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
68 Responses to “UKIP is a threat to Labour – it needs a serious response”
Sam_Beresford
Typical drivel. They do have legitimate concerns – if you think UKIP are xenophobes you just don’t understand what xenophobia is. Likewise the half baked name calling about ‘far right’ or the ignorance of reality which leads to the unsupported claim that UKIP’s claims are factually inaccurate. They aren’t – prove me otherwise.
Labour needs to decide what it wants to be: a party of working class people or middle class public sector workers. The latter have dominated every Labour Govt since 1945, but the rise of UKIP is increasingly making this untenable. Matthew Goodwin and Rob Ford have been saying for some time now that UKIP is the most working class party in Britain. It’s only a matter of time before they make a Labour govt impossible.
What really underlies this attack is the Left’s dirty little secret: class prejudice. The ignorant and patronising tone of it and some comments below shows what the elite believe: they know better and the proles can’t be trusted. It’s disgraceful.
If you want a Labour Govt the way is to rediscover the old party, before Harold Wilson and the new left ( and the militant Unions). The euro scepticism of Gaitskell, the unabashed patriotism of George Lanbury. That is the way to long term success; not despising the people you claim to represent.
Sam_Beresford
You myth making is incredible. Can you actually justify any of this with evidence? Bring it. I suspect not, because contrary to you I don’t believe people are stupid enough to vote for a party that ‘panders’ in the way you describe. They don’t – it doesn’t exist. We’re back to the old chestnut of your class prejudice. Admit it: you think if it was up to the proles and not for enlightened folk like you, we’d be medieval barbarians. You clearly believe it: it’s the logical conclusion of your argument.
Gareth Mailer
Yeah…that’s happening, ‘the forces are conspiring against you’.
OK, then.
Jim Johnson
Although UKIP take just as many labor votes as they do tory votes, particularly in the north. I Don’t see the motive in ignoring this fact it won’t do you any favours.
Also i find it funny that you think labour represent the left. Especially after Tony Blair deregulated the banks and started an illegal war. Although the sort of person who uses all caps mid-sentence probably isn’t that in touch with reality.
Leon Wolfeson
“Although”
No, they don’t. The tabs are clear on this – go look at UK Polling Report.
And where did I say they did? And you think using “UKIP” (as you did) means you’re not that in touch with reality? Okay.