Estimated reading time: 6 minutes
Any issue about the ethical standing of a political party must involve two questions:
1) Does the party tell the truth?
2) More especially, does it tell the truth about the groups and interest it really represents?
In the case of UKIP, the answer to both these questions is emphatically ‘no’. UKIP claims to be an anti- establishment party, one representing the interests of what it calls ‘the people’. It also contends that it reflects the views and interests of ‘the people’ in advocating very severe curbs on immigration.
Is it in fact anti-establishment? Certainly not, if by ‘establishment’ is meant society’s existing economic structure. Much of UKIP’s money comes from millionaires, such as Paul Stokes (worth £650 million), Sir Frederick Barclay (part-owner of the Daily telegraph and of London’s Ritz Hotel), and Stuart Wheeler (owner of the betting empire IG Index). Such people are not exactly rebels against the economic status quo.
The role of big-money interests in UKIP became especially clear in the 2004 European elections. Total electoral expenditure by all parties in Britain was £10 million. Of this, UKIP spent £2.3 million, which was more than either Labour or the Liberal Democrats. Only the Conservatives spent more. It can safely be assumed that most of this money emanated from exceptionally wealthy individuals and groups. And, as always in politics, such money comes with multiple strings attached.
UKIP a Defender of Big Business
UKIP defends the interests of big business and big finance. One indication of this fact is that party leader Nigel Farage now boasts that financial donors in the City of London “who would have traditionally supported the Tories are now holding talks with us.” It is indeed the case that a good deal of support, both financial and electoral, is currently shifting from the Conservatives to UKIP, and that this shift now includes the defection of some Conservative MPs. Also, we should remember that Farage himself is a former City trader, with many connections in The Square Mile. A further consideration is that UKIP’s opposition to the EU is not on the grounds that big business and finance are predominant in the EU economy. The party does have economic quarrels with the EU, but these are bound up with support for specifically British big business and finance.
It is true that, while endorsing the economic establishment, UKIP does profess concern about the employment conditions of workers. However, what is significant — and highly suspicious – is that it sees no major role for trade unions in improving those conditions. If we are still searching for UKIP’s anti-establishment credentials, we will get no joy from examining its attitude to the Coalition Government’s policies on spending cuts and the NHS. In 2013, the party called for the Government to increase its cuts by £77 billion. It also demanded: more reductions to taxes on profits than the Government itself was proposing; the abolition of inheritance tax; and a flat-rate of income tax of 31%, a rate which would obviously benefit the very wealthy.
So: supporting the economic power-structure; opposing large-scale trade unionism; urging that the Government go further in its policies on cuts and on favouring the very wealthy: none of these actions suggests any genuinely far-reaching concern about the situation of the majority of people in Britain. To this assertion, UKIP would probably reply that, despite the above facts, it is extensively concerned about the majority, and that this is demonstrated by its severe anti-immigration proposals. It argues that most people in the country are against immigration, and view the latter as damaging society both economically and culturally.
Immigration not Unpopular
However, this contention has been called into question by recent and extensive research carried out by the University of Manchester. Surveys conducted by the University in 2013 show that 52% of the people questioned regarded immigration as either not harmful to the economy or as actually good for it. As regards immigration’s cultural effects, 54% saw these as either not harmful or as good. Moreover, the research indicated that there has been a steady decline of negative attitudes to immigration since 2011. At the same time, it is true that other polls have produced different results. Given such diversity of response, what can definitely be said is that no certainty whatsoever attaches to the UKIP position that the majority of people are unequivocally anti-immigration — contrary to what the party claims.
Here are some details on its immigration proposals:
(1) Admission should be granted only to those people whose “skills and aptitudes” are “of benefit to the nation.” But this is surely a difficult judgement to make. How is the term “benefit” to be interpreted? Does it chiefly mean benefit to the existing economic power-structure?
(2) Immigrants must be able to financially support themselves and their dependants for the first 5 years of their time here. They must therefore have private health insurance, private education and private housing. Also, proof must be given of already-existing private-health insurance as a condition for entering the country. This, clearly, could only apply to a tiny and wealthy minority of immigrants; and most immigrants are not in this kind of economic position. Indeed, how many British people are, for that matter?
What is more, UKIP’s anti-immigration extremism has the potential to be actually dangerous. Though not itself a fascist party, it has drawn voters to it who previously voted for the Nazi British National Party. Additionally, the leaders of the English Defence League endorsed UKIP before the 2014 elections. To retain this support from the fascist Far-Right, UKIP is likely to become even more extreme in its anti-immigration— contrary to what the party claims.
Here are some details on its immigration proposals:
(1) Admission should be granted only to those people whose “skills and aptitudes” are “of benefit to the nation.” But this is surely a difficult judgement to make. How is the term “benefit” to be interpreted? Does it chiefly mean benefit to the existing economic power-structure?
(2) Immigrants must be able to financially support themselves and their dependants for the first 5 years of their time here. They must therefore have private health insurance, private education and private housing. Also, proof must be given of already-existing private-health insurance as a condition for entering the country. This, clearly, could only apply to a tiny and wealthy minority of immigrants; and most immigrants are not in this kind of economic position. Indeed, how many British people are, for that matter?
What is more, UKIP’s anti-immigration extremism has the potential to be actually dangerous. Though not itself a fascist party, it has drawn voters to it who previously voted for the Nazi British National Party. Additionally, the leaders of the English Defence League endorsed UKIP before the 2014 elections. To retain this support from the fascist Far-Right, UKIP is likely tobecome even more extreme in its anti-immigration — and other — attitudes.*
Enoch Powell a Hero
As well, we need to note that UKIP’s association with the Far Right does not stop at these shores. In the European Parliament, the party is in the grouping which includes the extreme right-wing United Poland Party and the Italian Northern League. Such, perhaps, is fitting company for UKIP, given that Nigel Farage has declared his personal hero to be Enoch Powell—the man who delivered the infamous ‘Rivers of Blood’ anti-immigration speech in 1968.
All the above data show that UKIP is unethical because it does not tell the truth when it claims primary commitment to the well-being of the majority of people. Crucially, it has no desire to alter society’s economic power-structure. It is frequently described as a ‘nationalist populist’ party, but this description must be taken with a large pinch of salt, as previous points have indicated.
Whatever genuinely national or patriotic feelings the party may possess, and whatever real concern it may have for the majority of the population, these attitudes take second place to its endorsement of Britain’s economic elite. Such an order of priority decisively modifies its populist avowals. The fully-fledged populism which UKIP espouses simply cannot be squared with economic elitism, and any claim (or pretence) to the contrary must be rejected. Nor can such populism be legitimately based on an anti-immigration policy which is virulent, the virulence being aimed at creating a mass-following. Many opponents of UKIP, including myself, actually accept the principle of immigration control, but insist that — like any principle — it should be applied in a measured, circumspect and politically disinterested way. But this is definitely not UKIP’s way.