UKIP’s internal tensions have been obvious for some time. As the main party has gathered points in the opinion polls by picking up kneejerk reactionary positions on gay marriage and the burkha, the youth wing – Young Independence (YI) – has seen its own surge on the back of libertarian activism.
As I tweeted a month ago, after witnessing a debate on gay marriage between an old guard member and Olly Neville (a leading member of YI):
— Mark Wallace (@wallaceme) December 14, 2012
All parties – and the country at large – have that growing generational difference, particularly when it comes to the understanding of individual liberty. The test of their character is how they deal with them. And that’s where UKIP are now in big trouble.
In what some have inevitably dubbed the #Ollyshambles, Neville – who recently became the popular Chairman of Young Independence – was last night sacked from his post by the party’s leadership. His crime? He dared to disagree with them over gay marriage and on the idea that European Elections were more important than Westminster – both perfectly sensible positions for a libertarian eurosceptic to take.
So why should anyone care? After all, I hear you say, he was just the youth leader of a political party which has no Parliamentary representation. That’s true, of course, but the Neville affair does have some important ramifications for UKIP and for our wider politics.
Consider the context: UKIP are at 16% in the polls, widely touted as headed for first place in the 2014 European Elections and according to the Mail on Sunday set to deny David Cameron any chance of a General Election victory, all at a time when the EU is an increasingly important issue. Whether they convert their current polling into votes, and how they campaign matters a great deal.
The implications are numerous.
First, there’s the impact on UKIP’s effectiveness. The party’s youth wing had been signing up activist after activist from Conservative Future, based on its message of good humour and libertarian politics. That is now shattered, as the leading proponent of both is roundly duffed up. UKIP have already had resignations over the scandal, meaning they are losing energetic young activists as well as the gloss which an active youth organisation gives to a brand.
Then there’s the damage this does to UKIP’s message that it is a different kind of party, one that rejects top-down control and the enforcement of toeing the line. They have made great hay with this – look, for example, at the comments given by former CF Deputy Chair Alexandra Swann on her much-publicised defection to UKIP:
“As a member of Conservative Future, with no real power, I was monitored and forced to stick rigidly to the party line. The Tories stifle debate, and no one gets along, whereas UKIP encourage debate and they all get along fine.”
That sounded great for them at the time, but now rings extremely hollow. Small wonder Alexandra was looking rather uncomfortable on Twitter last night in the face of the news.
Given that the Conservatives allow MPs to break ranks on leaving the EU or opposing green taxes, while Labour keep Frank Field, Lord Adonis and plenty other outspoken rebels in their ranks, UKIP risk their anti-politics reputation by sacking people for simple disagreement.
Perhaps most serious for Nigel Farage is the impact this has on his own core messages about what UKIP believes. Time and again we’re told it is a libertarian party, and yet it seems that speaking your mind in favour of libertarian positions is a sackable offence.
The same goes for the question of who their leader backs or sacks. When Winston Mackenzie, the UKIP candidate in the Croydon North by-election, became the latest official representative of the party to say something horrendously bonkers by announcing that gay adoption was a form of “child abuse”, we were told that UKIP is a party that lets its people hold their own opinions.
As recently as Monday, Farage was on the Today Programme defending his troops from the Prime Minister’s allegations of oddness on the grounds that:
“…we’re eccentrics, and we tolerate eccentricity.”
So either it’s acceptable “eccentricity” to insult gay people, but unacceptable to suggest they should be allowed to marry, or this is an overnight change of position. If it’s the former, then that’s pretty horrendous. If it’s a change of position, presumably UKIP will now sack anyone who breaks from any policy at all. That would be awkward for them, given a) the tendency of their candidates and MEPs to do so and b) the fact that Nigel Farage himself has publicly gone on record as opposing their policy on drugs.
Next time (and there will be a next time) a UKIPper says something genuinely awful, how will Farage fight off the demands to sack him or her?
All in all, this is a pretty mess: young activists alienated, a libertarian and anti-politics reputation fundamentally undermined, and a total inconsistence with their own leader’s attitude to sacking and policy cohesion. Anyone acquainted with the history of UKIP will know that they are no strangers to arbitrary purges – indeed, they are probably the only political party with far more ex-members than members. It’s fair to say a return to that bloody heritage is not the road to political success.
2012 may have been UKIP’s year to party, but the Ollyshambles suggests 2013 may be the year of the hangover.
On the day that France bans the burqa – thus becoming a state so draconian as to dictate what people can and cannot wear – it seems appropriate to repost one my earliest pieces on this site, weighing up whether a ban in Britain would be right.
It’s a tricky topic – often leading people who oppose a ban to falsely pretend they are entirely comfortable with an institution which in truth few people really are comfortable with. Britain’s position is all the more important now that proponents of the French ban are pointing across the Channel to warn that without it France could become like the UK.
So here’s the post. Let me know your thoughts.
I am uncomfortable about the burqa.
I’m not going to pretend that I don’t have a twinge of unease about someone excluding themselves almost totally from social interaction. I’m not going to peddle the obvious untruth that every woman who veils herself from head to toe does so out of personal choice. Nor can I turn a blind eye to the fact that one rarely sees the husbands of burqa-clad women wearing restrictive, uncomfortable and old-fashioned clothes themselves.
In truth, it is a totally inappropriate institution – a form of clothing totally out of place for our society and our enlightened times that establishes a barrier between different individuals and groups. But I will not be supporting Philip Hollobone’s proposed ban.
Yesterday, I was at a picnic in Hyde Park. Ten of us, friends from university, lounged in the sun, grazing on an increasingly warm selection of the kind of food you only ever seem to eat at picnics.
About thirty yards down the hill, another group did the same. The only incongruity was that, despite adopting the same sunbathing poses, they all did so in burqas.
And so did hundreds of other women. I hadn’t realised, but it seems that Sundays in Hyde Park are a real society event when it comes to displaying quite how much of yourself you can bear to keep covered up in black cloth in blazing sunshine.
And not only that – it seems that accessorising one’s burqa is de rigueur. I have never seen so many Gucci handbags and Dior sunglasses in one place in all my life.
It was a pretty odd scene, seeing woman who have obviously gone to great trouble to hide themselves then going to almost as much trouble to draw attention to themselves with a massive pair of leopard-print-and-gold shades.
Fairly obviously, it was quite an alien scene, too. The burqa is utterly divorced from the history and tradition that created Hyde Park, just as its wearers are divorced from the wider society in which the rest of us live today. It is often said that it is simply an un-British thing to do, to totally veil oneself – and that argument has some merit.
But, lazing in the sun and testing my own gut reactions to the burqa, it struck me that the banning of it would be even more un-British than the wearing of it.
Do we really want a Britain where the police turn up at Hyde Park on Sunday afternoon to pursue and arrest all those who have turned up in a particular type of clothing?
Would it ever be a source of pride that Britain was the kind of place where officials can drag you before a court because you failed to display enough of your body?
By all means we should be free to argue against a religion that encourages a woman to feel she must hide herself away. The forces of law and order should do their best to ensure that no-one is forced to wear a burqa or pursue any other practice that they do not want.
But if you find it is un-British to see someone in a burqa lounging in the park, consider for a moment quite how un-British it would be to see that person cuffed, and bundled into a police van – just for attending a picnic.