The two UKIPs and the 'racist party' question

A few weeks ago I finished reading Revolt on the Right by Matthew Goodwin and Robert Ford. In his review Vernon Bogdanor called it "one of the most important books on British politics to have appeared for many years" and it's hard to disagree.

The key message is that, far from being just disgruntled Conservative voters, UKIP's surge in support comes from what Ford and Goodwin call "the left behind". Since Tony Blair, the focus of the main three political parties has been almost exclusively on the affluent middle classes, supporting globalisation, the liberalisation of labour markets, multiculturalism and immigration, all of which benefit the middle class more than the working class. Working class voters were previously attracted to Margaret Thatcher because of her social conservatism and voted for Tony Blair because Labour would provide material gains. But over the years they gradually found themselves being offered little materially by Labour while David Cameron's steps to embrace a more liberal social policy removed one of the main attractions of the Conservative party.
Rather than switching between two parties that offered them nothing, many dropped out of the electoral system altogether and it's striking that turnout in the 2010 general election was still lower than 1997 despite the result being much less certain (the traditional driver for turnout).




Things changed for UKIP after the crash in 2008 and the expenses scandal in 2009 when they much more explicitly started targeting "the left behind" to the extent that there are really two UKIPs. There's pre-2009 UKIP which was a single issue party focused on the evils of the European Union and, predictably, attracting support in European elections before disappearing in general elections. Then there's post-2009 UKIP which is the voice of the left behind, the people who dropped out of the political process, and which now commands significant support in polls for the next general election.
The first is what informs the view of UKIP as a Conservative splinter group whose voters will be wooed back by a tougher line on Europe and immigration. The second is far more important as it speaks to a far more significant trend: the left behind have re-engaged with the process.

Which brings us to the 'racist party' question because one of the 'socially conservative views' I referred to earlier is fierce hostility to immigration which helps fuel the rage at the political class which allow it.

Disclaimers up front: it's not racist to talk about immigration but the line is awfully fuzzy and easy to cross. The economic impact of immigration is debatable and while most indicators are that it is positive, this varies hugely by location and it's possible that it causes harm in some areas which is more than balanced out elsewhere. It is not racist to think that immigration causes more harm than good.

But historically these two have been heavily linked and, as late as 2010, the main party directly appealing for these voters was the BNP who are explicitly racist no matter how they try to couch it (top tip: if you have 'no problem with black people' but just want them to live in places outside the UK then you're a racist).

We mock UKIP's constant assertions as a 'non-racist party' (which other party feels the need to express that?) but it's an important part of the reason why they have attracted so much support since 2010. One of the key findings in Revolt on the Right is that a lot of UKIP's support comes from people fiercely opposed to immigration but were put off by the BNP's overt racism. UKIP voters tend to be older people with stronger associations with victory over Nazism in the second world war, making the connections between the BNP and fascism (holocaust denial, focus on ethnicity) a deal breaker despite sharing many of the same views. Now here comes a party with a similar anti-immigration, anti-modernisation, anti-EU message but which explicitly renounces the part of the BNP that makes these voters uncomfortable. It's almost tailor-made.

When someone starts a sentence with "I'm not racist but..." we all know that something a bit racist is probably not far behind but that's the distinction between UKIP's views on immigration and the BNP. UKIP's official rejection of racism is a core part of their appeal among 'the left behind' because it sanitises them. It reassures their voters that their views on immigration are acceptable and are definitely different to that nasty party who actually are fascists.

UPDATE: According to a recent Guardian story the number of people self-reporting as having some racist prejudice is on the rise. Depending on when the fieldwork happened I suspect that at least part of this rise is due to lots of voters hearing Nigel Farage express views on immigration that they share then hearing lots of media commentators and politicians call him a racist for expressing them.