"New Politics"? Really?
They promise stable, bold new politics but the introduction of compassion and consensus into Parliament isn't actually the radical idea some see it as being. As Ken Clarke pointed out last week, all political parties are in fact coalitions - a mixture of progressives and traditionalists that agree to disagree for the sake of the greater cause - power. It is then the unexpected (but now looking rather natural) partnership between Mr. Cameron and Mr. Clegg that will make or break this Government.
So far, out of it has come the new Prime Minister looking by the far the best. He has shifted his party towards the centre; he has shoved his old, rigid backbenchers somewhere out in the wilderness; and he has brought in the Lib Dems to the point where on the one hand he can spread the blame if we suffer a double dip recession while on the other if the coalition succeeds then he has a good chance of harvesting a lot of votes off Mr. Clegg.
So it's likely that it'll be this long drawn out, weighing-up exercise of who is getting the better of who that will ultimately tear the coalition apart. The optimism and hope that both parties seem to genuinely share is soon going to waver as the horrendous cuts that are coming to public services begin to bite.
Even in Scotland, where many consider the coalition government to have been a success, as time has gone on a gradual retrenchment into tribal warfare has occurred. It is only natural then that when the public want to point the finger at someone, each side will back into their own corner and hurl offences at the other.
So it is in this strange time that the Labour leadership election matters more than it may be first thought - a successful redefining of their socialist roots must surely put them odds-on to reclaim power the next time the public go out to vote.
(photo courtesy of The Prime Minster's Office @Flickr)
Winning twelve seats in the European Parliament at the 2009 elections, coming second only to the Conservatives in England, was a breakthrough for the party. Naturally, after that boost, UKIP wants to be taken seriously as an electoral force, and a viable alternative to the status quo on all political issues, not just through the anti-European Union stance for which the party is best known.
This aspiration is reasonable enough. Many parties have started out as pressure groups, standing in elections to make a point, to bring a particular issue into the political spotlight. The Green movement in Europe, the Northern League in Italy and the Bloc Québécois in Canada have all successfully morphed from single issue campaign groups into parties with a comprehensive manifesto and a desire not just to influence government, but to be part of it. UKIP has clearly decided these are the examples it must follow.
The problem is that once UKIP has made that choice and resolved to become a party campaigning on all issues, it has to see it through, and start taking itself seriously on that basis. The paperwork is there; the party’s manifesto contains pledges on seventeen different policy areas, from the NHS to pensions to transport. And whatever you think of the policies themselves (you can read a summary of the manifesto here - http://www.ukip.org/content/ukip-policies/1567-ukip-manifesto), most of the bases are covered.
But politicians and activists within UKIP just aren’t communicating this new identity effectively. In this election season, the party is coming across as a ranting, raving, aggressively anti-European group, still obsessed with a single issue. We’ve already seen Nigel Farage’s bizarre tirade against the European Council President, Herman van Rompuy, in February. However outraged he is that an unelected politician is so influential in Europe, Farage’s outburst seemed unprofessional, hysterical, and against the politeness which UKIP identifies as “part of Britishness” in its own publications (http://www.ukip.org/media/pdf/Britishness.pdf).
Now Lord Pearson of Rannoch, who replaced Farage as leader of UKIP in December, has given on the BBC’s Campaign Show. Lord Pearson was completely unwilling to discuss much of his own party’s manifesto, such as their policy on crime, because he wanted to focus only on Europe, which is UKIP’s safer ground. When he was pressed on the manifesto, Lord Pearson implied that he hadn’t developed most of the policies himself, and though he did claim to have read the manifesto in full, his unwillingness to defend it made for a less than convincing party leader.
UKIP must stop playing games with the electorate. It is the party’s right to choose whether to be a protest group or an alternative government. But if they pretend to be something they’re not, UKIP politicians can expect voters to leave them out in the cold.
Write a comment