Will UKIP be a problem for Labour?

****

The recent political narrative has focused on whether UKIP presents a problem for the Conservatives and how the party is snaffling votes from disenchanted Tory voters. Indeed the blazered golf club bore became, for some, a caricature of the typical Ukipper.

However, with David Cameron (sort of) announcing an in/out referendum on Europe there is less incentive for the Tory voter to decamp to UKIP - which isn't to say that those who've already decamped are coming back but is to say that the challenge from UKIP becomes less acute.

Labour, on the other hand, has come out against such a referendum "now" - or for that matter later:

The Labour leader said he does "not want an in-out referendum" on Britain's membership because it would be a "huge gamble" that causes uncertainty for businesses.

Speaking in the House of Commons, he drew a clear line between his policy and David Cameron's promise of a public vote on Europe by the middle of the next parliament. 

There is an incredibly vague bit of wriggle room for Ed Miliband as his minions scamper around explaining that this may sound like 'no referendum ever' but actually they don't really mean that -  just not now and not when Cameron wants it.

This is a problem for Labour because:

Research by ComRes for the Sunday People found 63% of the public want a vote on whether Britain should remain in the union.

Some 33% said they would cast their ballot in favour of a full withdrawal - including two thirds of Ukip supporters, 27% of Tories, 25% of Labour voters, and 17% of Liberal Democrats. 

It doesn't really matter what the outcome of a referendum might be - those eurosceptic Labour voters (not to mention the 63% who just want a referendum) might just be tempted by UKIP.

Could we see the Labour poll lead ruined by Labour defections to UKIP?

It's a thought!

....

Culture and adoption....

****

Much excitement over the case of what seems to be blatant political bias in a child protection case in Rotherham.  And there is an oddity in all this around culture and the manner in which we treat its significance during child protection cases. Indeed, it does seem that this is the central reason for the decision that Rotherham took in that they:

"...were severely criticised by the courts in terms of not meeting their cultural and ethnic needs."

And because UKIP has been critical of inward migration from East Europe, the council took the children away from the UKIP supporting foster parents. The rest - emergency placement, crass comments about UKIP's policies and so forth - is just spin (albeit bad spin).

We should also note that the parliamentary by-election in Rotherham provides great cover for the Labour politician who leads on Children & Families - under the daft 'purdah' rules council press during elections doesn't allow for politicians to be quoted or featured.

The interesting bit in all this, however, relates to what we understand by the term 'multi-cultural' or 'multiculturalism'. It does seem that the default social work interpretation is for 'cultural and ethnic needs' to be met through preference for a placement in the same culture. This seems to me more akin to apartheid than 'multiculturalism'. Surely in a multicultural society placements should be blind to the culture of the foster parent but attuned to the need for children to 'access' their birth culture.

It is this that worries me and, indeed, the manner in which the courts have pontificated on 'cultural and ethnic needs' without asking what that might mean in practice. With the result that we trip into the left-wing mind set of the social worker - UKIP are 'extreme right wing' ergo UKIP are racist. And the result of this is that some kids lives are messed about, a good couple (in the true meaning of that term) are upset and po-faced council folk litter the airwaves with obfuscatory explanations for their crass decisions.

The first question we should be asking in child protection is around safety not culture or ethnicity. And the second question we should ask in about stability but culture or ethnicity. Only once the child is in a safer and more stable place should we be considering culture and ethnicity. It appears that this is not the case - culture and ethnicity are made paramount and children are suffering for this reason.

Finally an observation. Would it not have been refreshing if the Council Director had said something like:

We got this wrong and can only apologise for the upset caused. Of course we shouldn't make fostering decisions on the basis of potential foster parents' political opinions. We will be speaking to the social workers responsible to ensure that this doesn't happen again and I will be personally visiting the couple concerned to express our sincere apologies.

Not going to happen though is it!

....

Tories wouldn't vote for UKIP if the Party listened to what they are saying

****

You disparage the electorate at your peril – tell them they’re committing one of the great sins of political correctness (racism, sexism, homophobia, islamophobia and so forth) and they look you in the metaphorical eye and tell you politely to shut up and go away. And this lesson is especially important for the Conservative Party because those slightly grumpy, politically incorrect voters are part of our core audience.

So when we adopt a superior position – proclaiming in the cause of “detoxification” that we will be saints of political correctness – we annoy that audience. Now, in times past they’d nowhere to go – just as Tony Blair could patronise the traditional, working-class, council-estate dwelling Labour voter secure in the knowledge that he’d nowhere to go, the current Conservative leadership seems hell-bent on doing down my sort of lower middle-class, beer-drinking, cigar smoking, steak-eating Tory.

The problem is that UKIP has provided a place for those voters to turn. And don’t give me all the “elections are won from the centre ground” twaddle. I’ve seen what the residents on my ward – a ward that returned a Conservative councillor yesterday with nearly 60% of the vote – have to say about the issues. Not much mention of climate change, gay marriage or constitutional reform. But a great deal of worry about immigration, crime, jobs and, of course, Europe. For the older of these Tory folk, there’s the stress over living on a fixed income when government policies have led to higher inflation. And everyone is annoyed by ever higher taxes – Granny-tax, Pasty-tax, fuel duty, the cost of fags and the price of a pint.

These people – let me remind you again that they are good Tories at heart – look at the government and see waste. They look at the welfare system and see spongers. They like the NHS but think it over-filled with pointless form-filling and political correctness rather than focusing on the core point – treating us when we’re ill. And these people would rather like to see the occasional policeman other than on the television. You know – on the beat, dealing with noisy kids, catching burglars and keeping an eye out for trouble.

I could continue – talk about schools and how the refusal to accept selection fails young people, ask why we send millions to India in aid when even the government there says they don’t want it and enquire gently as to how it is that we can deport an autistic kid to the USA but can’t send a known terrorist supporter back to Jordan.

If the Conservative Party wants to become a party of the wealthy shires – of Beds, Herts, Bucks and Surrey – then it’s going about it the right way. If it wants to remain relevant up here in the bit of the North no-one ever mentions – decent, family-oriented, hard-working, not especially wealthy but OK – then it needs to stop implying that UKIP are the BNP in blazers and start engaging with the issues and problems that are making very loyal Tories turn away in sorrow and vote for another party.

In our survey of Bingley Rural residents – not scientific but a pointer none-the-less – we’ve seen response after response indicating these very concerns. And a goodly chunk saying they might just consider voting UKIP.  Respond to their concerns – on Europe, crime, immigration, schools and taxes – and they’ll stay loyal and contribute to a real Tory government after 2015. Ignore those worries and we'll have another disastrous Labour government.

....

Why UKIP members should join the Conservative Party

****

Because I think the UK should leave the EU, plenty of folk ask whether I should join UKIP. These people point at the recent vote in parliament, at the Eurozone crisis and at the comments of the Prime Minister - things which, I'm told, demonstrate that the Tory Party is unforgivable pro-Europe.

These people have it the wrong way round. Most Tory members are 'eurosceptic' and a growing minority support total withdrawal - that half the backbenches in parliament supported an in/out referendum reflects that fact. My Party becomes more opposed to the continuation of EU integration with each passing day.

UKIP has done its job - its existence dragged the Conservatives away from their rather half-hearted euro-enthusiasm to a far happier euroscepticism. Now we need a push to ensure that the grassroots of the Party push home that position - holding MPs and MEPs to account on Europe. And this would be far easier if those eurosceptic - often anti-EU - Tories weren't angry at the leakage of votes to a single issue anti-Europe Party.

Add those UKIP votes - the anti-Europe vote - to the current support for the Party and there's a clear poll lead. A poll lead that would produce a Euroscpetic majority in parliament for the first time.

So long as UKIP leaches those votes, there will not be such a majority and we'll remain on that seemingly inexorable course to a federal Europe.

So, UKIP members, come on in, the water's warm and you'll be welcomed.

....

BNP: can we get a little perspective please!

To read the comments of some you would think we were in imminent danger of the BNP winning hundreds of seats across the country, of fascists sweeping to power in town halls and of assorted racists strutting their stuff on the Andrew Marr Show every Sunday morning. And all because the BBC, in its bumbling, pinko-liberal way, has decided that Nick Griffin, the BNP's rather pompous and podgy leader should appear on Question Time.

Now this decision by the BBC is pretty sound from the producers perspective - think of the publicity for a rather fading format! Following on from the "expenses" editon of the show, this will get enormous attention and will increase the show's audience. Definitely a win - and, as I've said before, the right decision.

So why all the sound and fury - from Peter Hain, Alan Johnson and other voices from the left? Why the ongoing (and self-righteous) "no platform" arguments? And why the scare stories about the prospect of the BNP winning? Perhaps - I don't know - it suits the left politically to adopt such a position? Probably, it's because they're stupid.

So here's some perspective on the BNP. Since they swept into power (getting significantly less that 10% of the vote nationally and barely 10% in Yorkshire and the North West where the damn silly electoral system we have for European elections got them two MEPs) there have been 123 local council by-elections in Great Britain spread across the whole country. And the BNP?

1. Of the 123 local by-elections the BNP have contested just 32 - fewer than UKIP (34) and fewer than the Greens (39). They did not win a single one of these contests - the Greens won three (Brighton, Scarborough and Lancaster) and UKIP won three (Newcastle-under-Lyme, Cambridgeshire).

2. The BNP got more than 10% of the vote in 19 contests, more than 20% in just 6 and more than 30% in just one (a rather odd by election in Boston following the disqualification of the new Conservative Councillor - the first in this traditional Labour ward)

3. Even in places like Ashfield, North West Leicestershire and Broxtowe where the BNP seems well organised and has won elections, the party has failed to contest seats and lost a seat it was defending in Brinsley near Nottingham

There is no place for complacency in campaigning - there remains a solid basis of support for the BNP and all the laws, court cases and stern lectures won't change this fact. But we need to challenge the BNP rather than push them back once again onto the forums, into the pubs and onto the streets. But a little perspective might not go amiss!