We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.

Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]

UKIP gains a Member of Parliament, but…

…that is not the really interesting political story.

I rarely write about party politics, but today is an exception. UKIP took a seat from the Tories, with a very popular defector winning a crushing victory. And the newspapers are agog naturally.

And UKIP also came within a hairs breadth of taking a Labour seat, loosing by only 617 votes. Now THAT is the interesting political story today.

So next time someone says “Vote UKIP, get Labour”, tell them, ever so politely, that the facts suggest otherwise. Or just tell them to get stuffed, up to you. It looks increasingly like the truth is: Vote UKIP, get UKIP. That is not an endorsement, simply an observation.

17 comments to UKIP gains a Member of Parliament, but…

  • Paul Marks

    Yes Mr Cameron may say “vote UKIP and you get Labour” – but in the Manchester area by election (which Mr Cameron has specially targeted since he became leader) it was the Conservative party candidate (by taking 11% of the vote) who saved the seat for “Red Ed”. Would Mr Farage be justified in saying “vote Conservative and you get Labour”?

    The truth is that the two major anti socialist parties (notice I did not say “free market” parties – as no major political party in the United Kingdom is really libertarian) are cutting each other’s throats.

    Without an election alliance between UKIP and the Conservatives, Labour can win the general election in May with a very small share of the vote.

    UKIP will fall just short in the north (so Labour wins there) and the Conservatives and UKIP will cut each other’s throats in the south – so Labour win again.

    Far left Mr Miliband as Prime Minister – and Ralph Miliband dancing (in whatever flame filled place he is in).

    Mr David Cameron must see the above – it is obvious.

    So if (IF) Mr David Cameron continues to attack UKIP (and denounce any suggestion of an alliance for the election) the only logical conclusion is that he wants Labour (Red Ed and all) to win.

    Or rather that Mr Cameron hates “the Tory right” (by which he means people like myself) more than he opposes Labour – that he feels more in common with his Westminster opponents than he feels in common with his own party members in the country. I certainly hope this is not the case.

    Please Mr Cameron – forget about your personal dislike for Mr Farage, and engage in talks to create an anti socialist alliance for the election.

  • I suspect you are right Paul, but from my reading of the tea-leaves it will take exactly that to oust Cameron and get the Euro IN/OUT vote where it needs to be – on the ballot box.

    Sure, nothing will happen will Labour are in, but they will only get in because of the appalling behaviour of the other two parties (ignore the Lib Dems – they are toast).

    I don’t say this with relish, but with resignation. Even with that piss-poor Ed Millipede in front Labour will probably scrape in due to exactly the scenario you describe.

    The sensible thing would be for the Conservatives to give way to UKIP and advise the voters in those constituents to vote UKIP as some of the Labour seats CAN AND WILL FALL TO UKIP, BUT NOT THE TORIES!

    The difficulty here is that:
    1. It will never happen under David Cameron
    2. It would be a final nail in the coffin of Tory rule
    3. They would be giving succour to their own opposition (UKIP)

  • RAB

    Pigeons… meet Cat.

  • Captain Obvious

    Strikes me that the obvious solution is for the “men in grey suits” to tap Cameron on the shoulder and usher him from the leadership of the Tory party and replace him with someone who is prepared to negotiate sensibly and honestly with UKIP to come to an arrangement for the election.

  • Ernie G

    Will they be seeking out the UKIP voters and supporters and taking their children away?

  • Mr Ed

    The Left have captured the Conservative Party. It is not a party of freedom, it is a party of the status quo, it is not anti-socialist. It simply doesn’t have the socialist heritage of the Labour Party.

    If it takes 5 years for the Conservative Party to disappear, well, that is what it would take.

    If it takes 4 years for the Labour Party to destroy the country, then UKIP will have run out of time.

  • SC

    Vote Tory, get Miliband.

  • Jane Simons

    Vote Tory, you get a party that is little different to Labour.

    I live in Clacton. I voted UKIP, I got UKIP. And I will keep voting UKIP.

  • PeterT

    An EU IN/OUT referendum in 2016 (or 2017? I forget) is a terrible idea as the establishment will throw everything at it and will likely win, exactly as they did in the Scottish independence vote. We need to engineer a situation where we can win, or even better, put ourselves in a situation where it is not tenable for us to stay in the EU any longer and have to leave by mutual agreement with our “partners”. The question on the ballot paper should be “Should the UK parliament have sovereignty over all laws that affect the UK” or something similar which MPs don’t really feel like they can say no to. After that the battle is to put in place a government that is not afraid to ignore the EU and legislate (or not legislate) accordingly. This is an uphill battle; let us not assume otherwise.

  • The question on the ballot paper should be “Should the UK parliament have sovereignty over all laws that affect the UK” or something similar which MPs don’t really feel like they can say no to.

    Nope – it should be “Should the UK leave the European Union” (Yes / No)

    End Of. Anything else is bullshit.

  • PeterT

    As I said John, if you ask that question you get the answer ‘No’. Guaranteed if we have a referendum when Cameron promised it. Is that what you want? A lot of groundwork needs to be put in first. I don’t want a referendum, I want to be out. Perfectly happy for that to be by a parliamentary vote without a referendum, or by Royal decree if that were possible, or for us to be kicked out.

  • Alex

    Referendums are all very nice and democratic and completely useless at creating change. When faced with a choice between the status quo and a uncertain future people nearly always vote for the status quo. It is why Scotland voted “No” and it would be why a slim majority of people would vote to remain in the EU. The scaremongering will ensure it.

    That is why UKIP victories in Westminster matter so much. The only way out of the EU is by Eurosceptics winning a parliamentary vote. Impossible? Well UKIP winning a by-election was considered impossible until very recently.

  • Regional

    The West is in a state of flux just like the 1920s and 30s with a disinterested America.

  • James Waterton

    As I said John, if you ask that question you get the answer ‘No’. Guaranteed if we have a referendum when Cameron promised it.

    If you are right, then Labour would hold the referendum, too. In a heartbeat. So you’d get your chance, regardless.

    However, I suspect you’re very wrong. The Scottish referendum failed because independence could well mean severing a widely acknowledged and clearly bountiful link that channels wealth from the treasury of the United Kingdom into the average Scot’s hip pocket. In a perfect world, I suspect a large majority of Scots would seek to be an independent nation. In the real world, money talks and bullshit…well…gets a tick in its ‘yes’ box, according to the results of the Scottish independence referendum.

    It’s not the same with the UK and EU. There is no evidence that most Britons will regard a British exit from the EU as significantly detrimental to their material wellbeing (the only people who do are the Europhiles). Let’s not forget that the British Establishment are not all that convincing. At the start of the Better Together campaign, Scots were overwhelmingly against independence. At the end of the campaign when the votes were counted, this lead had been trimmed back to a clear majority. The failed Scottish independence vote provides zero cues for the Establishment to draw upon come a straight EU in/out vote. Totally different political headwinds.

    The question on the ballot paper should be “Should the UK parliament have sovereignty over all laws that affect the UK” or something similar which MPs don’t really feel like they can say no to.

    No, you could drive a bus through that (or something similar). David Cameron would likely put his hand on his heart and sincerely argue that the UK parliament has complete sovereignty over all laws that affect the UK. What’s more, he wouldn’t be wrong. The UK can start ignoring EU diktats any time it pleases. John Galt is absolutely right. The more waffly the question, the more likely it is to go down in flames – either as a resounding ‘no’, or a populist-yet-vague ‘yes’ with no constitutional teeth.

  • James Waterton

    into the average Scot’s hip pocket, with nothing convincing to replace it.

    I should have written.

  • PeterT

    I still disagree. Whilst the Scottish referendum had different drivers our leaders will no doubt show a similar willingness to offer disingenuous arguments (currency nonsense in Scottish referendum) and the entire establishment will throw their weight against a ‘no’ vote. It is true what you say that the stakes are lower than in the EU referendum, but that works both ways. Whilst people may not worry much about the UK’s future outside of the EU, many of them also do not have strong reservations about continuing to stay in, with the exception of the immigration issue (this is also an area where Cameron might have some success, as other Western European countries have similar concerns – if significant concessions are given in this area that may make a No vote even less likely). I will vote UKIP because they are the party for leaving the EU and not the party for a referendum.