Many wrongly see UKIP as a net positive for Labour – this is wrongheaded. Labour needs to get serious about UKIP, says Sam Fowles.
Last week Nigel Farage announced his ambition, not just to be David Cameron’s “worst nightmare” but Ed Miliband’s as well. The general perception amongst the progressive media appears to be that UKIP’s increasing threat (aptly illustrated by the, suspiciously timely, resignation of Douglas Carswell) will be a net positive for Labour, making it more difficult for the Conservatives to win the next general election. This is a mistake.
All too often we see politics as being only about the next election. It’s not. Politics is about the sort of nation we want. Winning an election is a means to an end. That end is the principles we support becoming the principles that govern our nation. Elections themselves are not defining moments but the inevitable products of public debates. They are won and lost in the collective consciousness, not at the ballot box.
Margaret Thatcher defined the public discourse. Although she herself lost office, every government since, including those comprised of her political opponents, have pursued policies based on the ideology she espoused. They view the world according to the paradigm which she established.
Here’s an example: Most good economists will argue that the financial crisis was caused by a failure of the (private) financial sector. Yet all economic arguments in our public debate are based on the premise that we must cut back on the state. We don’t discuss the logic behind this; it’s become an irrefutable “fact” of British politics. The “private: good/state: bad” paradigm is unsupported by history or economics but every political party conforms with it because it is the paradigm which defines our public debate.
To win elections but, more importantly, to see their principles realised, a political party needs to define the debate. Unless it can do so (as I have argued before) it will always be arguing according to it’s opponent’s terms and thus will always lose.
UKIP may prove to be of short-term electoral advantage to Labour. In the long term, they will push the public discourse further to the right. Labour may be in power but their principles will not. A party that is content to maintain power by implementing ideals that it should fundamentally oppose does not deserve to exist.
In the United States some liberals privately welcomed the rise of the Tea Party when it appeared that its effect would be to make the Republican Party permanently unelectable. Instead American public discourse was pushed to the right. GOP establishment figures like Karl Rove were made to appear centrist and reasonable while Democrats were forced to refight old battles on abortion and race.
If UKIP continue on the road to mainstream acceptance how long will it be before progressives in the UK are forced, once more, to defend hard won legislation on equalities, employment rights or the minimum wage? Rather than arguing for a better future, the left will be forced to devote all its energy simply to prevent it becoming worse.
So how should the left respond? It’s tempting to mollify UKIP voters, acknowledge that they have real concerns about immigration or Human Rights, in the hope of winning them back into the fold. But history should teach us that pandering to xenophobes only breeds more xenophobes.
UKIP supporters do not have reasonable concerns. The basis on which most positions in support of UKIP are founded are factually inaccurate. Supporting UKIP requires believing things which are simply not true. Pretending anything else will move the political discourse to a place where reality is permanently eclipsed by provocation.
There are real reasons that UKIP voters feel disenfranchised and these should be addressed but not in the way they are expressed by Farage and co.
In the 2008 election Obama For America destroyed John McCain’s credibility by focusing on the ludicrous positions of his running mate, Sarah Palin. Her most famous statement, “I can see Russia from my house”, came from the lips of Saturday Night Live’s Tina Fey. Palin’s politics were absurd so she was effectively laughed out of office. UKIP should be treated the same way. A party which bases it’s electoral appeal on ignorance and xenophobia should be a punch line, not an election contender.
The enemy of my enemy is not my friend. Labour needs to get serious about UKIP. But the only way to do so successfully is not to take them seriously at all.
Sam Fowles is a researcher in International Law and Politics at Queen Mary, University of London
To reach hundreds of thousands of new readers and to make the biggest impact we can in the next general election, we need to grow our donor base substantially.
That's why in 2024, we are seeking to generate 150 additional regular donors to support Left Foot Forward's work.
We still need another 124 people to donate to hit the target. You can help. Donate today.
68 Responses to “UKIP is a threat to Labour – it needs a serious response”
Max Thrust
“So how should the left respond? It’s tempting to mollify UKIP voters,
acknowledge that they have real concerns about immigration or Human
Rights, in the hope of winning them back into the fold. But history
should teach us that pandering to xenophobes only breeds more xenophobes.”
This sort of pathetic and groundless name-calling is exactly why UKIP is taking Labour votes. Keep it up!
blarg1987
While I do not agree with many of UKIP’s policies, I do believe they can be as bad as the other political parties on certain issues. For example, they are not clear cut on what EU legislation they would abolish, for example would they keep minimum wage legislation, working time directive and minimum holidays?
I think UKIP is however clear on some policies that the public are concerned / interested in, which is forcing other political parties to be accordingly.
Old Boss,New Boss, Meh!
As we speak, thousands of bogus asylum seekers are trying to get into the UK from Calais. Labour Councils in Rotherham and Wrexham are embroiled in paedophile gangs. What have Labour done about it?Sweet FA, that’s all. Why would I consider voting Labour?
Ken Bell
“UKIP supporters do not have reasonable concerns.” As opposed to people like you, with your cushy number in the University of London, and tasty pension waiting in the wings.
Speaking as an ex-Kipper I can confirm that the party really is made up of small town cardigan wearers who dream about Auntie Maggie coming back to save them, and that is why the party will fail to make many inroads on the estates.
However, supporters or voters are not the same as members, and there is an overlap between what the people want and what UKIP is offering. The EU as we know is supported by the CBI, which is as good a reason as any for ordinary people to be dubious about it. As we know, if it is good for the employer, then by definition it is bad for us.
Leading on from that, allowing an army of scab labour into the country – a country which is virtually non-unionised these days – is of no benefit to us. By “us” I mean the people who have to compete with those scab labourers for the crappy jobs that are on offer. Obviously it does not refer to people who have cushy numbers like you who get the cheap plumbers and nice, well-educated nannies for your brats.
I could go on, but what’s the point? Labour is the party of types like you and you have worked hard to take control of it.
The point is that I won’t vote for it, and neither will a lot of others.
GhostofJimMorrison
Spot on! This author is a typical London liberal intelligentsia academic who, for all his undoubted intelligence, just does not get it!!