" But Sked's idea of an alternative is no answer
He believes the country needs a new political party dedicated to withdrawal from the EU but under the leadership of people who understand economics, fair play and compassion, the kind of people, he says, who could offer a contemporary Magna Carta and know what that means and implies.
The last thing that we need, though, is yet another political party – and especially one dedicated to withdrawal from the EU.
That would do little other than dilute the impact of UKIP.
What we should not do, in any event, is expect coherent policy from a pressure group.
We should accept that, within its limitations, UKIP has done as good a job as might be expected.
But when we move into real politics and have a real referendum to fight, it should stand down."
UKIP: comfort politics
Saturday 29 September 2012
The dreaded Alan Sked has re-emerged, indulging in his favourite pastime – UKIP bashing. This time it is in The Times letter column (no link), where he dismisses the party as "insanely right-wing". No educated person could touch it, Sked writes.
What normally brings on an attack of Skeditis is the proximity of an election, when the party founder usually seeks to undermine his own creation, in support of the Tories. But this time, we have to look for another reason.
The trigger is in fact an article in Friday's Times by David Aaronovitch (click the pic to read), mercifully hidden behind the paywall. But what rescues it from the obscurity it would otherwise justly deserve is the description of UKIP's policies as "comfort politics".
That is a neat enough description of the party's output, which adequately reflects the lack of coherence in a message which offers on the one hand a cut in the deficit while, on the other hand, committing to massive increase in public expenditure.
What makes the term "comfort politics" relevant, though, is the party's attitude to the European Union. Its idea of extricating ourselves from the EU is unilaterally to repeal the European Communities Act and then to negotiate a regulation-free free trade area. This is not the politics of the real world, but it is enormously attractive to many of its members, and thus it binds together the party in its collective fantasy.
Sked, nevertheless, is not entirely fair in writing that he founded the party as a means of influencing Tory policy on Europe, hoping that the fear it inspires still does. UKIP most certainly has influenced the Tories and still does. If we do get another referendum, it will be in no small measure due to the activities of UKIP members.
However, one could only countenance voting for UKIP on the strict understanding that the party never got anywhere near power. But Sked's idea of an alternative is no answer.
He believes the country needs a new political party dedicated to withdrawal from the EU but under the leadership of people who understand economics, fair play and compassion, the kind of people, he says, who could offer a contemporary Magna Carta and know what that means and implies.
The last thing that we need, though, is yet another political party – and especially one dedicated to withdrawal from the EU. That would do little other than dilute the impact of UKIP.
What we should not do, in any event, is expect coherent policy from a pressure group. We should accept that, within its limitations, UKIP has done as good a job as might be expected. But when we move into real politics and have a real referendum to fight, it should stand down.
An organisation immersed in "comfort politics" is not one which can be relied upon to deal with the real world, and address real world issues.
COMMENT THREAD
Richard North 29/09/2012
Posts
