One of UKIP’s greatest weaknesses is still the perception that it is a single issue party – EU withdrawal and nothing else. Even though over the last few years we have developed a wide range of policies, these haven’t always been coherent and we have been slow and reluctant to talk about them. As we undergo our latest policy review, the most important question has to be where do we position ourselves?
There as been much debate as to whether UKIP is a (small ‘c’) conservative, classical liberal, or libertarian party in our outlook. Some people have simply labelled us as right-wing populists and there is undeniably an element of truth behind that. Personally, I see UKIP in its current form as a ‘conservative liberal‘ party (as opposed to David Cameron’s ‘liberal conservatism’) as we support a smaller state and a free market, but take a strong stance on issues such as law and order. The combination of the words conservative and liberal sounds like an oxymoron to several people, which is rather apt as the party finds itself at a cross roads ideologically – unfortunately just as we also find ourselves presented with a golden opportunity in terms of electoral gains. We are all aware of the need for UKIP to carve out its place in the political landscape of this country, yet we are divided as to where this should be.
The main reason for this is the fact that other than EU withdrawal, there is not an awful lot that the party membership agrees on. In my opinion, a great many people, arguably the majority, joined UKIP because in some way or another, they became annoyed with the EU (or in the case of some of our older members, opposed it from the outset). Now these people came from all party political backgrounds and none, thus there are anarcho-capitalists and socialists together in one party. This obviously creates a great deal of conflict within the party when it comes to the direction the party should take, but as everyone in the party is independently minded (both a curse and a blessing), this is taken as a natural consequence – I have often thought trying to lead UKIP must be like trying to herd cats. To avoid big rifts, all other policies are treated as secondary to the one policy that unites us – understandable so, as it is la raison d’être of the party.
However, a growing number of members, especially within Young Independence, represent a more ‘ideologically pure’ (h/t Gawain Towler) group of people who are committed to a smaller state, lower taxes, and a much more socially liberal outlook, which clashes with the socially conservative views of large swathes of the party. These people mainly consider themselves as the libertarian wing of the party (as to where I stand, we’ll come to that later) and they wish to see UKIP move further in that direction, sensing a gap in the market similar to that occupied by the FDP in Germany – who are often seen as a German version of Liberal Democrats as they are part of the same European Parliament grouping, same Pan-European Party (UKIP and PEPs will be my next blog post), and both members of Liberal International. However they take a much more pro-market line than the Liberal Democrats, although admittedly they are strongly in favour of the EU – which may change should the national liberal wing of the FDP take hold of the party – given the unpopularity of the bailouts and current low poll ratings of the FDP, this is a distinct possibility.
However, I feel that the great danger in pushing too far in this direction, is that there is a danger that the party could alienate a great proportion of current UKIP members, supporters and of course voters. So the question for the libertarian wing of the party is whether they think the party should press ahead in this direction, knowing that in the short term the party could suffer quite a bit, but hoping that the party that emerged at the end of this would be ideologically pure – would this be of benefit to the party? Or should the party stick to its traditionalist and populist guns? I think it is incredibly important that the party takes a pragmatic solution to this kind of problem. UKIP must continue to be and always be a party that advocates a smaller state, along with EU withdrawal, however issues such as drug legalisation and same-sex marriage will need to be sold to the party membership before the libertarian wing of the party pushes for them to be adopted as policies. We also need to examine the effect such policies would have on UKIP’s appeal to voters – if we alienate former UKIP voters, but do not attract significant numbers of new supporters, then the party would be left in no-mans land. I do think many socially liberal/libertarian policies can be sold to the party membership, mainly on the basis of reducing state interference, but it will be difficult. Personally, I think UKIP should support Votes at 16 but it has proved a contentious issue – I will keep trying to sell it to the membership though and I think it will be a policy that would attract potential voters rather than dissuade them.
With such great policies as a flat tax, EU withdrawal and supporting grammar schools, we are already in a good position, but we need to move away from the perception that we are merely the right-wing of the Conservatives, but at the same time make sure that we do not become merely a market liberal version of the Liberal Democrats. This is why I think a greater degree of ideological coherence is necessary if we want to be taken seriously as a party. We say we want a smaller state, yet we want to massively increase defence spending? Anyone who’s read Lewis Page’s brilliant book ‘Lions, Donkeys and Dinosaurs‘ will know that you can decrease defence spending yet dramatically increase the effectiveness of the Armed Forces. Also, if we claim to be a libertarian party, then we should recognise that such strict immigration controls as we currently advocate are only temporary measures until the welfare state has been sufficiently reformed . Having said that, we should remain pragmatic and never slavishly follow one ideology for the sake of it – taking the libertarian approach to the NHS and privatising it would not be a vote winner, although maybe that may change in the future.
As well as ensuring that we are not just seen as the right-wing of the Conservatives, we also need to make sure that we are known for more than being a party that advocates EU withdrawal – of course I want everyone to know that we support this policy as it is key to our country’s future prosperity and freedom, yet we need carry on developing into a fully fledged political party. Recently, I asked people on Twitter to name one word that they’d associate with UKIP and the majority said Europe – this needs to change. The public by and large know what we are against, but I feel it is time we started shouting about what we are for – if I could pick one word for people to associate with UKIP, it would be freedom. This would be both freedom for the state and freedom from the state, so whilst people debate UKIP’s ideology (just look at the edit history on Wikipedia to see what a contentious issue this is), I think we could do worse than looking back to history, at the Whig Party, in the search for inspiration for our future direction.
As to where I stand, like most people my age, I am socially liberal. I am also economically liberal, being a huge fan of Adam Smith’s work. I guess I call myself a classical liberal as I don’t feel anarcho-capitalist enough to call myself a libertarian, although like liberal, libertarian is a term also used by the left – in the same way Nazis called themselves socialist I guess!
So specifically what is the biggest thing UKIP needs to do right now, what direction do we need to go, I hear you with the Whig thing, but do you think we need policy changes, or better explaining of policy?
I agree that we need to focus less on the EU
and show off our domestic policies
but we have been saying we need to do that for a while, why isnt it happening
Be careful what you wish for.
UKIP will never succeed by being, as all too often we seem to look like, as the “Alternative City Slicker’s Tory Party” or the “Eccentric Ex-Tory Lords Party” because such just does not appeal to a wide enough section of society.
We all agree that we should leave the EU and that is our Party’s major objective. Taken that as given, who are our target voters?
I would suggest that the people who are most inclined to support us are the owners and employees of SMEs, the rural population (from farm labourers to landed gentry), those who used to be called “Working Class Tories” (like the Primrose League were once), the surviving members of the patriotic part of “Old Labour” (who feel abandoned by New Labour), professional engineers and craftsmen (who are generally motivated to “do things” and feel frustrated by bureaucracy), ex Service people (who still feel a duty to the British State) and ambitious young people who feel that our education system should be better and would welcome enhanced opportunities for worthwhile employment (which more likely to come from expanding SMEs than the Civil Service).
Such people generally want smaller, more efficient and less bureaucratic government, reduced opportunities for benefit scroungers, lower taxes, a more responsive criminal justice system, a strong defence of the realm and an end to mass immigration. However, the younger element will probably have foreign friends or even girlfriends/boyfriends/husbands/wives and react angrily unthinking racism.
There is little or no demand for social liberalism on the doorstep. In my experience most parents (of all political persuasions) are against freeing the drugs laws and would choose for their children, after good health, a happy marriage (to someone of the opposite sex).
So a smaller state has a wide appeal (but woe betide any party which wants to make radical changes to the NHS) provided there is a safety net in place for the “deserving poor “ but “libertarianism” does not go down well with the grown ups; neither does unthinking devotion to the restrained free markets because most of us who have been around see too much short termism in the City and elsewhere.
Chris, I have to say that I agree with you that we as a new party don’t talk about our other policies regarding the running of the UK if we ever got into power. I have said to many members that we are at a cross roads in UKIP life and that as you say, most of the original membership joined because of the EU issue. Where as the younger members or those that are switched on out in the fields of being a local UKIP council etc, know that we have to talk about things that matter and are understood by the public.
My personal belief now lately is that we need to stop playing the Left/Right game that the political class and big media do with the public who are not switched on like we are. It just plays into their hands and aids in the devide and conquer line that they are using against the people.
As a ‘young’ (under 30) UKIP voter (at least, in European elections), I wouldn’t be able to bring myself to support a socially conservative and authoritarian UKIP at local or national level.
The older members of your party will be dead sooner than its younger members and supporters – what sort of legacy do they want to bequeath to the next generation of UKIPers? They could have their cake and eat it by being ‘anti-everything’ for the next decade or so, or they could help set the ground for a future movement that supports free thinking and free markets – something that has the potential to resonate for generations. “You can vote for the Red and Blue parties to tell you how to live, or you can vote for us to tell you how to live” isn’t really an appealing choice, I’m afraid.
By far the most sensible comment is by David MacDonald, who I agree with 100%. The problem with these ideological debates is that they nearly always take place in a vacuum, without considering who the target voters should be and what they actually want.
Excessive social liberalism/libertarianism may go down well with the ideological youngsters who are already party members, but the voters who David rightly identifies as they people most likely to vote UKIP will not warm to them. Legalising drugs, same-sex marriage etc etc are niche issues at best, and may well put people off the party.
Perhaps, instead of deriding the older members as “authoritarians” and “dinosaurs” (assuming the old/young dichotomy is actually valid), it might be best to actually talk to them and find out why they hold the views they do. Otherwise the younger members are in danger of appearing closed-minded and arrogant.
The worst thing that could happen, however, would be for the party membership to have endless introspective ideological debates without any recourse for real life. This is why far-left Marxist groups keep splitting into ever smaller factions.
You could produce a whole swathe of radical policies through analysing whether UKIP should be Libertarian/Liberal/Liberal Conservative/Conservative Liberal/Liberal Liberal/Conservative Libertarian Anarcho-Monarchist Freemaket Liberal Insert-Ideological-Label-Here, but take them to the doorstep and you’ll have the door slammed in your face.
Of course a party needs a broad guiding ideology, but if it focusses too much on precisely defining the specifics of that ideology it will become introspective and irrelevant.
Afraid though I support many of your ideas – I heartily detest the EU which I regard as nothing but a bunch of Fascists – I couldn’t vote for you. The reason is simple: if I do all too often the result is I let in either the LibDems or, worse, the cursed Labour Party. I think UKIP should stay out of Westminster elections and only fight EU elections. If UKIP are serious in their desire to have a referendum and hopefully leave the EU the only chance of doing this would be with a strongly Eurosceptic Conservative Party. Luring Tories away (as UKIP does now) merely helps the pro-EU forces as we saw last year.
“Eurosceptic Conservative Party”. You’ve not been paying attention much have you George!.
While agreeing with much of what David Macdonald writes, it seems to me that there is a wide open political market for an “Agin the London political classes party.”
Just as the Tea Party was successful in the US because it was above all an anti Washington movement, so here do we need an anti London party given that the three main London parties are indistinguishable in their determination to stuff down the throats of Britons their obsessive committment to political correctness, the European Union, the City and trade union pleasing but massively economically damaging “climate change” electricity poll tax, their temporizing and timorous approach to immigration and their hostility to merit approach to education.
In short we need a party that identifies itself as being instinctively provincial and not metropolitan, small “c” conservative, unashamedly nationalist and EU hostile (not just sceptic) and identifiable as Mr & Mrs Ordinary Brit’s common sense party.
So far as the “socially liberal” debate is concerned, I would guess that I am not alone in my suspicion that the phrase “socially liberal” is nowt more than code for an aggressive gay rights and/or secularism agenda.
So far as UKIP as a party is concerned, what I would suggest it needs above all else is a change of name and a relocation of its Head Office out of London – Grantham (about an hour to Kings X) would seem ideal for many reasons.
Our Head Office is just outside Newton Abbott – deepest darkest Devon!
I’m sorry, but I feel that UKIP should be a passionate voice for classical liberalism, Unionism and conservatism (not the kind of law and order conservatism where everyone is considered guilty, but real conservatism) in the 21st century. I want to see a party of individuals that are proud, strong, and free. Or perhaps even a party of social conservatism and individualism as the two policies aren’t at all mutualy exclusive, you know.
If I had to describe my ideology it would be:
Conservatism
Classical liberalism
British unionism
EU withdrawalism
And I hope that would go for most of UKIP as well, with a few exceptions.
We are a young party with many different opinions. Rome wasn’t built in a day and nor should a party made up of many different people, with many different opinions be forced into an automaton whole. That was the problem with the three failed old parties, remember?