Why UKIP is not the answer
Friday, June 13, 2008 On June 24 Forest will host a party to mark the first anniversary of the public smoking ban in England. A confirmed guest is Nigel Farage (left), leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party. This isn't the first Forest event Nigel has attended. He's energetic, charismatic, and a thoroughly likeable bloke. When he was elected leader in 2006 it was the best thing that could have happened to UKIP. But I still wouldn't vote for them, even though I am a eurosceptic and I welcome the party's opposition to the smoking ban.
Like it or not, UKIP is not a serious force in British politics and neither my vote (nor yours) is going to change that. The party has one MP (who was elected as a Tory before he defected) and after the next election the number will almost certainly be a big fat zero (again). The party has little or no influence at national level and I can't see this changing - in my lifetime, at least.
To put UKIP in perspective, the LibDems have 63 MPs and unless we have a hung parliament (a very rare event in modern British politics) or we change to proportional representation (which I am strongly against), they too can only dream of having a significant impact on government policy.
Even if UKIP had the same number of MPs as the DUP (nine) and could influence a close House of Commons vote in the way that the unionists did this week (ie by doing a secret deal with an under pressure government), do you honestly think they would seek amendments to the smoking ban above all other considerations?
If - like me - you want exemptions to the ban, a vote for UKIP is a wasted vote unless (and this is highly unlikely) the UKIP candidate is running a close second in a marginal seat where the sitting MP is an avowed anti-smoker who voted for the smoking ban. A protest vote for a UKIP candidate who limps home third or fourth is not going to change anything.
Rightly or wrongly, most people (including political commentators) see UKIP as a single issue party and that issue is not tobacco control. (I know some prominent UKIP supporters and they are not social libertarians, believe me.)
The ONLY way the smoking ban is ever going to amended is by lobbying Labour and Conservative MPs and prospective parliamentary candidates in the hope that, eventually, the message will get through to those in power or close to power. UKIP is not in power and never will be.
Nigel Farage will receive a very warm welcome when he joins us at Boisdale on June 24. But if I had the brass neck, the one question I would put to him and to Nick Clegg, another right of centre politician (who will NOT be at the party) is this: "If you really want to make a difference, wouldn't you be better joining the Conservatives?"
Reader Comments (17)
Well said Simon, you have echoed my thoughts exactly on this.
Brace yourself for the flack, which will surely come.
I've always liked Forest and Simon, while having doubts about their use to us smokers. Simon's blog above not only proves, I believe, that Forest is merely an old boys club, more interested in dinner parties and getting the odd quote in newspapers, than doing anything substantial to help smokers, but also shows a great contempt for our political system.
"The party has one MP (who was elected as a Tory before he defected) and after the next election the number will almost certainly be a big fat zero (again). The party has little or no influence at national level and I can't see this changing - in my lifetime, at least."
UNLESS, some of, say, 12 million voters starting putting their weight behind them. Simon - do you know any group of people in this country that might make up 12 million voters? I think you're forgetting who you are supposed to be representing!
Now don't get me wrong, I'm not a supporter of the UKIP, thought I'm struggling to find any party that represents me. However, what Simon is either too naive, to complacent, or too partisan to realise, is that if even 10% of us smokers were mobilised to vote for small party, regardless who it was, then that's over 1 million voters. If 1 million Labour, Tory, Lib Dem voters suddenly started defecting, do you think they would ignore it? Or Simon, do you perhaps they might take a little bit more notice of it than the 'lobbying' that you claim to be doing!
I'm sorry if this sounds harsh, especially as I do like you and your blog, but this post is inexcusable. It's basically the 'why should i bother to vote, one vote isn't going to make a difference' argument, which only serves one purpose - maintaining the status quo, and allowing our politicians to continue turning a blind eye.
Mobilising smokers is the ONLY way the smoking ban is going to be repealed, NOT Forest parties to celebrate the first anniversary of the thing we despise the most!
apologies for my typos etc... I was in a bit of a rant!
It would be impossible to mobilise 10-12 million smokers because the vast majority have been conditioned to feel ashamed. The bloggers here are Pro Smokers who are happy to admit that they smoke and like it . Most smokers are hypocrites and cowards who accept meekly that their habit is dirty and smelly and trot off to the doctors every January for 6 weeks supply of nicotine gum.
These people smoke in their own back yards, never in the car and apologise if they smoke in company. They will never stand up for their rights because they do not think that they should have any!
Writing to MPs & voting in elections will not change the ban. The only way to have it amended or scrapped is to continue to hit the government in the pocket. Buy your cigarettes abroad, organise parties at home and reduce the trips to the pub.
Finally,David Davis is forcing a by election because of the loss of civil liberties and increasing government interference in our lives. To support his cause (not his party), all smokers should refuse to go to any pub,cafe or restaurant on that day for the very same reason. This would cost the country a fortune and would certainly achieve publicity.
Michael - so on the one hand you say it's impossible to mobilise 10-12 million smokers, and on the other you state all smokers should boycott pubs etc on the day of the by-election. Which is it? I was only suggesting 10%... if we could mobilise them all, we could pretty much run the country! And I disgree about the majority of smokers been ashamed etc... most smokers I know don't feel dirty or ashamed. The trouble isn't that smokers don't want to smoke, and don't want to change the ban, the trouble is finding simple but effective protests that won't involve great effort/hardship for smokers, and communicating it to them effectively. Forest don't seem to do either of these things... but they are good at arranging dinner parties in posh London restaurants, I'll give them that!
When the Tories win the next General Election, will Davis or the Tories repeal the smoking ban or any other restriction on our Liberties. I doubt it very much.
As usual I will sit on the fence. A vote for UKIP in national elections probably would, in some ways, be a waste of a vote. However in the European elections with an element of proportional representation UKIP will be getting my vote. If Cameron has his way, if elected, and we have an English parliament the Labour Party are dead in the water. UKIP will gain in influence and may well become a maor force in English politics. After all when the Tories brought in the great Reform act giving every householder a vote of 1867 (i.e. the working class) it was not until 1892 that Keir Hardie was the first socialist MP to be elected. It was not for another 30 years that Labour had its first Prime Minister, Ramsay MacDonald. Yes I know he defected to the Tories. From small seeds grow great oak trees. I would be just as sceptical of UKIP, if it was not for Cameron being just as disingenuous as Tony Blair. Frankly I despair of politics these days and feel that the only way I can make my voice known is through support of fringe parties.
I don't want to hog the posts here but I have to answer the "Old Boys Club" comment. I have also given this analogy before, but if Forest said that on the 24th of June 2008 Simon Clark was giving his thoughts on smoking at a local church, tea and biscuits to be served in the intermission, I do not think many MPs, journalists or opinion formers would turn up. A free-ish p1ss up near parliament where it is 10% "business" and 90% fun ensures a good turnout. "Just" because you are working class does not exclude you from an old boys club. Tongue in cheek I always play the working class Tory card, partly because it is true. Generally speaking I have found "the establishment" to be quite welcoming, polite and accepting. I have a broad cockney accent, drop my haitches, use the glottal stop (e.g. bo'le for bottle) and say gor blimey (God blind me if I am wrong, etymology). Provided you have good manners which 95% of us have and can add to a conversation, the dinner and drinks offers are there. Treating everyone equally on the basis that you are no better or worse than you goes a long way.
Simon, thank you for explaining your position.
On the face of it, we seem to be between a rock and a hard place: in the general election we can vote for one of the big two, neither of which shows any sign of amending the legislation, or vote UKIP which seems to support amendment but which will certainly not form a government. If, however, UKIP focussed on firming up a comprehensive set of policies, if those policies reflected a strong libertarian position and if they fielded strong, credible candidates then I see no reason why they should not secure enough seats to wield some influence in the HoC. Enough to force an amendment to the ban? I don't know but we can't be worse off than we will be if we use our votes to reinstate Labour or the Tories and if, as Simon says, the best chance of amending the ban is from continued lobbying of MPs from the big two, then a vote for UKIP doesn't preclude this. The only reason I can see for voting for either of them is to honour a pledge, put to both of them in advance of the elction, that the Party that promises an amendment to the ban has my vote.
On the subject of the FOREST bash on the 24th, I don't expect the tobacco control lobby to be quaking in its boots at the prospect. If, however, FOREST didn't organise such events - to which it invites movers and shakers - the smoking issue might fall outside the radar, altogether. Further, there are horses for courses: FOREST is a political lobby and, as such, will be expected to operate under certain terms. FOREST is perhaps not in a position to mobilise civil disobedience. Lastly, these events enable people like ourselves to meet each other and those with influence and offer the opportunity to make the strength of our feelings known.
I'm attending the 24th event and I look forward to meeting other posters from this site and to meeting Simon.
Striking out UKIP, Simon Clark is saying:
Like it or not, XXXX is not a serious force in British politics and neither my vote (nor yours) is going to change that. The party has one MP (who was elected as a Tory before he defected) and after the next election the number will almost certainly be a big fat zero (again). The party has little or no influence at national level and I can't see this changing - in my lifetime, at least.
This argument could be levelled at any new party. It was probably levelled against the Labour party when it was first formed. Same for the Green party. What it effectively says is: the current set of political parties are the only only ones there'll ever be, so you have to work within this constraint.
It simply isn't true. When political parties don't speak for people, they create new ones. If disenchantment grows deep enough, this will happen, as sure as eggs is eggs.
I advise Simon to raise the views he has expressed here so clearly about the futility of supporting UKIP to Nigel Farage in person on 24th June. I, for one, would be very interested to know what Nigel Farage's response is to such an indictment of the party and its supporters. Frank Davis' comment above is very well-reasoned because, very sadly, representatives of the three major parties do not appear to listen to the people, let alone speak for them.
Jenny, you might be interested in an excellent piece on "The Devil's Kitchen" blog in which the author responds to the suggestion that he shouldn't have bothered forming The Libertarian Party. I saw it, I think, a couple of weeks ago (if that helps you to find it).
At the risk of sounding like Nanny Beeb, if you haven't visited the blog before the language is robust!
Thanks Joyce - is there a link to this? I've never been on this.
Jenny, Devil's Kitchen is here http://devilskitchen.me.uk/
An excellent blog
Others that are well worth a read include Guido Fawkes at http://www.order-order.com/
and the Tap blog at http://the-tap.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2008-01-01T00%3A00%3A00Z&updated-max=2009-01-01T00%3A00%3A00Z&max-results=50
The latter has some interestinhg points about how the Euro project is fairing in other countries in the EU.
Thanks very much JonS. I am, no doubt, about to be educated!!:)
"...or we change to proportional representation (which I am strongly against),..."
I hope you can tell me why sometime.
Ther was once, no doubt, a time when one(percieved) lunatic anti-smoker decided to embark on a campaign to have smoking banned in all public places - now look where we are. Never say never, and in light of the jiggery pokery over the RoI no vote being roundly ignored there is plenty opportunity for the ruling classes to enrage more voters with its utter arrogance, and for them to respond with a vote for UKIP - the antichrist of all things EU. I don't hold out much hope of any kind of reversal or concession on the current situation, perhaps the only thing one can guage is which party is going to be more - or less inclined to keep sticking its nose into our private lives and freedoms....