Monday, 26 May 2014

My Party Won The Euro Elections

By a complete landslide the party which I was part of but for whom I did not vote won the Euro elections. I was a member of the 65.8% of voters who declined to participate to send any more MEPs to what is a very lucrative (for those elected) but largely pointless Parliament.

Much though instead is being made of the party which came a very distant second - UKIP. It does demonstrate the utter pointlessness the Euro elections have for UK voters, and contempt for domestic parties in general, that not only did most not bother to vote, but of those who did many were prepared to vote for a party which has no all.

By dismissing the 2010 manifesto as "drivel", yet failing to produce a new manifesto in its place and to have no EU exit plan, UKIP officially has no policies by its own admission. Voters' are effectively dismissing the Euros as irrelevant by lending their votes to UKIP safe in the knowledge it won't actually change anything.

Therefore the Euros are rarely a guide to how parties will fare in general elections. UKIP won 4,352,051 votes, nearly 4½ times its 2010 general election vote. Experience shows that when it comes to the more serious business of general elections the UKIP vote will undoubtedly be squeezed hard. For example in 2009 it won 2,498,226 votes in the Euros which then dropped to 919,546 in 2010.

But while being the Official Monster Non-Policy Policy Party will have little effect on its performance in the Euros it will pose a very significant and potentially damaging problem for UKIP in 2015.
Leading up to the Euros UKIP came under a great deal of inevitable smearing regarding alleged racism, homophobia and anything else the papers could conjure up (or received as briefing from the Tories forensically searching social media sites). Clearly though the tactic didn't work and it's rather nauseating to see the rapid about turn in newspaper editorials as a result, particularly this from the Mail:
Instead of addressing voters’ genuine concerns on mass immigration and the corrupt, power-hungry EU machine, the big three parties believed they could defeat Nigel Farage with smears and lazy accusations of ‘racism’.

The Mail – while, we repeat, carrying no torch for Ukip – warned that such arrogant, cack-handed tactics would backfire, and so it proved.
The smears though did have some effect, albeit one that is probably marginal according to UK Polling Report:
Together those two [polls] make it look pretty conclusive that the attacks on UKIP did damage perceptions of the party. More people think the party and Farage are racist. However, it does NOT necessarily follow that it damaged their vote – it could just have served to further entrench negative views amongst people who didn’t like UKIP anyway.
As a consequence of the limited damage done, we can now anticipate that there will be a change of tactics, assessing instead the performances of newly elected UKIP councillors and highlighting the lack of substance within UKIP policy.

Here the real danger lies - a party of no substance will be quickly exposed and will be damaging. We have already seen the consequences of this with Suzanne Evans' recent incoherent interview over UKIP policy (or lack of) on UK exit. We suspect that a number of newly elected councillors, representing a party without policies, will fare little better under more intense scrutiny either.

Meanwhile as Richard North notes despite what the "citizens of the EU" say the march of integration continues. Nothing amply demonstrates this better than the Lib Dem Andrew Duff losing his seat. Duff was the co-author of the Fundamental Law of the EU - the next step forward in EU political integration via a new Treaty. Losing his seat will have no bearing on the progress of this. Barroso says as the results were being declared:
"It is now of the essence to have a clear understanding on political priorities for the next political cycle, so that a proper institutional transition according to the treaty rules demonstrates the Union's capacity to act".
In other words it's business as usual for the EU. As Complete Bastard observes: 
The people are no closer to the levers of power, and we are no closer to leaving the EU. 
UKIP's lack of policies will ensure this will remain the case.


  1. Under the stopped-clock method, Lillico has been right in recent hours in that the results won't make the tiniest difference to the means in which the EU is run, and the agenda it will follow.

    However, the administrative power behind it will now be more wary of the Parliament and will likely seek to push measures through to conclusion by re-routing the corridors by which the visage of democracy and legitimacy are contrived. Doubtless the existing treaties will contain get-outs and arcane loopholes allowing articles to reach fulfilment outside of scrutiny of that otherwise impotent voting chamber. Possibly it will be worth watching to see if there is an unexpected increase in use of diqule mechanisms, or an increase in political communications traffic between national governments and international bodies higher in the pecking order than the EU?

  2. Of course the EU will carry on as though nothing has happened. This is what they always do, ignore the little people. But this large swing to anti EU parties across the EU has brought the EU to the attention of the voting public, which the MSM, TV channels and the EU itself have for years tried to keep under wraps. I noted a number of people on TV who remarked that they were unable to make a decision about the EU because they knew nothing about it. Well it is now in the open and will be under increasing scrutiny in the coming months. Hard to believe that they will like what they see.

    1. The complaint of the pro-EU camp has always been euroscepticism is the consequence of a lack of knowledge of how the EU works. They think their project is so wonderful we would learn to love it if only we knew all about it.

      It always escapes them that the reverse is actually true, which Jean Monnet knew perfectly well, which is why our membership is always based on lies and deceit.

  3. The electorate have been disenfranchised by the deliberate construction of a political system that blurs the major parties policies to such an extent that, as far as the average voter is concerned, it doesn't matter who you vote for, you get the same result.

    UKIP have shown that this is no longer the case - there IS something different out there and voting for it has a greater effect on politics (in general) than voting for anyone else ever has in many generations.

    UKIP may not have a manifesto (yet) but their approach to many of the contentious issue of today (AGW, energy, overseas aid etc) is as difficult to defend as the issue of unrestricted immigration proved to be.

    If any votes for UKIP came from outside the normal voting stream (i.e. from people who would normally be a 'none of the above' crowd) for the MEP elections then perhaps there are more to be had for a GE?

    Let's face it, who's going to be brave enough to face down Farage in another live debate on the issues previously mentioned? Failure to do so would also be fatal for any politician. Whatever happens in the run up to the 2015 GE it will be fun, if nothing else, watching the established parties squirm even further.....

  4. Fair enough, UKIP's no policy, no manifesto strategy is paying off quite well, I often read/hear people saying "Well, under UKIP [such and such] would happen" when it is quite clear UKIP have never said anything of the sort.

    UKIP have managed to rally everybody who doesn't like Romanian Gypsies and/or is a NIMBY, this is easily one-third of the UK electorate, end of discussion, no back chat.

    Why on earth would they bother with more detailed policies, which always deter more voters than they attract?

    1. Yet another veiled claim of racism and 'little Englander' - despite all the counter-evidence to the contrary.
      What precisely is it that people have against the British people wanting to control their own destiny, their own way of life and their own laws?
      Equally, what is it about people that want to give away their right to self determination to a group of unelected, undemocratic non-entities who's only loyalty is to banks and corporations?
      Should we stand by and watch as our 'elected' leaders dismantle our rights, our laws, our economy and our safety to satisfy the demands of faceless foreigners?
      Just how far do you want to bend over - and how deep do you want it?