Richard Corbett makes an almost melancholic observation about the breakthrough UKIP made at the last set of European elections. He doesn’t take comments on his site. I’m not surprised. He’d be the target of every euro-crank, anti and pro, in the English speaking world. No-one deserves that. His words in full:
“Having been a political campaigner all my life, I know by now that the far right are always a constant presence, bubbling away just underneath the surface of civilised society, waiting for an opportunity to pop up and spread their malicious politics.
Sad to say, an opportunity has arisen, in part, because of UKIPs breakthrough at the last European election.
The French Front Nationale (including Le Pen), Alessandra Mussolini (definitely her Grandfather’s Granddaughter), the Belgian Vlaams Blok, the Greater Romania Party, and Ashley Mote (elected as UKIP) have joined together to try to form a far-right political group in the European Parliament – the smallest of what will now be 8 party groups. A minimum of 20 members is required to form a Group. As things stand, they look as though they may just reach 20. In other words, it would not have been possible without Mote and UKIPs breakthrough in the last European elections.
They sure did make a breakthrough. And why do you think that was? It certainly wasn’t because tweed jackets and monacles were back in fashion. They “broke through” because the last European Elections were fought using proportional representation. The next ones will be too. Think about that for a while.
6 comments ↓
To blame PR is a little too simplistic, Tom.
The fact is that for many the European elections lack any real meaning, which makes them a perfect vehicle for protest voting.
Let’s be honest, if you’re out to give the mainstream parties a bit of a bloody nose, then the European elections are the time to do it, as few people really believe that the European Parliament has any great significance and many consider the EU to be a profoundly undemocratic and hopelessly remote institution anyway.
Hi there,
Well yes and no. I understand your argument that protest voting is likely to increase in elections that don’t seem as important to voters. That’s why directly elected mayors tend to be football mascots.
That wasn’t really my point though. My point was that as a result of the protest vote, under PR you end up putting Robert Kilroy Silk on the payroll. Or worse. Much worse.
I was one of Labour’s European candidates in the East Midlands where Kilroy was elected.
It is not enough to say that UKIP won because of PR. They actually won two seats in our region, as did the Tories, pushing Labour into third place. That’s a large number of votes.
I believe that Kilroy was part of the key to their success because he was a popular celebrity chat show host. It is only since his election to the European Parliament that his politics have been exposed. On the campaign trail, he was adored in the local papers, embracing nurses and a lot of people who had watched on TV voted for him because of his “niceness”. If Kilroy had chosen his target seat carefully, he would have won under the old system. Besides, we can’t reverse PR now.
It is turnout that matters – if more people had voted, UKIP might not have been so successful. If Labour were to embrace the EU and run a positive campaign on its benefits – paid holidays, compensation for delayed flights and being paid to scrap your car, for example – the elections would have more significance and attract a greater turnout.
Kilroy may have got elected under FPTP although I doubt it (I’ve not looked at the East Mids result). It is absolutely true that UKIP would not have prospered any further thought.
Still, you reap what you so.
The UK parliament can amend the current electoral system if it chose to. I think we’re signed up to a treaty that doesn’t accept FPTP (I think that’s the case anyway) but we’re not wedded to the current arrangements.
Tim wrote
“They “broke through†because the last European Elections were fought using proportional representation.”
Has it never occurred to you that UKIP “broke through”, as you put it, because there is massive anti-EU feeling in Britain?
As much as you like to delude yourself, it wasn’t simply a quirk of the voting system.
And how is that vast eurosceptic lobby to be heard in national politics when not one of the main parties mirrors their views?
80% of British law is made in Brussels and yet this “elephant in the room” remains un-debated by those who supposedly represent those it effects, and who have never been asked whether they wanted it in the first place.
It is a disgrace and it is a scandal and it is outrageously UN-democratic.
JO
Yes, Jo, I have thought about that. The point I was making, you know this so I don’t know why I am saying it, is that had the FPTP system being used, UKIP MEP’s would not be taking the Euro-tax-dollar right now. I understand the europsceptic lobby very well. I see it sitting opposite me every day in the House of Commons.
Leave a Comment