so convinced she persuaded large numbers of people to vote Conservative for the first time?

[Sean Fear]

I'd need to recheck the Butler/Kavanagh study for 1979, Gareth.

But broadly, the conclusion was that Conservative support was more or less unchanged among middle class voters (the party's core vote in October 1974) between 1974 and 1979, but surged massively among working class voters, particularly in the South of England, many of whom would previously have regarded themselves as Labour. That's borne out by the sort of results that were seen across East London, the Thames Estuary, and the West Midlands.

The Conservatives also had a big lead among first time voters.

[William Norton]

"Let's hope for a different result, William"

I'm making no predictions or inferences. It's just that I found it amusing - and, for once, possibly even relevant - for a thread about UKIP claiming the Thatcherite inheritance (and the unelectability of certain manifestoes) that at different times UKIP, Cameron and Michael Foot had all hit on the same slogan. Perhaps it tells us more about political slogans?

[william]

The pity for Nigel Farage is that he is stuck in such a useless party. He is a brilliant communicator, and should be heard far and wide on the EU. He speaks on US radio regularly to millions of Americans.

But UKIP is a spent force. Their leadership is dull, corrupt and undemocratic. In fact they manage to make the EU seem attractive in comparison!

If Farage achieves the miracle of winning B & C, he should switch his support to the Conservatives and become the replacement for Eric Forth in Better Off Out.