To UKIP or Not UKIP? That is the (troubling) Question...

9/1/2013

For many years, I have been attending two dinners annually with a group of men who I have known and greatly respected most of my adult life. We started politicking together in the early days of Mrs T (see our 'busy frisson’ here) when the fight was on for the soul of the Conservative Party between the 'statists' of Edward Health and the 'free marketers' of Keith Joseph. We put ourselves forward as candidates for posts in the Young Conservative movement and some of us went onto serve on councils and stand for the UK parliament (See the TOB Rule 5) later in life.

These dinners have always been events to look forward to. It is a time when we leave our wives/partners elsewhere and have a good chin-wag about the state of the world and how, if we were in charge, we would make the world a better place (and believe me the group has all the quality skills and experience required for running a modern country and/or global company). My favourite one of the two dinners is held later in the autumn when we get a good deal at a country house hotel and stay Friday overnight (the spring dinner is usually a simple upmarket London affair). The conversation and debate continue into breakfast the next day and we are normally joined by those attendees who have moved overseas or have to travel long distances, which makes the whole event a more compelling 'catch up' (want to know what it's like to live an expat life in Mauritius - I now know!). At some recent dinners we have even had some interesting foreign guests join us to broaden our outlook still further (it's amazing how language barriers fade away after a few bottles of wine!).

As we start 2013, things are not all well however. The state of the country and the Conservative Party under the leadership of David Cameron and George Osborne is stressing relationships among my dinner companions. At the last dinner, the arguments of The United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) were put under the microscope both during dinner and afterwards. One attendee for example, had researched the UKIP policies on small business, which I like many others at the table found to be surprisingly appealing and well thought through. Unfortunately, to others all such discussion about a rival party to the Tories was 'treachery'. Round robin emails (BTW Guys, I hate this form of communication) during the first week of December exchanging points and counter-points on the intricacies of the UKIP platform made things worse and my friends seemed to exhibit passions that I had not seen in them for quite some time!

Then on 10 December came the bombshell that one of our number had 'defected' to UKIP. "Mark Hughes a former leader of North Hertfordshire District Council, who was Mayor of Royston in 1990/91, has joined UKIP..." read the web posting of a local paper (see Former Tory town mayor joins UKIP) and my dinner companions were off and running again with those damn emails!

Now, I know Mark as one of the most successful Independent Financial Advisers in the UK and someone whose economic and financial expertise should be incorporated into Treasury thinking (is there still such a thing?). I also know that he is not a man to do things without all due consideration and whilst not a shock to me, I understand that this was a big step for him. As well as his previous role in the local Conservative Party, Mark has also stood twice for the Party in parliamentary elections. Such commitment takes time and money so this was not the action of someone who is merely 'playing' politics. I will leave you to follow Mark on Twitter to hear of his most recent views on UKIP (follow Mark here on Twitter) but if people like Mark (monied, knowledgeable, energetic and passionate) are leaving the Conservative party, then they have much to worry about. So far, all the Prime Minister seems to be doing is insulting his potential UKIP supporters (here). Causing me even more disappointment is the once 'sound' Chairman of the Party, Grant Shapps, who seems to have backed himself and the Party into a corner on this issue (here).

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out both for my dinner friends and the Conservative Party as we run into the 2015 election. At present I am sticking with my local Conservative member of parliament (Richard Harrington MP) as in all my years in politics I have never known a better constituency MP who seems to broadly support a centre right, free market, agenda. But there are some big issues coming up before the election which he must be on the right side of to continue to receive my vote in this 3-way marginal seat (a clear cut referendum on Europe being one of them!). So even if no one else is, I will be watching this space!

The next dinner is scheduled for late April. If Ballsy Thinking (and compromise!) has ever been required, I fear it will be at this event. A subsequent blog piece will record generic developments for prosperity.

Are you thinking of switching, or have you switched, to UKIP from the Conservative Party? What advice can you give me for helping to get all my dinner companions back around the table (and, sorry since we are not in the officers mess NOT talking politics is NOT an option!)? Click on the comments link below and start typing...

6 Comments

Nick Lincoln link

9/1/2013 08:42:16

It's easy to frame this argument: you are not leaving the Tories - the Tories have left YOU!

Since eligible in 1987 I'd voted Tory, right up to the last election. I only did so at that time to ensure Gordon Brown was ousted: The Tory election campaign may well be historical in terms of it's ineptitude.

Also, a faint voice in my head told me that, when in power, Cameron would grow a pair and emerge as a Tory. Sadly, in power, he's actually worse than I could have imagined.

Like Mark Hughes I'm an IFA. I run my own business. I got into UKIP not so much because of the anti-EU stuff but because of their business, taxation and social (policing, teaching, welfare, criminal justice etc) policies.

It's quite simple: UKIP ARE the Tory party and the Conservatives are now just a centre-left one, virtually indistinguishable from Labour and the LibDems.

To your dinner friends I would ask the question: when you got into politics it was all about the outcomes, right? About what you believed in, right? When did that change to following the party for the party's sake? The party you followed in the 1970s and 1980s just does not exist anymore.

Or put another way: which party would the late Keith Joseph join today?!

Gary Ling link

9/1/2013 09:07:28

That last question is a devastatingly good one NIck. I don't think Mrs T would like the answer!

Nick Lincoln link

9/1/2013 13:18:16

Thanks Gary.

Richard Harrington is a very active MP, without doubt (I guess you live in the Watford area, like me). However he is pro-EU (he happily voted for the EU budget increase late last year - scores of Tories didn't) and will do as his Master says. He'll never support a clear-cut "Yes / No" referendum.

As an aside, as a long time NFL fan, I have nothing but the greatest admiration for Bill Belichick. Oh that we Chargers had someone similar (or had picked Tom Brady, when we had the chance, before the Patriots).

Peter Stremes

16/1/2013 00:24:22

Gary - as an old mate and political colleague from university days please try and explain to me why the EU referendum thing is so important. I just don't get it! There are so many more important issues and we manage to waste or spend far more money in single UK Govt departments than the EU will ever do!

I saw a piece in the Evening Standard this week that said less than 10% of all legislation passed in the UK last year had any EU connection and frankly I'm at a loss to think what it is that makes the ardent eurosceptics so confident we could do so much better on our own after an EU in/out referendum and the "out" vote they think they will win? It's not as though we have exactly covered ourselves in economic glory, or successful financial regulation, or management of the national debt, or probity in public office (MP's expenses) or wonderful justice (Hillsborough, Birmingham 6, Guildford 4 etc etc) without any EU involvement!

What are the benefits of winning a "get out of the EU" vote that outweigh 67 years of peace across most of Europe, easy travel and movement of people and goods (that could be even easier if we signed up to Schengen) and the spread of democracy, market economies and the rule of law that the EU has always championed?

So well done Richard Harrington for being a pragmatic realist and facing up to the fact that the UK's future lies in working together with our close allies and neighbours and not in splendid, irrelevant isolation!

Mark Hughes link

16/1/2013 01:10:45

Peter makes a compelling reason for continued membership of the EU, however that would only work in an ideal set of circumstances, and clearly the circumstances are not ideal.
The economics of the UK and Europe are reaching tipping point, principally due to the cost of unsustainable social programmes (The question of France’s continued reluctance to make sensible choices in respect of Economic policy will become a major problem later this year, as German voters wake up to who is really underpinning the French social programme) This is testified by the (low level) civil unrest starting to be seen in the Southern Mediterranean Countries a result of crippling unemployment particularly among the youth of these Countries.
Hoping it will all be alright on the night is no longer an option and I believe that the UK would flourish freed from the mass of European ‘red tape’ that hampers our everyday life and we would still be free to trade with Europe (akin to what our Parents voted for in the 1970’s) If we leave the EU Europe will still trade with us, we are Europe’s single largest trading partner, that would not change.
Ultimately we have been let down by the Politicians and bureaucrats, When you talk of waste and poor practices the EU is the worst offender, look at how it conducts its own affairs, 18 straight years and it has not presented a set of audited accounts! You or I would not get away with that in our own businesses.
A United States of Europe with complete Economic integration could possibly work, but that would require the Northern European states; principally Germany and the UK to accept a permanent transfer of GDP to the Southern European states (just as the internal transfer exists in the UK or Germany transferring wealth from London or Munich to the less prosperous regions) You would also need European wide Political parties and probably a directly elected President of Europe with real executive power. But then parochial prejudices would need to be overcome otherwise the more populous Countries would swam the smaller Countries (occupation by another means!). Yes this could all work and may evolve, it cannot be forced otherwise the friction points cause societies to turn in on themselves.
The UK has always been a great trading Nation, we have a great sense of fair play and are still respected in the World (often a counter to the US’s national exuberance) these things would not change, but why would we want to remain inside a non-democratic area consigning itself to no or low growth for a generation, we owe our own young people more than that, so I shall actively campaign for UKIP and a No to our continued membership of Europe.

Peter Phillips

16/1/2013 04:35:10

Peter

I can answer your question in two broad areas:-

1) Political

Steve Hilton, DC's former adviser, has said recently that 40% of Government business is related to implementing EU regulations. The Coalition government has arrived in office after dozens of more vetoes have been surrendered in the Nice, Amsterdam and Lisbon treaties signed by Labour. As a result it is very difficult now for UK energy, financial regulation, agriculture, fishing, transport, trade and industry, and environmental Ministers to pursue a UK domestic policy, given the large amounts of law that come from Brussels.

Take, for example, an apparently UK based area - welfare benefits. This was meant to be a national issue to be paid for by national taxpayers. Now today welfare Ministers find that the EU has considerable influence over benefit eligibility, ensuring that recently arrived migrants from the rest of the EU receive the same benefits as people long settled here who have been paying Income Tax and National Insurance over many years. The UK government is now engaged in expensive and complex court cases to try to establish what discretion it has left over to whom to pay benefits to.

The key problems now for us are the near certainty that the eurozone countries and most of the others will i) bludgeon themselves into accepting further intrusive mechanisms for controlling much of their national economic life from Brussels to preserve the Euro “whatever it takes”, and ii) use the new far wider Qualified Majority Voting arrangements coming into effect in 2014 under the Lisbon Treaty to leave us in an impotent minority, pretty much across the policy spectrum. It would be rule by anonymous technocrats with a tiny handful of expensive but irrelevant elected cherries on top. So even as a member of the EU we are likely to be marginalised.

2) Economic

The EU in some ways still echoes the priorities of the Cold War 1950s, rather than the new challenges of the 21st century security issues. Far too much collective spending is still skewed towards agriculture, long after that ceased to make sense. Meanwhile Asian , Latin American and African countries are surging ahead because they compete, not because they huddle together in unstable, top-heavy institutionalised blocs

Over the next 50+ years, the EU will become less than 10% and then less than 5% of world trade. Why would we want 50% of our exports going to only 5% of the world? What about the other 95% of the world? Over the past two years, our exports to Brazil have risen by 25 per cent, to China by 40 per cent, to Russia by 80 per cent despite having one hand tied behind our back. Our exports to the EU have fallen over the same period. The Common External Tariff, which the UK must apply to its trade with non-EU states, now averages between 5 and 9 per cent – a higher barrier than we had the 1920s. We have, in other words, bought trade with a dwindling European market at the expense of trade with a growing global market. The EU has lost sight of the original intention of a Common Market, which we (at least those 18 or older then and we weren't among them) voted for in 1975.

Possible alternative.

Without a clear (enough) signal of UK willingness to force the issue, the EU bureaucrats will conclude that they need do no serious thinking about the way the EU should evolve to suit those countries not in the Eurozone or expecting eventually to join it. The Swiss declined to join the EU, instead negotiating a series of sectoral trade accords covering everything from fish farming to lorry noise. As a result, they are fully covered by the four freedoms of the single market – free movement of goods, services, people and capital – can trade as well as we do, but are outside the Common Agricultural Policy and the Common Fisheries Policy, and spared the budget contributions which EU members are required to make to Brussels.

I am in all in favour of a Common Market, but the EU project has lost its way and is now more about a United States of Europe, than a true free trade zone.

(Pron. "bawl-zee thing-king")

defined:
adj: 1. Slang courageous and spirited reasoning; judgement 2. Characterized by clear, straightforward thought or thoughtfulness; rational: “That’s the sort of Ballsy Thinking to move us towards our objective”.

n. 1. The act or practice of one that thinks differently, innovatively; new thought. 2. Leading by way of reasoning; judgment: “This is not ballsy thinking, it is too timid an idea.”

To UKIP or Not UKIP? That is the (troubling) Question...

Leave a Reply.

(Pron. "bawl-zee thing-king")

Archives

Categories