Nigel Farage's rigid leadership will eventually run its course
Yesterday it was reported that the BBC is being investigated after it showed a 10-year old boy saying he supported UKIP because they ‘get all the foreigners out’. Because of the backlash which now threatens the child, who was identifiable, Ofcom has suggested the broadcaster breached child welfare standards.
This is the first time there has been such explicit vilification of UKIP and its policies since the election. The result of 7 May meant that practically everyone focused on the ‘nasty party’ rhetoric of the Tories; and there hasn’t seemed much point in talking about UKIP since we realised the electoral system was an effective barrier to its gaining real power.
UKIP won 3.9 million votes but only one seat, an undemocratic result by anyone’s standard. In a way, this plays into UKIP’s hands; it has always positioned itself as the victim of an establishment which wants to silence its authentic voice. Nigel Farage has always maintained that his party is treated unfairly, and in this instance it has been.
But what will happen to UKIP now? There was some brief post-election farce with Nigel Farage’s un-resignation and Patrick O’ Flynn’s ugly outburst about the party leader, but on the whole UKIP has been quiet both on new Conservative policies and on analysing it’s own defeat. What’s more, the press seem to have forgotten about it.
So is UKIP about to slide off the scene?
In May 2010, BNP leader Nick Griffin suffered a humiliating defeat in his Barking constituency. A promised election breakthrough by the party never materialised and in 2014 Griffin lost his European seat too. The party unravelled fast; at this election it garnered just 1,667 votes, compared with 563,743 in 2010.
I don’t like UKIP/BNP comparisons in general. The BNP’s reach was never as wide as UKIP’s, and it is much more extreme; until 2010 it had a ‘whites only’ membership policy which was only overturned by a court order. I can see that many UKIP supporters are not racists but vote based on their feelings about the EU; I don’t think the same could be said of BNP supporters.
But the parties are alike in that they came in a surge, from obscurity to the front page, that they polarise people, and that ultimately they promised great things that they could not deliver. The refusal to let Farage go spoke volumes – without him UKIP is too shambling to carry on and the fate of the BNP must have been in everyone’s minds during the few days without him.
But Farage broke a promise – he had always said he would step down if he failed to win in Thanet South – and in doing so he will have lost credibility. A few days after the election, Kent police closed an allegation of electoral fraud in the constituency – UKIP supporters believed the election had been rigged to keep Farage out, but there was no evidence. All this points to the fact that Farage couldn’t quite believe he hadn’t won, and things have become a little hysterical since.
Deputy chairman Suzanne Evans stepped down after being accused of plotting to undermine Farage’s leadership; economic spokesman O’Flynn called Farage ‘snarling, thin skinned and aggressive’ and said his return made the party look like a ‘personalitAdd Mediay cult’.
O’Flynn was right in that it is difficult to see who could take Farage’s place. He has had consistently high approval ratings, topping a YouGov popularity poll in April. He has spent years reciting the spiel of ‘we’re not a racist party, we just have some bad eggs’, and has had ample opportunity to practice it. The party’s rejection of his resignation shows that they know no one else is up to this job, that getting the public to accept a new leader as an ordinary, honest bloke who genuinely doesn’t mean to attract so many racists will be a mammoth task.
Plus, criticism seems to bounce off Farage. This week Douglas Carswell, UKIP’s only MP, accused him of ’employing ‘mean-spirited arguments’ during the election campaign, particularly in regard to comments about immigrants with HIV.
Carswell said that, as a party which ‘didn’t do as well as it wanted’, UKIP needed to ask some ‘awkward’ questions. Farage rejected this entirely, saying that:
“Though many in the Westminster bubble were outraged by my comments about the impact of Health Tourism, and appalled that I mentioned those with HIV as part of that problem, what was clear was that the general public did not share that outrage.”
UKIP is reliant on one man, and that man has zero capacity for self-reflection. The success of Carswell has led Farage to accuse him, essentially, of going over to the other side, of being consumed by the ‘Westminster bubble’ simply for assessing how the party could improve.
This does not bode well for UKIP’s longevity. Add to Farage’s ego the fact that Cameron could well manage to siphon off some of his less right-wing followers with Europe reforms, and it looks very likely support for UKIP will be dwindling by 2020.
This is why seats for UKIP are a price worth paying for electoral reform. A party so rigidly resistant to change will eventually start to look ‘mean-spirited’ even to its own supporters. Meanwhile the UK can say that it truly gave all parties a chance, and that the people in power really are there because the public want them.
Ruby Stockham is a staff writer at Left Foot Forward. Follow her on Twitter
68 Responses to “Comment: UKIP’s days are numbered”
Gary Scott
UKIP has been a bubble ready to burst. Thanks to the unbelievable amount of television publicity given to Farage over the past few years he was able to build the party up, predominantly in the south east of England, by getting councillors and MEPs elected. They took the BNP and Britain First support, after the collapse of BNP the far right had nowhere to go. Having gotten the extremist vote and extremist candidates, they have struggled to appeal to mainstream voters because of them.
On the one hand I’d thought their ‘surge’ was similar to that of SNP in Scotland. I was wrong. Whilst UKIP’S surge was built around Farage and his ability to get himself on Question Time etc, the SNP did not begin to get coverage until AFTER a surge in support. This was not considered a ‘cult’ vote either as they’d just changed leader.
What we’re seeing is the move to replace existing parties with ones that represent the opinions of the voters. It happened before when the Liberals lost power and Labour became one of the big two. Another turning point in the 1950s when the Tories began to lose the sectarian vote in Scotland, eventually deciding not to be known as the Unionist Party but rather the Conservative Party. Then again, after the credit crunch, the 2010 election surprised many. The Labour Party were in the worst possible position. A dreadful recession on their watch, the Chancellor ‘responsible’ was the sitting PM and was not popular with voters. He’d been INCREDIBLY unlucky in many respects but was respected internationally for his economic thinking. With everything against Labour, the Conservative Party still couldn’t get a majority. Sadly there was no LibLab deal and Clegg utterly destroyed his party which was enjoying a resurgence. In Scotland it’s clear that voters have deserted Labour – if you want to know why just take a closer look at how the party in Scotland behaves.
Maybe this IS a time for political naval gazing but it should be simple, stop talking to focus groups and talk to people, stop giving us politicians who’ve never had a real job and stop changing policies with the polls. If you believe in something – say so!
Gary Scott
The reason for the outcry over Alistair Carmichael is simple. It’s not just that he lied or even that he abused his position as Scottish Secretary for partisan political purposes of getting himself reelected, or that he leaked a confidential Government document, or that he did so knowing the content of the leak to be wrong or that he misused the Civil Service and tainted their impartiality, or that David Mundell could now be dragged down with him – no, there’s one thing EVEN WORSE than all that. He was asked repeatedly about the leak and repeatedly lied about it, prepared to blame office juniors etc. The lie resulted in the necessity for an inquiry. Government inquiries don’t come cheap, this one cost £1.4 million. And the result? Now, caught in his lie – he admits it!
His position is untenable. Remember that the LibDems only have 8 MPs and in Scotland only ONE! He is the only representative of his party in all of Scotland, he is dragging the party further down. He won his seat on a much reduced knife edge majority, how many of those votes were obtained through his lies and abuse of power?
David Mundell MP (Scotland’s only Tory) had been Carmichael’s deputy at that time. He has denied any knowledge but looks as guilty as sin. The inquiry, however, found no evidence against him.
This is about confidence in government, allowing Carmichael to remain is as bad as condoning his actions.
Gary Scott
Well we can hope. It worked with the BNP..
Gary Scott
You do realise, of course, that this blog is called ‘Left’ Foot Forward?
Gary Scott
But what about…