Mikeuk

It seems to me that if you take the generality of views held by members (including some very senior members) that's pretty much what it is already. Because, apart from the key position on the EU, policies are pretty much a blank canvas, it makes it easy for a bunch of people with disparate views to hang together for the time being.

I'm all in favour of a broad church, but if the crunch comes the minority must defer to the majority. That's why I would be prepared to soft-pedal my 'left' views on tax, rail nationalisation etc and you may likewise have to bow to a hard line on immigration, which in fact you have just done in the General Election.

UKIP members are probably much more 'liberal' than Tories in matters of party discipline but I can see no reason to suppose that many tend to be 'socially liberal', nor would it be logical to suppose that large numbers of social liberals would be attracted to a vaguely Poujadiste party which specialises in saying 'No!'

UKIP's age profile alone makes your hypothesis doubtful, but I'm open to argument.

Tom Wilde

Not quite true, as we have had a full range of policies for some time. But it is true that few of those policies have attracted much attention or been given much prominence apart from the EU one and the immigration one.

Yes we have. But I won't be doing so again. The party system means we each have to make a personal decision as to which policies we dislike we're prepared to tolerate for the sake of other policies that we support. It's a matter both of how closely a party's policies match your own views and of how strongly you hold those views. My own decision is that I won't ever again support any general election campaign focussed on immigration. That's my decision; you may one day decide that your views on rail nationalisation prevent your continued support for UKIP. That would be your decision. Until that day comes, we're stuck with each other's views and we'll just have to make the best of it!

I think the only ways to settle this question would be:

a) To conduct an opinion poll of UKIP supporters (this would be the best way, but a bit expensive!)

b) To rely on personal experience and the opinions posted on boards like this one (this would be the easiest way, but also the least reliable)

c) To look at which parties people supported before turning to UKIP.

This last isn't totally reliable, but would probably give a fairly good indication. Do you know if anyone has ever done a survey of this worth a damn? I don't. I remember that after the 1999 Euro election pollsters reckoned that UKIP support in the SW (our best area) had come predominantly from disillusioned LibDems, and I know that local councillors defecting to UKIP have come from Labour, LibDems and Tories in, I think, fairly even numbers, but neither of these nuggets is conclusive evidence.

On the evidence we do have, I think we can safely say that a sizeable number of UKIP's members previously supported the LibDems (who are mainly social liberals) while another sizeable number previously supported the Tories, and a smaller though still significant number are ex-Labour. So are our members more socially liberal on average than the Tories? Yes, because this would still be the case even if ex-Tories in UKIP outnumbered ex-LibDems in UKIP. It could only fail to be the case if both
(a) our ex-Tories massively outnumbered our ex-Liberals AND (b) our ex-Tories came overwhelmingly from the socially authoritarian end of the Tory party rather than (like me) from the social liberal end. I don't believe either (a) or (b) to be the case.

If, as this argument suggests, we are more socially liberal than the Tories, then this would explain the party's strong opposition to ID cards and to Labour's regressive 'security' legislation. A socially authoritarian party would presumably have supported both.

gareth2

The BNP is utterly opposed to ID cards; left and right doesnt apply so much anymore.

Regards,
Gareth.

Paul Birch

Not really. All three main parties are now strongly authoritarian, and have been for some time. It's debatable which order to put them in. I'd put the LibDems as the most authoritarian, followed by Labour, followed by the Conservatives - but there's not a lot to choose between them. In any case, those of their supporters who turned to UKIP are by definition unrepresentative of the majority - and we have no immediate way of knowing whether they were more or less liberal than the average, or even whether the direction of bias was the same for each Party.

UKIP is presumably preferentially selecting a particular type of person - but whether that type is generally relatively liberal or authoritarian is not something that can be deduced from their previous party affiliations.

From personal contact with ordinary local members I'd say that in the main UKIP people tend to be anti-authoritarian (but supportive of the rule of law and traditional values, not socially radical); unless other branches are very different this is probably a fairly reliable indicator. Of course, with anecdotal evidence like this there's always the risk that they are merely making the right noises in order to win the approval of the observer, or adapting their behaviour and conversation to the company.

Hudson

If UKIP ever form a government there are going to be more splits than a gymnastics competition. Once EU withdrawal is achieved I can't really forsee much agreement on anything.

Perhaps this is why Knapman, Farage et al prefer to keep it a single issue party?

UKIP can either do all its splitting now, when it makes no difference, or accept that it's pretty much a kamikaze party that will self-destruct once the primary objective is achieved.

The only question is which approach will win the most votes?

Percentage

100% Bang-on observations,if were serious about being a party with policy other than Anti-EU better to thrash it out now and let's see where we stand.

Our election result means we cant pussy-foot about for 4 years,we need to find our identity quickly!

Politics isnt static even if we are!

Tom Wilde

Yes, that's a very good point.

Maybe, but from what we can see on this discussion board, I'd say UKIP is preferentially selecting more than one type of person!

In 1980's Poland, Solidarity was a very broad movement containing lots of different opinions (Catholic intellectuals, secular liberals, democratic socialists, traditionalists, Polish nationalists etc, etc) united only by the desire to remove the Communists from power and restore democracy. After it unexpectedly won the 'half-free' elections in 1989, formed a government and ended the Communists' stranglehold on power, it had achieved its primary objective. Over the next few years, it splintered INTO phpbb_various smaller parties reflecting the various strands of opinion within it. Did that really matter? Would it really matter so badly if UKIP split INTO phpbb_different parties once its main objective of EU withdrawal had been achieved?

John Carter

Regarding this kamikaze thing... I've been mulling something over for a while. Maybe it'll fit UKIP, maybe I'll have to start my own party to make it so.

People are, in general, fed up with politicians and political parties telling them what to do. The politicians are supposed to work for us, not their party leaders. So how would a party do which said:

1) We'll pull us out of the EU so that nobody is telling us what to do from above.

2) We'll then create a constitution and laws for the benefit of the people. For example referenda about anything can be demanded, Swiss-style, by the population (with the constitution protecting the population against certain weird results).

3) We'll then change the system and make political parties illegal (and fall on our own sword, immediately holding another election when the system is changed) - everyone must stand as an independent and reflect the wishes of their constituents. In short there won't be any party leaders to please.

(there's a few details in this yet to be worked out fully - such as how to select a PM/cabinet without it automatically being the ruling party's leader)

The basis for this is that

1) Politicians are supposed to work for us (naive perhaps, but there you go).
2) People in general aren't interested in politics - more like stability and getting on with their own lives.
3) I've been watching too much Grumpy Old Men on Beeb 2.

e

I think UKIP needs to decide if it wants to be a pressure group or a political party. If it wants to be a pressure group then it can unite many different people on the single cause of EU withdrawal. If it wants to be a political party then it needs a proper manifesto and an underlying ideology.

UKIP seemed disappointed with the general election results. But what does it expect? When you vote in the general election, you are voting for a government, not a single issue. The European elections are another thing.

I think UKIP is scared to broaden its policies or develop an ideology, simply because it is scared of losing votes. UKIP is also scared what would happen if the EU fell apart. What a disaster! The end of UKIP! It doesn't seem to recognise that as the success of UKIP's cause and a great victory for the United Kingdom.

Considering the failure of Veritas, I think UKIP should be a pressure group. But it needs to actually do its job. It needs to educate people, perhaps have a weekly e-mail newsletter saying what is happening in the EU. It needs to be simple, to the point and expose the corruption of the EU vigorously.

__________________
\'Democracy is where the incompetent many elect the corrupt few\'

Lawrie Boxall

Would it matter if UKIP split after achieving its goal - yes of course it would because 5 minutes after UKIP turns its back on politics the self appointed political elites will be devising some new hairbrained scheme to recreate their EUtopia. Before anyone knows it we will be back where we started. UKIP has to plan for the long term.

UKIP should have a central philosophy but since Sked left the party it has never had a leader with the intellectual capability of understanding what it should be let alone expressing it. UKIP needs to propose an alternative to the new world order currently taking shape. It has to have at its core the preservation of the nation state as the foundation for democratic government. After 10 years where is UKIPs alternative vision - we are still waiting.

But aswell as establishing what that is, it is pie in the sky to think about implementing it unless UKIP can work out how to win elections. The failure in May to gain any seat in Parliament has led to the media quite rightly viewing UKIP as an irrelevance in UK politics. The party leaders can hardly complain since they chose this position for themselves. But now as a result of the narrow-mindedness of UKIPs campaign and the election failure, the party is no longer being asked its opinion even on the momentous events of the last few days in the EU. UKIP has sunk below the political horizon.

The UKIP vision which should be one of taking back political power from politicians and giving it back to people has to be a long term goal. Voters are willing to accept a discussion along those lines including EU withdrawal but first UKIP needs to gain their trust on the economy and social services if it is to become electable. A free trade agreement may be a fine thing but it is not a programme for the government of a great nation no matter how many times the words are repeated.