19/08/2013
Anyone who thinks the UKIP debate is a marginal issue needs to look at the
Mail online to see a story which has Nigel Farage "at the centre of a row" after "appearing to suggest âviolenceâ could be justified to overthrow Brussels bureaucrats".
The UKIP leader, we are told, warned that the EU was heading for "revolution" and "said violent protest could be the only way for southern European nations to save their democracies".
The thing which marks this out though is that the story is based on comments made by Farage
last year on the Alex Jones show â nut-job centre â yet they are now deemed of sufficient news value to put up on the
Mail website. Whether they make the print copy, I can't say.
But, if Farage is making the legacy media under such circumstances, then what he is, who he is, and what his party does is part of the more general debate, and is not thus one which is safe to leave exclusively to the legacy media. The blogosphere has an important part to play in it as well. And yes, that means this blog as well.
Sadly, the blogosphere is one member less as of tonight as
Autonomous Mind closes down his blog. He has had enough of the sort of feline
sniping that we see on blog comments, and so we lose an effective and valued ally. Our only consolation is that he has not walked away from the battle ... only that he has temporarily vacated the blogosphere.
AM starts his post by ruminating on the contrast between things which some people consider to be acceptable and beyond reproach and "which immediately sends them into a frothing, seething mass of indignation, aggressive self justification, vitriol and sneering sideswipes".
The manifest failures of UKIP and the extremely dubious behaviour of some senior members are, on the one hand, for many a perfectly acceptable state of affairs. Yet, pointing out these failings, criticising them and exposing a variety of fixable shortcomings is considered to be completely unacceptable.
The result, says AM, "is the bitter invective hurled about by those for whom supporting UKIP has become a belief system that reminds me of something like a political version of scientology. Anyone who fails the purity test and dares to challenge the party or its elders becomes the target for a barrage of intolerance. The aim is to silence the critic or better still destroy him".
With this sentiment, I agree wholeheartedly. I still struggle to come to terms with the idea Nigel Farage's so often despicable behaviour is regarded indulgently by UKIP members, while my own attempts to draw attention to his campaigning deficiencies are treated in some quarters to a degree of invective that makes one feel dirty just reading it.
AM and I are accused of mounting a malicious campaign against UKIP, but it is by no means just us who have been pointing out the shortcomings of Nigel Farage and his Party. Tonight, we see input from
Dr Eric Edmond. Edmond, a former Bank of England official, was once a member of UKIP's NEC and he currently airs forthright views about UKIP. They are remarkably critical â but we don't co-ordinate. We don't even speak with each other. And we can't all be wrong.
The point that
AM makes is that the intent of so many UKIP supporters is to deny us the right even to debate the activities of UKIP â something I meet even on my own forum. The argument is that UKIP is the "only game in town" and this, for better or worse, we should all rally round it and give it our support.
Earlier on Sunday, however, I addressed the problem of UKIP,
on the forum, in response to a comment, suggesting that we we have to ask what the organisation is for, and what it is trying to achieve. Is it primarily a political party or is it an anti-EU movement - or is it both?
If it is primarily a political party, one has to ask whether the organisation, in that role, helps us achieve our own goal of getting out of the EU. And the answer to that depends on current electoral dynamics, particularly as to whether UKIP is likely to achieve power, or whether its electoral success (or lack of it) will influence the Conservatives in a way advantageous to us.
That is complicated enough, and the answers are not straightforward, but even in that calculus there is room for a scenario where UKIP as a political party, far from assisting the anti-EU movement, does more harm than good.
Similarly, when one considers UKIP as part of the anti-EU movement, there is also a room for a calculus in which UKIP does more harm than good. The point here is that, if we take current
YouGov figures, UKIP's electoral support is 13 percent. If we assume that all UKIP supporters are anti-EU (not necessarily the case), that compares with the latest withdrawal poll, which has 43 percent wanting to leave the EU.
The 13-43 percent figures suggest that 30 percent of those who want to leave the EU do not support UKIP. In other words, of the broader anti-EU community, UKIP supporters are the minority - less than a third of the total. Paid-up UKIP members are an even smaller minority.
Thus, we not assume that what is favourable to UKIP is necessarily favourable to the anti-EU movement generally. There is also room for the possibility that what is to the advantage of UKIP as a political party is good for the broader anti-EU movement. In other words, support for UKIP is not necessarily support for the anti-EU movement.
Is is in that sphere that I am operating. I am entirely indifferent to the success or otherwise of UKIP as a political party, except insofar as it may have an effect on my ultimate objective. And, as I see it, if UKIP is abandoning or weakening its original anti-EU posture in order to achieve electoral success, I have to take that into account. In particular, I have to take into account the possible impact of an electorally successful UKIP on the majority anti-EU sentiment that does not support UKIP.
There is then another complication. The current 43 percent of the electorate which supports leaving the EU is not sufficient (or firm enough) to win an "in-out" referendum. We need to attract voters who are currently neither in favour of leaving, nor supporters of UKIP. Furthermore, we have to prevent current anti-EU supporters deserting and joining the other side - or abstaining - in a referendum.
Here, the effects of UKIP on these groups is not known, and may be unknowable. But there is a distinct possibility that some voters in those groups are actually hostile to UKIP, and/or may be adversely influenced (in terms of their anti-EU sentiment) by what party does or says, or by its electoral performance.
Whatever the effects, the points that emerge are that support for UKIP does not necessarily advance the anti-EU cause, and that there are possible scenarios where support actually damages it. Therefore, to argue that we should all get behind the Farage party, come what may, may be overly simplistic and even counter-productive.
Furthermore, it is vital that we discuss such issues. Arguing over them brings forward ideas, and developing good ideas, thence to implement them, will help us get out of the EU. On the other hand, any amount of blind activity, based on bad ideas or a poor appreciation of the tactical situation, can actually hinder us in our task of leaving the EU. Supporting UKIP is not a zero-sum game.
Thus, an open and frank discussion about the role of UKIP, and its effect on the anti-EU movement as a whole, is both healthy and necessary. The fact that some UKIP members are opposed to such a discussion is neither here nor there. They do not "own" the anti-EU movement and their party is not even the majority.
Nevertheless, as long as UKIP is an important player in the EU debate â and no one sensible would deny that it is â then this blog will conduct its own brand of analytical evaluation. Of course, for me, there are also personal issues, but I will try to keep these out of the main blog. The issue of record is whether UKIP is an asset or handicap, and that is one which I intend to continue exploring.
COMMENT THREAD
