UKIP Manifesto and MEPs
UKIP are a strange beast. They seem to court scandal, whether it’s over expenses, claims of sexism and racism, or renouncing their own manifesto and even their own members. Yet despite all this they are on a roll, having regularly trounced the LibDems in polls for almost a year. In the recent debates over the place of the UK in the European Union the consensus was that Farage won, despite (or maybe because) it seemed to be more about the personalities of the two debaters than any arguments they presented.
What is it about UKIP that seems to appeal so much to voters? It seems that the leader, Nick Farage, is the key. Regularly extolling the virtues of a pint and a smoke down the local, he appeals to a memory of a Britain before everything ‘went wrong’. Based on the comments of Farage and his colleagues, it seems that this memory is of a mythical time, a time when everyone knew their place, when men were real men, women were real women and small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri were real small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri. There was none of this ‘feminism’ (despite the movement being able to trace its roots back to the 1700s) or political correctness, and certainly no foreigners coming over here and taking our jobs (despite the British Isle being a long-standing amalgamation of the likes of the Romans, Angles, Saxons, Vikings, and most famously of all, the Normans).
UKIP’s central platform is their dislike, one might even go so far as to say hatred, of the EU. When they’re able to get ‘on message’ this is the message they stick to. They want us out of Europe. But what then? It’s fine to be a single issue party but they are trying to get into power. They want to govern. If Day One is spent getting us out of Europe what about the rest of the four and a half years they have in power? Do they just sit around twiddling their thumbs?
This is where a party manifesto is extremely useful. In it a party will describe its aims and promises should it get into power. It’s how I know I didn’t just dream that the LibDems promised not to raise tution fees. I can go to their 2010 manifesto and find on page 33 their commitment to:
So what does UKIP’s manifesto say? Well, the first thing I noticed was it’s quite short. It’s just 16 pages, far shorter than the 131 pages of the Conservatives, the 109 of the LibDems or the 76 of Labour. It’s even less than a third of the length of the Green Party, who managed 50 pages. Of course, length isn’t everything but governing a country should require some forethought. Their manifesto seems to be the political equivalent of that essay you put off until the night before it was due in.
Regardless, what are their policies? Well, to some extent, it’s hard to say as earlier this year Farage proclaimed the 2010 manifesto to be “drivel” and said they were going to start from scratch for their next one. But as Farage signed off on it, even giving his name to the forward, it is worthwhile going over some of its content.
After the length, or lack thereof, the thing I noticed most was how inconsequential many of their policies were. For example,
The other thing that’s immediately noticeable is their anti-scientific attitude. They believe that the consensus over global climate change is a conspiracy:
Unsurprisingly, the main focus is on Europe. The lies and distortions will require a further post to do them justice (and some education on my part as this is not my field of expertise). What I want to concentrate on for the remainder of this post is UKIP and its MEPs.
For a party that disdains Europe so much they seem to have a great desire to work there. Since 1999 when they first managed to elect three MEPs, UKIP has trebled its presence in Brussels. Given their attitude towards Europe this seems strange but I think the argument is that they can destroy the system from within. So how are they doing?
Not so great. Through the wonders of the internet it is possible to see how much work each MEP does. I compared the activities of the nine working UKIP MEPs with nine randomly selected non-UKIP UK MEPs. The results were striking.
Out of nine UKIP MEPs working in the European Parliament, only one had managed to draft a single report in their 5 years of attendance! Only three opinions had been drafted in that time and only a single written declaration had been signed. While the figures for the non-UKIP MEPs aren’t staggering, at least they are in double digits.
It’s also possible to compare voting participation. Here, too, UKIP MEPs are noticeable by their absence. They voted an average of 65% of the time, with three voting less than 50% (including Nigel Farage and Trevor Colman, a man I will discuss in greater detail shortly). In contrast, the non-UKIP MEPs voted an average of 81% of the time and even the lowest participant managed 58%.
So what have they been doing all this time? Well, this is where Trevor Colman comes in. He’s an MEP for the South West and earlier this year he was asked about his finances in relation to his job. The link is to a video and I’ve transcribed part of the it below:
His record is not exceptional for his party. They argue that the European Union is a waste of money and that we would be better off out, but when they get elected on that platform they go to Brussels and rake in more money than most of their electorate could dream of. Their hypocrisy is clear.
I don’t care whether you believe that the UK belongs in the EU (well, I do, but not for the purposes of this discussion). If you believe that the UK should get out then I can understand why you may think that voting for UKIP is the way to achieve this. I hope I have shown that it’s not so simple. UKIP has a similar number of MEPs to Labour and the LibDems. They have the political power they sought yet instead of wielding it to benefit their electorate, they’re using it to line their pockets. UKIP rail against the EU when running for election but as soon as they reach Brussels they forget their promises and exploit the money train for all its worth. Why would they destroy the very thing that’s making them rich?
What is it about UKIP that seems to appeal so much to voters? It seems that the leader, Nick Farage, is the key. Regularly extolling the virtues of a pint and a smoke down the local, he appeals to a memory of a Britain before everything ‘went wrong’. Based on the comments of Farage and his colleagues, it seems that this memory is of a mythical time, a time when everyone knew their place, when men were real men, women were real women and small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri were real small furry creatures from Alpha Centauri. There was none of this ‘feminism’ (despite the movement being able to trace its roots back to the 1700s) or political correctness, and certainly no foreigners coming over here and taking our jobs (despite the British Isle being a long-standing amalgamation of the likes of the Romans, Angles, Saxons, Vikings, and most famously of all, the Normans).
UKIP’s central platform is their dislike, one might even go so far as to say hatred, of the EU. When they’re able to get ‘on message’ this is the message they stick to. They want us out of Europe. But what then? It’s fine to be a single issue party but they are trying to get into power. They want to govern. If Day One is spent getting us out of Europe what about the rest of the four and a half years they have in power? Do they just sit around twiddling their thumbs?
This is where a party manifesto is extremely useful. In it a party will describe its aims and promises should it get into power. It’s how I know I didn’t just dream that the LibDems promised not to raise tution fees. I can go to their 2010 manifesto and find on page 33 their commitment to:
“. . . scrap unfair university tuition fees . . .”
So what does UKIP’s manifesto say? Well, the first thing I noticed was it’s quite short. It’s just 16 pages, far shorter than the 131 pages of the Conservatives, the 109 of the LibDems or the 76 of Labour. It’s even less than a third of the length of the Green Party, who managed 50 pages. Of course, length isn’t everything but governing a country should require some forethought. Their manifesto seems to be the political equivalent of that essay you put off until the night before it was due in.
Regardless, what are their policies? Well, to some extent, it’s hard to say as earlier this year Farage proclaimed the 2010 manifesto to be “drivel” and said they were going to start from scratch for their next one. But as Farage signed off on it, even giving his name to the forward, it is worthwhile going over some of its content.
After the length, or lack thereof, the thing I noticed most was how inconsequential many of their policies were. For example,
“Ban schools from using global warming propaganda such as Al Gore’s film ‘An Inconvenient Truth’”They had only 16 pages but felt that these items were worthy of inclusion!
“Introduce a ‘Britdisc’ which foreign lorries will have to pay for using major British roads.”
“Recognise the numerous threats to British identity and culture.”
“Make St George’s Day a public holiday in England.”
“Allow county referendums to reverse the hunting ban at the local level”
The other thing that’s immediately noticeable is their anti-scientific attitude. They believe that the consensus over global climate change is a conspiracy:
“[UKIP] are the first party to take a sceptical stance on man-made global warming claims. We called for a rational, balanced approach to the climate debate in 2008, before the extensive manipulation of scientific data first became clear.”That ‘extensive manipulation’ is a lie created by those with a vested interest in discrediting the overwhelming scientific consensus that climate change is happening and that it is caused by humans. Much of UKIPs energy policy is based around this false idea that climate change isn’t happening and so renewable energies are unnecessary. They want to repeal the Climate Change Act, oppose wind farms, prevent teachers from educating students about climate change and increase our use of coal-fired power stations. Luckily they’re also going to invest more in flood and coastal defences, which is handy because the funny thing about science is it doesn’t need you to believe in it for it to be true. Climate change is happening, sea levels will rise and weather will become more unpredictable. So those flood and coastal defences will be well used, even if UKIP don’t believe we know the reason why.
Unsurprisingly, the main focus is on Europe. The lies and distortions will require a further post to do them justice (and some education on my part as this is not my field of expertise). What I want to concentrate on for the remainder of this post is UKIP and its MEPs.
For a party that disdains Europe so much they seem to have a great desire to work there. Since 1999 when they first managed to elect three MEPs, UKIP has trebled its presence in Brussels. Given their attitude towards Europe this seems strange but I think the argument is that they can destroy the system from within. So how are they doing?
Not so great. Through the wonders of the internet it is possible to see how much work each MEP does. I compared the activities of the nine working UKIP MEPs with nine randomly selected non-UKIP UK MEPs. The results were striking.
It’s also possible to compare voting participation. Here, too, UKIP MEPs are noticeable by their absence. They voted an average of 65% of the time, with three voting less than 50% (including Nigel Farage and Trevor Colman, a man I will discuss in greater detail shortly). In contrast, the non-UKIP MEPs voted an average of 81% of the time and even the lowest participant managed 58%.
So what have they been doing all this time? Well, this is where Trevor Colman comes in. He’s an MEP for the South West and earlier this year he was asked about his finances in relation to his job. The link is to a video and I’ve transcribed part of the it below:
Colman: Why make a speech when you know it's totally ineffective, that you're there talking to a gallery of about 6 people?
Interviewer: Then why did you get elected if you weren't going to do anything?
Colman: um, um it's it's not that I'm not doing anything, I'm trying to get us out of this mess, and that can only be achieved over here.
Voiceover: Being an MEP brings a £78,000 salary. To get other allowances you have to clock in at the parliament.
Interviewer: you go to these plenary sessions, you barely take part in them, but is one of the main motivations to enable you to go on getting those allowances?
Colman: um, I wouldn't say it's one of the main, um, um, motivations. I, I'm trying to be fair about this.
Interviewer: It's a factor though?
Colman: It is a factor, of course it is.So he believes that the EU is ineffective but the only way to change that is to work from within. He’s been voted in so he can achieve this aim but instead of doing so has simply lined his own pockets. Those allowances, by the way, take his salary to £200,000!
His record is not exceptional for his party. They argue that the European Union is a waste of money and that we would be better off out, but when they get elected on that platform they go to Brussels and rake in more money than most of their electorate could dream of. Their hypocrisy is clear.
I don’t care whether you believe that the UK belongs in the EU (well, I do, but not for the purposes of this discussion). If you believe that the UK should get out then I can understand why you may think that voting for UKIP is the way to achieve this. I hope I have shown that it’s not so simple. UKIP has a similar number of MEPs to Labour and the LibDems. They have the political power they sought yet instead of wielding it to benefit their electorate, they’re using it to line their pockets. UKIP rail against the EU when running for election but as soon as they reach Brussels they forget their promises and exploit the money train for all its worth. Why would they destroy the very thing that’s making them rich?
Comments