Left Foot Forward asked a number of leading progressives what they think Labour needs to do to defeat UKIP.
Such is the impact of UKIP’s victory in the European elections that even Tony Blair has waded into the debate with advice on what Labout needs to do to beat UKIP at the polls.
If it’s good enough for Blair it’s good enough for us, so with that in mind we asked a number of leading progressives what they think Labour needs to do to beat the Kippers.
Marcus Roberts, deputy general secretary of the Fabian Society
1) Dive deep into the data
Look at UKIP’s results not just in wards where they won, but where they lost and either secured second place or cost Labour a council seat to the Tories. The work of analysts like Ian Warren is invaluable to this.
2) Understand the different kinds of UKIP voters
As Sunder Katwala cheekily calls it, there is BlueKip (likely 2015 Tory voters), FUKIP (the Farage faithful) and WhoKip (up for grabs, often former Labour or Labour-identifying non-voters). Target messaging, policy and organisation at the latter who can be won over with proven methods.
3) Look at policy and culture
Ed Miliband has a host of policy that should be attractive for Labour/UKIP considerers (managing rent rises, increasing social housing supply, year on year increases in the minimum wage). And Labour councils from Newham to Southampton have imposed residency duration tests for access to social housing which plays well on the doorstep. But smart policy isn’t enough. The cultural anxieties of Labour/UKIP considerers need to be assuaged as well. John Denham and Jon Cruddas’s embrace of Englishness for Labour is important here.
4) Put the Arnie Graf community organising model at the heart of Labour
UKIP are attracting blue collar voters as they tap into anger, insecurity and fear of change. To answer this Labour must be present in communities and demonstrate that change isn’t something to be feared because it’s done to you, but celebrated when it’s done with you – be it through living wage campaigns or action against pay day loan shops. All of this helps grow leaders rooted in their own community who will have the respect they need in their areas to persuade people to back Labour. As the Labour party’s top organiser Caroline Badley told me: “you counter the politics of protest with a politics that’s personal.”
5) Understand how UKIP attracts women
As the British Election Survey’s Caitlin Milazzo notes, UKIP is male-dominated but female voters tend to be especially loyal to UKIP. This emphasizes the need to prevent female Labour/UKIP considerers from breaking for UKIP now as they’re harder to win back later. Thankfully, the work of Gloria De Piero on both her ‘What Women Want‘ and ‘Why do they hate me‘ projects to engage both women and non-voters alike should be greatly expanded by Labour.
Anthony Painter, previously director of the Independent Review of the Police Federation
Labour has a perfectly sound immigration and European policy. It is in the national interest. The problem it has is that it doesn’t have the courage of its convictions; it’s scared of its own shadow.
If it accommodates UKIP then what? It’s quite simple. Labour will further reinforce policy positions that are not in the national interest and will, at best, gain no support. It will probably lose support. How is this a sensible approach?
There’s one further thing: the reputation of politicians. If you listen, Nigel Farage speaks, acts, thinks like the ‘political elite’. This should be pointed out relentlessly.
But there are also deep systemic problems: the Labour Party is an insider’s club. That is not going to change over night but after the next election, Labour will require fundamental change – much like the Police Federation has been through.
However, to start to desperately chase support of those inclined towards UKIP by becoming UKIP-lite will only compound the problem. Leadership in the national interest is what is needed instead of desperate and destructive measures.
Emma Burnell, Labour List columnist
The lie that UKIP are only a threat to the Tories has been well and truly exposed. Who they appeal to is the swath of voters who feel they have been left behind by politics over the last few decades. Those who don’t fit the Worcester Woman/Mondeo Man ‘aspirational’ middle class that mainstream politicians have been fighting over since the inception of New Labour.
Labour cannot and must not try to outflank UKIP on immigration. It won’t work practically, it won’t be right morally and it won’t even work politically – the voters simply wouldn’t believe us. But neither can we simply ignore the concerns about immigration.
What we can do is take these concerns seriously and think about their implications. What we must do is put forward a positive alternative that goes some way to assuaging voters insecurity and offering an appealing vision for the future
This does not necessarily mean a change of policies – many of those announced during the campaign (on housing, wages and the NHS) should – when pitched as a coherent package – do this job. But we need to frame less as a response to current circumstances (using only the negative cost of living frame) and more about ensuring and stronger and more secure future.
Annie Powell, contributing editor to Left Foot Forward
Less than 40 per cent of the UK electorate voted last week. Contempt for mainstream politics enables UKIP to thrive and is the issue that Labour must address.
In doing so, Labour MPs should – dare I say it – be more like Nigel Farage.
Farage is a ‘conviction politician’. That this phrase even exists is an indictment of our politics. The freedom with which he speaks stands in such marked contrast to the near-paralysis of MPs so afraid of alienating this or that social group that they use pre-prepared soundbites and avoid questions.
By trying to court all voters they inspire none.
It’s human nature not to respect someone who is desperate to please and is too insecure to express their own views. Those are certainly not the qualities we want in our leaders.
So Miliband needs to speak more freely: who does he stand for? What exactly is his vision for Britain?
49 Responses to “How can Labour defeat UKIP?”
LB
which are rough guesses at best
==============
No, having done what you’ve asked me to do, I accept they are pretty accurate bar one number, the use of AA corporate bonds as a discount rate. The end result is that the current figure is an underestimate.
Future figures are an irrelevance. From the current figure, you know what the future figures will be. Broad the triple lock applied to the current figure.
==========
Now the question I can’t understand is why do you treat the worst case scenario as the only scenrio?
==========
It’s not. It’s the best case scenario. What makes you think its the worst case scenario?
==========
If that was the case then correct me if I am wrong you would not have been able to afford a property and the insurence industry would not be able to pay out as the liablities exceed the income.
==========
You’re argument is not clear, but I’ll make some assumptions about what you are trying to say.
For an insurance company, payouts determined by events. The more events, the more certain you are as to what you will pay out. This is mathematically correct, its the basis of insurance. Its the central limit theorem if you want to look it up.
You then need to make sure that income, from both premiums and returns on investments are less than the expected payouts. Otherwise you go bust. Given there will be some uncertainty in payouts, you also are required to have a safety margin. All absolutely standard.
So how can the state pay out on its liabilities, when in real terms (inflation adjusted), they are known with a very high degree of certainty? You have income, but you have no investment return. None. Unfunded pensions means no assets.
So for an insurance firm and the state, the liabilities are the present value of the expected payouts.
For the state they haven’t got enough income to pay out.
For that you need to know what the lower bound is on the liabilities. It’s more than the ONS estimate, and they can’t pay that.
Of course you could always post the most likely PV, and some bounds. If you can’t you must have made up the worst case assumption.
blarg1987
Its the worst case scenario as you have admitted when moaning about the “debt” that you also include ALL goverment guarentees on the assumption that the state will have to pay out in full.
Many of these said guarentees are funded such as pensions for privatised utilities so you are taking worse case scenario.
Again on your last comment the point is they are not known, the OBR report you keep preaching admit that if you do not like it then why have you not taken up your argument with the OBR, also have you told the ONS this oinformation if it is true? And what has their response been if that is the case?
LB
hat you also include ALL goverment guarentees on the assumption that the state will have to pay out in full.
================
They have to pay out in full on the losses. They don’t have to pay out in full on the amount guaranteed.
ie. As I’ve said but you seem to ignore, if you run an insurance scheme, you are liable for the expected losses, not the sum insured. If you expect 1 in 1000 houses to burn down a year, and you insure 10,000, then your expected losses are 10 houses, not 10,000 houses.
===============
Many of these said guarentees are funded such as pensions for privatised utilities so you are taking worse case scenario.
===============
Correct. However, its small peanuts compared to the state’s pensions.
I’m not talking worst case scenario either. The correct thing to do is to report the expected loss as it is now, present valued. So If the BT pension fund has 100 bn in assets, but owes 150 bn, the correct figure to report is a 50 bn liability on the guarantee. No worst case or best case.
So back to the state pensions. You’ve claimed I’ve reported the ONS numbers and that’s a worst case scenario. However to come to that conclusion, you must have evidence as to the best case, or even the most likely, as well as evidence why its the worst case.
So come on stump up the evidence.
PS. It’s an underestimate because they assume they have AA corporate bonds in the bank, when they have none. Hence they have inflated the discount rate, and so made the debt look smaller.
LB
Like the current Labour position on the vote. London gets it, but the rest of the UK are racist scum. To paraphrase.