Skip to main content

Nigel Farage, Political bounder

Nigel Farage could be name from the pen of  PG Wodehouse, and if so, it would clearly be a name to represent a bad lot

In real life the actual Nigel Farage, with his tobacco scented, saloon bar heartiness and rather loud taste in shirts, in fact comes close to the Wodehousian archetype. He is a man who Jeeves would undoubtedly view with disfavour- too loud and somehow too... well, vulgar, a wide boy, rather than a gentleman. Mr. Farage himself would probably cheerfully concur, regarding his personal brashness with some pride, as the antithesis of the machine politician that he affects to despise. In the looking-glass world of UKIP, a gaffe is not a mistake, but proof of humanity, and populist point scoring is not political immaturity, but a respect for the democratic process.

Except that in the real world, UKIP has a huge mountain to climb to even match the Green's single, lone representative in the House of Commons. UKIP support is broad, but shallow and in no Parliamentary constituencies does it look as though Mr. Farage can get over the line and into the elected national political assembly. Neither does the party have much local representation, so the idea that "UKIP can be part of a coalition, post 2015" is really pretty fanciful. 

Yet, the fact is that UKIP has had considerable indirect influence. The Conservatives, much against the initial better judgement of David Cameron, are poised to try to address the issue of British relations with the EU, and up until now, it is the anti-European skein of thought that has been making the running. Yet, as the prospect of an in/out referendum looms, the realization of how much Britain has to lose is beginning to settle over business leaders, and there is now the beginnings of a serious fightback against the isolationist wing of the Conservatives, who have come under the spell of UKIP. The Anti-Europeans have had all the air time, so it is hardly surprising that the polls show growth in their support. Yet the reality is that the debate is only now beginning to take place- and in the end, far from the "antis" looking set for victory, it may well be that they face a final and complete defeat. There is a substantial body of opinion in the UK that views the prospect of a semi-detached membership, still less a withdrawal, with profound concern. 

The critical problem for the Conservatives lies in simple electoral calculation.  That is to say the indirect impact that UKIP can have on Conservative votes in marginal seats. There are several seats where the UKIP vote is greater than the majority of the winning candidate- and this has certainly already cost seats for the Conservatives. If the UKIP surge were to continue, then the Tories, who already face a difficult task to secure a Parliamentary majority, will find that it would take a truly massive lead over Labour in order to secure even the most minimal majority.

The conventional wisdom suggests that Labour's unprincipled populism will deliver them a majority in 2015, yet it may well be that Labour loses the popular vote. What then would be the legitimacy of such a government in such circumstances? Of course as always there is the pressure of "events". The shambles that Mr. Farage has made over the removal of the leader of his party's Youth organisation suggests that things may be very far from plain sailing for UKIP in the coming months. Likewise Labour too may face greater scrutiny, as they yield to their authoritarian populism- banning Frosties and the like. 

Neither "Libertarian" populism nor Authoritarian populism are likely to deliver successful policy.

So as we enter 2013, the bounder Nigel Farage is full of beans. Yet, as Jeeves could tell him,  bounders and cads rarely prosper in the longer term. The denouement for this particular comedy is unlikely to prove entirely what the wide boy Mr Farage expects. 

Perhaps 2013 may give Messrs. Miliband and Balls some pause too.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Waiting for the Barbarians

What are we waiting for, assembled in the forum? The barbarians are due here today. Why isn’t anything going on in the senate? Why are the senators sitting there without legislating? Because the barbarians are coming today. What’s the point of senators making laws now? Once the barbarians are here, they’ll do the legislating. Why did our emperor get up so early, and why is he sitting enthroned at the city’s main gate, in state, wearing the crown? Because the barbarians are coming today and the emperor’s waiting to receive their leader. He’s even got a scroll to give him, loaded with titles, with imposing names. Why have our two consuls and praetors come out today wearing their embroidered, their scarlet togas? Why have they put on bracelets with so many amethysts, rings sparkling with magnificent emeralds? Why are they carrying elegant canes beautifully worked in silver and gold? Because the barbarians are coming today and things like that dazzle the barbarians. Why don’t our distingui...

Liberal Democrats v Conservatives: the battle in the blogosphere

It is probably fair to say that the advent of Nick Clegg, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, has not been greeted with unalloyed joy by our Conservative opponents. Indeed, it would hardly be wrong to say that the past few weeks has seen some "pretty robust" debate between Conservative and Liberal Democrat bloggers. Even the Queen Mum of blogging, the generally genial Iain Dale seems to have been featuring as many stories as he can to try to show Liberal Democrats in as poor a light as possible. Neither, to be fair, has the traffic been all one way: I have "fisked' Mr. Cameron's rather half-baked proposals on health, and attacked several of the Conservative positions that have emerged from the fog of their policy making process. Most Liberal Democrats have attacked the Conservatives probably with more vigour even than the distrusted, discredited Labour government. So what lies behind this sharper debate, this emerging war in the blogosphere? Partly- in my ...

Lib Dem v. Tory (Round 2)

The Liberal Democrats stand for a distinct political ideology. It is an ideology built around both socially and economically liberal precepts. In as far as our ruling Labour government can be said to have an ideology at all, it coincides with Liberalism only incidentally. Labour stands for pragmatism, and where it does not there is still a core of values that are collectivist and not individual. Sometimes people are prepared to claim the moral high ground for policies of social solidarity and redistribution of wealth. Liberals may argue in favour of equality of opportunity, we can not argue in favour- as Socialists do- of "and equal society". The reason is simple: Socialism does not work. If one places equality above freedom, then eventually we get tyranny. This is why, while we may argue in favour of a more equal society as being a stronger society, the tools that we may use to gain -in our view- socially desirable outcomes must rest upon freedom above all else. As PJ O'...