First Tremors – How Well Did UKIP Really Do?

Without doubt there has been some kind of political seismic activity. A party with zero MPs, a record of racism accusations and just a single policy winning a national election is undeniably ground-breaking and historic.

Gaining 161 council seats and winning the European Parliament elections outright is nothing to be sniffed at and all three established parties in Westminister will need to urgently address the issues raised by this result.

However, doubts remain about whether or not this was the political earthquake promised by Nigel Farage.

Firstly however, it has to be said the turnout was the thing most would have found disappointing about this election.

Despite all the media attention aimed at the election, thanks largely to UKIP, just 34.19% of people made it to the polls, fewer than in 2009, although only by 0.6%, perhaps proving how little people care about getting out of Europe.

The low turnout is actually an interesting statistic with which to look at UKIPs overall performance.

On polls which only questioned those certain to vote, UKIP was commonly topping the poll on 32-35%, with Labour in second with a vote share in the high 20s.

However, assuming UKIP voters are diehard (and the facts do suggest this) this means the party’s vote share could be as much as 7.5% down on what would have been expected.

In the end UKIPs increase in vote share, of 10.99%, went up only a little more than Labours 9.67%.

You could argue this is down to voter apathy, a disinterest in European elections or disillusionment with politics in general, but it is a key indicator that UKIP did not do as well as maybe they would have hoped, or needed.

With a guaranteed higher turnout for the General Election, it could be argued the many people who would not consider voting UKIP, due to misplaced or accurate views of the party, will play a much larger role which could scupper UKIPs Westminster chances.

It is also worth noting that, despite an undoubtedly good campaign, UKIP only picked up 15.5% of the national vote in council elections, nearly half of its European Election vote share.

Another problem raised is how badly UKIP played in metropolitan areas and in particular London.

Across the country UKIP got 27.5% of the vote, but in London it was just 16.9%, about 40% lower.

UKIPs increase in vote share nationwide falls by a similar amount in the capital to barely over 6%.

While some would claim London is in its own bubble (they might have a point), UKIPs inability to make a breakthrough in the city should certainly be a cause for concern for Nigel Farage et al as it is hard to see them continuing their current momentum without carrying the big metropolitan areas.

There are key differences between the capital and the rest of the country, but as a Londoner myself I am proud my city bucked the nationwide trend.

It is not so much that London is in its own bubble, it is just the cosmopolitan atmosphere means the city is, in terms of social attitudes, ahead of the UK, a fact repeated in all major cities and towns.

Perhaps UKIP spokeswomen Suzanne Evans had a point when she said the party had difficulty appealing to the ‘educated, cultured and young’.

It is also interesting to note UKIP tended to do well in areas with high numbers of white British voters.

In Essex, one of the party’s breakthrough areas, the wards where they did well were made up of 80% from this demographic.

Conversely in London, with a high immigrant population and a place where the supposed effect of the EUs policy in this area should be acute, did not increase UKIPs number of MEPs and saw Labour make some big gains on councils.

Scotland similarly rejected UKIP, who got just 10.4%of the vote, although this was enough to elect UKIPs first European representative north of the boarder, but was a major drop on its overall vote haul.

This could be attributed to an independent Scotland’s desire to join the EU, but the lowlands and cities have seen a booming immigrant population and should perhaps be very representative of UKIPs vision of the EU at work.

Another problem facing UKIP is only just over half of those who voted for them in May 2014 will currently do the same in May 2015, with the majority heading back to the Conservatives, but seeing Labour and the Lib Dems regaining a much higher percentage of their deserters.

At a nationwide level it is pretty clear (and hardly surprising) they hurt the Tories more than the other parties.

UKIPs problem here is expanding their policy base.

It is easy for them to be different on Europe, but they will find it harder to differentiate themselves on taxation, health, education and all the other important national issues, particularly from the Conservatives.

Any talk of privatisation of the health service or flat rate taxation will lose them most of its Labour and Lib Dem defectors, while its Conservative supporters would have to vote blue to get the EU referendum, which UKIP certainly cannot offer.

You can also guarantee the other parties will be adjusting their ground game to combat this new threat and this tactic will certainly include exposing low attendance and dubious voting records of UKIP MEPs.

Sustained UKIP momentum is also required on a local level, with it taking many elections to take control of councils and this year’s good result plausibly based on it coinciding with the European Elections.

The fact is we will get a better understanding of UKIPs long terms success in just over a week’s time with the Newark by-election.

Given how this election came about and UKIPs surge they would expect to do well, although winning might be beyond their grip.

However, if they do not win they need a strong showing or a big surge in its vote share to prove they are now not just a European party, but a national one as well.

It will be fascinating to see the first polls come out.

European Elections – UKIP and All That Jazz

On Thursday people will head to the polls for what is being described as the most important European Elections in decades and the increased focus has generated a greater level of debate on what is an important topic for the UK.

Never in my lifetime has there been so much media coverage in the run-up to a European election and this rise can largely be put down to one man, Nigel Farage.

In fact, this blog is going to do something unexpected and praise UKIP (don’t worry we will revert to type shortly).

Regardless of your views of him, Mr Farage and UKIP have been instrumental in bringing the European question out of the third tier and put it front and centre and, while many might argue this is a problem in itself given the other issues we face today, it is an important question.

Democracy is all about engagement and when people do not turn up to vote, as they have historically not for the Euros, this can lead to a serious question of under-representation, where a candidate no longer has to appeal to a wide range of constituents.

Hopefully, the increased interest will lead to a greater turn-out of voters and drive the EU in the direction the majority of people want it to go.

Without a doubt, increased media coverage of these elections has been good for the UK, the EU and the potential future relationship of the two.

However, while the debate is a vital part of democracy, it is hard to escape the fact UKIP are increasing the level of debate and harming the process simultaneously.

The problem is, and here is where this blog reverts to type, UKIPs arguments are not based on facts, but on perception and are not focused on the real problems but are about singling out a scapegoat.

Immigration is a classic case in point and is the central theme of the purples campaign.

The average UKIP voter believes the foreign born population of this country to be about 38% of the total, while in fact it is just 13%, meaning the average UKIP voter is overstating the problem by nearly 200%.

UKIP claim the EU costs us £50 million a day, but conveniently chooses to ignore the rebate and the economic benefits from our membership.

The very notion of benefit fraud and health tourism has been proven to be so ridiculous even Mr Farage does not mention it any more.

A UKIP poster personified “EU policy at work” as an unemployed construction worker, when the Federation of Master Builders claims 25% of building firms are struggling to recruit enough.

Supposedly immigrants are causing wages to go down, but there is at best only circumstantial evidence to support this and lower wages in some industries are an inescapable part of being part of a free market, the same free market UKIP claims to support.

Another election poster claims 75% of our laws come from the EU, but UKIP have offered no evidence to support this, while the House of Commons Library, an independent organisation, calculated it would be hard to go over 50%.

All these unsubstantiated claims come on top of the fact Mr Farage has been an MEP for 15 years (he took his seat the same year I sat my GCSEs) and has done nothing to combat these issues and in fact has done very little of anything in the European Parliament except clocking up one of the worst attendance records in the chamber.

UKIP also claim our tax money is funding the celebrity lifestyle of bureaucrats, which is rank hypocrisy from a party who enthusiastically claim salary and expenses while not turning up to do the job we elected them to do.

Unfortunately this shines through in their voting record where they oppose, or more commonly abstain, on votes which could make people’s lives better and improve the EU as an institution.

This includes not turning up for a vote on abolishing mobile phone roaming charges, which would have been of huge benefit to the public and businesses of Great Britain, and this is just one of hundreds of examples where UKIP MEPs are elected to Brussels and do not represent you.

If there is a democratic deficit in the European Parliament it is not the fault of the EU, it is the fault of those MEPs who choose to take our money and ignore the benefits of legislation purely out of distain for an organisation they have no interest in reforming.

The most frustrating problem is UKIP have still not offered any kind of vision for what the UK is like if it does leave the EU, which for a party so hell-bent on leaving is at best strange and at worst is negligent.

This problem is best summed up by current polling, where, despite UKIPs surge, 54% of people want to stay in the EU.

What will the UKs status be outside the EU, how long will it take to renegotiate trade deals, will our focus be on Europe or emerging markets, how will we decide what immigrants we need, how many jobs will be lost in the short term, what will happen to foreign investment, what EU laws would the UK still have to follow and many other questions have not been answered.

This policy-gap is a continual problem with UKIP. Mr Farage has admitted the only policy ahead of these elections is leaving the EU. Seriously, how can you cast a vote for a party with just one policy and offering no insight on health, infrastructure, education or any other issue?

All of these questions arise even before you get to UKIPs and its questionable stance on worker’s rights, women’s rights and gay rights, its anti-environment standpoint and the despicable views and behaviour of some of its senior members.

No sensible person thinks the EU is functioning perfectly and this blog has said so in the past.

However getting the things we need, greater accountability, more transparency, closer trading rather than political ties and many other issues, are only hindered by voting UKIP and can only be achieved by electing those who want to make things better, not just line their own bed and point fingers.

The economic and social benefits we get from Europe are undeniable and the dues the UK gives to the EU are negligible compared to the financial benefits we get out, however, the debate is needed so we the voters can make sensible decisions based on facts, not assumptions.

Personally, UKIP does not represent a Britain I recognise or a future Britain I want to be a part of, but if you truly believe in what they say by all means cast your vote for them, but ask yourself do you want to elect someone who will represent you and your concerns and will work to make things better, or an anti-EU party whose MEPs cannot even be bothered to raise their hands.

So yes, while UKIP should be thanked for opening up the debate, the criticism aimed at them is more than valid, because the debate should be about the facts, not assumptions, and should deal with the real questions and issues surrounding the EU, not just scaremongering about Romanians moving in next door.

Robbing From the Rich – The Robin Hood Tax

A blow has been struck for the British banking industry as The European Court of Justice rejected a UK Treasury legal challenge against the so-called Robin Hood Tax, or Tobin Tax, but Chancellor George Osborne has nobody to blame but himself.

The tax, also known as the financial transaction tax, is a levy on all financial deals, such as the trading of shares and it is feared this will force the financial services industry to relocate to America and Asia where the tax does not exist.

However, when George Osborne went into bat for British bankers he forgot one thing. The reason this is in place is largely his fault.

The public have become increasingly frustrated about the fact the perpetrators of the financial crisis, otherwise known as the banks, have seemingly not been punished at all.

So far just a few bankers have faced criminal charges over their greed, speculation and dodgy trading, while the financial institutions have faced little or no action over their part in the economic disaster.

While government debt did not help the situation it was the banks fault the crisis occurred, the deficit issue exacerbated it, but was not the cause.

Unfortunately, while the public has been rightly demanding some action be taken over the institutions which led to the hardest-hitting recession in history their government has done what many previous governments have done and cozied-up to the city.

Getting deals on things like bankers pay, bonuses, transaction taxes and general regulation is not going to be easy and will require a global effort to ensure the financial institutions are not simply able to move location to avoid the scrutiny.

However, when people like Osborne dilly-dally on such an important issue, to the extent where we are six-years further on and tantamount to nothing has been done, it is hardly surprising when sketchy plans like the Robin Hood Tax are introduced.

Where has his leadership been on this issue?

It has to be accepted there are some genuine problems with the Tobin Tax.

Firstly it applies to every transaction, so ordinary people trading in shares as part of a pension fund or ISA are just as liable to get hit as a high-flying investment banker on a trading floor.

Secondly, the banking sector is very important to the UK and the risk of losing it to New York or Singapore is a very real possibility and could hit hard, but the fact they have remained largely unpunished for their role in the crisis means measures like a transaction tax are going to be very popular.

Lastly, while the banks could easily afford to cover the costs of this tax, the cost will undoubtedly be passed onto the consumers making loans, mortgages and saving in general more expensive.

I agree with the Chancellor this tax is potentially damaging to the city and the place of London as a financial centre, but where are his proposals to ensure another financial crash does not occur and to punish the bankers who caused it?

There is no benefit is calling foul when legislation is passed on something you don’t like when you have not proposed any alternatives.

Yes, the tax is questionable, but when you do nothing you cannot be surprised when something like this has popular support and ends up being law.

This will be the subject of future legal challenges, but is Osborne wants to overturn it he has to make a better argument than it is bad for the city and offer alternatives to satisfy the public as well as the square mile.