UKIP's war on Britain
With the run up to the UK general election the debate over who is best to run the country is in full swing. Already there have been hints of bitterness between Scotland and England following the referendum, coming out notably in Scottish Labour’s Jim Murphy’s claim that the mansion tax would help raise money for Scottish nurses being seen as “mugging off” Londoners to benefit the Scots. For those who were so happy to see Scotland remain part of the UK, they seem to sorely misunderstand the relationship, as does Jim Murphy apparently, and in doing so misrepresent the entire idea of such a proposition as the mansion tax. It undercuts the avid debate we engaged in all of last year about the benefit and importance of ensuring the union. In fact it would be far too easy to talk about spending injustices throughout the UK, and far too easy to point out growing inequalities with the accumulation of wealth in the hands of the few. I can imagine that the majority of those living with a house worth over £2 million and with a high income, those whom the mansion tax will affect, don’t exactly suffer from the current situation and in the interest of a fairer society should be happy to spread their wealth amongst the populace, which incidentally includes Scotland. Simply, perhaps people forget how a budget works and of course funding is more complicated than merely money taken from the proposed mansion tax being fed directly into the employment of Scottish nurses. While the statement by Jim Murphy seems to have been another political tactic (perhaps unsurprisingly) to gain Scottish votes from the ever growing SNP, the reaction shows a clear scepticism towards Scotland and the negative reaction to anything that might damage wealthy Londoners, and anything that goes against a capitalist agenda. But opposition to the mansion tax is just one example of a growth of neoliberal capitalist principles, an ideology that if left fester creates inescapable systems of inequality, both social and economic.
We are seeing far right radicalism ebbing into England, and the conversation amongst media outlets, parties and the general population has turned towards UKIP. Many voice full unmoving support towards them for their anti-EU and anti-immigration policies as supposedly truly representing British values and culture. Let’s have a look at some of UKIP’s policies: UKIP aims to leave the EU, cut the foreign aid budget, will abolish the Department of Energy and Climate Change, will scrap green subsidies, will abolish the department for Culture Media and Sport, they will prioritise military spending, will take a hard line on immigrants, including those from the EU and will ensure that any migrants that would somehow make their way/ want to actually come into the UK after UKIP policies, will not benefit from any of its welfare until they have lived here and paid taxes for 5 years.
Firstly the zealous claim that EU immigrants and otherwise are robbing the state is simply false. A recent study by UCL showed that immigrants’ net contribution to the state is actually higher than that of British citizens, and that immigrants were also less likely to claim benefits, despite UKIP’s claims, and thus a harder stance on immigration would only damage the economy. In the same study the value of immigration is shown to be incredibly high with labour market participation higher than natives and the level of welfare claimants lower amongst immigrant population. So UKIP’s stance on the EU appears incredibly unfounded whereby closing its doors to the EU can only seriously harm Britain. In addition, the free movement of EU citizens is not a one-way arrangement and there are approximately 1.6 million Britons now living in the EU. A low percentage of the UK government spending actually goes to the EU and in return the UK benefits from being part of the world’s largest single market within which the UK can fairly trade, with millions of jobs linked directly and indirectly to the UK’s connection with other member states. Furthermore, if immigrants are, as accused by UKIP policy, undercutting British jobs, it is not due to the immigration policy but down to the illegal practices that employers take by exploiting immigrant labour and paying them far below a living wage, alongside the absence of a strict policy to appropriately identify and penalise them .
Equally distressing is the examination of its hard line stance on climate change, including the proposed abolition of green subsidies. If we are truly doing what UKIP suggests of preserving the country for our grandchildren then these arguments are ridiculous and are a serious backward step for society. The severity of climate change is a world issue and a challenge, which should never be understated. Currently the UK stands with the EU as leading the battle for combating it and it would be a tragedy if that were to change. This is certainly an issue that will affect generations to come and UKIP’s policy on it only underlines its selfishness and disconnect with the world we live in today. If we fail to act on climate change, and fail to educate about practices that have adverse environmental effects then we are further dooming the next generation to a depressing reality.
Adding to the general picture of selfishness in Farage’s party is the pledge to cut foreign aid by 80%. This £9 billion would apparently be used to reduce the UK deficit, which ironically would automatically be fed into the proposed 25% increase in military spending (an additional £11 billion). So instead of a disguised policy to save the economy it is simply a prepared rhetoric of isolation, as with its harsh immigration policies, and a nostalgic step into the colonial mindset where Britain is viewed as an overarching power able to survive on its own. It is an arrogant notion. Not to mention the ethical need to support those in developing nations, help reduce damages of humanitarian emergencies, the immense value of development work done alongside foreign aid in the world as a whole, and the social responsibility to help end extreme poverty and suffering. Aid is not simply the handout it is imagined to be but is often designed to be longer term and self-preserving. Regarding the argument that it costs citizens the obscene amount that UKIP imagines, for those who earn an average £30,000 only £38 of that goes to overseas aid, less than 1% of GNI. In fact, the benefit of sustainable development is far reaching, it allows the interconnectedness of a growing world economy and in the long term will largely benefit the UK more than the £38 the average person would contribute. Indeed it’s a valuable investment to make.
So from a policy outlook it appears that UKIP, somewhat unsurprisingly, suffers from some severe inconsistencies. Their image is similarly depressing with a string of offensive comments uttered by its MPs ranging from homophobic and misogynist to racist and xenophobic comments, making the headlines, yet unfortunately failing to discourage its growing level of support. It is saddening that a party like UKIP now has to be taken seriously, and it seems that many have been drawn in by its extreme stances because of the present dissolution with the current government and political system. But the solution is not to vote UKIP.
It is not protecting so-called “Britishness” but has in effect declared war on the nation. Its targets are clear: to drive Britain to become an isolated, backwards and impoverished nation, a nation that while currently far from perfect, would become a shadow of its former self. It is a downward spiral that I for one do not want to see.
So are there still reasons to vote for UKIP? Read more here: http://reasonstovoteukip.com/
Photo Credit: Ken Holt
