Ukip has finally showed its hand on its 2015 election manifesto. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Why Ukip's new manifesto ideas are worrying

How many of their new, worrying ideas make it through to the final manifesto will be key in setting the tone of an undoubtedly aggressive campaign by Ukip.

After months of skirting around the question, we’ve been given a good glimpse of what Ukip’s 2015 general election manifesto will look like.

In an interview with Prospect magazine, Tim Aker, Ukip MEP for the Eastern Counties and head of the party's Policy Unit, has shown a hand that, though not unexpected, should be of genuine concern to liberal-minded voters.

First, the good news. Following a line reminiscent of the Liberal Democrat pledges at the time of the last general election, Aker says that his party “want to take low earners out of income tax altogether" with "no tax on the minimum wage”.

So far so liberal from the man charged with writing Ukip's manifesto. However, under the guise of wanting “flatter, simpler and lower taxes”, Akers goes on to say that Ukip will promise to increase the level at which the 40p income tax rate begins to £45,000, and no higher rate will exist – ie. the current top rate of income tax will be abolished completely.

We can debate whether or not this move is regressive all we like, but it doesn't change the fact that if you want to tackle inequality through tax reform Ukip would do much better to focus on evidently regressive taxes such as VAT and council tax, of which there is no mention in Aker’s interview.

More worryingly – and this is something that does seem to fall at a more obvious point on the left/right spectrum – is that “foreign aid is an obvious target” for cuts that Ukip are looking to make to reduce the deficit.

With a target spend of only 0.7 per cent of GDP for 2013-14, this shows a clear misconception of how big an impact cutting official development assistance could have on the nation’s finances, not to mention the good it does overseas.  As of 2010, nearly half the world's population were surviving on less than $2 a day. Less than one penny in every pound of government money is a small price to pay for alleviating this suffering plus, after National Audit Office and House of Lords Committee reviews over recent years, there is now more scrutiny to ensure our aid is spent more effectively.

Further plans to shrink parts of the Department of Energy and Climate Change and Business Innovation and Skills will apparently be independently reviewed, but “not by the OBR [Office for Budget Responsibility]”.

But it is welfare reform where the Ukip plans really put them further to the right of a lot of Conservatives. (Bar a commitment to scrap the relatively unpopular ‘Bedroom Tax’, which might be driven by popular sentiment than anything else.

Under a Ukip government, the benefit cap would stay and child benefit would be limited to two children. Not so radical, until you read about Ukip's plans for immigrant benefit claimants. Aker says the 2015 manifesto will include commitments to the effect that “new migrants to this country will not be eligible for any welfare benefits until they have been paying tax and national insurance for five years.”

A lot can happen in five years. Perfectly skilled, hard-working migrants could find themselves out of a job through no fault of their own. Over such a long period, its not unlikely that this will happen at some stage, but UKIP plans to deny them access to the same safety net they would provide for British born workers.

As well as a plan to increase the strength of the border force, Aker says that to come to the UK “you must show that you have been working in that profession for 12 of the last 24 months, that you can speak English and that you won’t need tax credits.”

You can almost hear foreign companies crying out to invest in UK business under such conditions, while their most talented new employees wouldn't have a hope of relocating either.

Aker’s policy hints do at least suggest that Ukip is looking to draw bolder distinctions between itself and the main three parties. This is particularly stark in his criticism of the Data Retention and Investigatory Powers Act, which Aker says was “rushed through” parliament after receiving support from the Tories, Labour and Liberal Democrats alike. The Ukip pledge of a “complete review of it and the rebalancing of what level of intervention the security services can have in our lives” is an open challenge to them on that front.

“We’re beyond left-right” insists Aker. Even if that’s so, it doesn't make the manifesto he’s drawing up wise, and how many of these ideas actually make it through to the final manifesto will be key in setting the tone of what will undoubtedly be an aggressive campaign by Ukip.

Justin Cash is a reporter at LegalWeek and tweets @Justin_Cash_1

Wikipedia.
Show Hide image

No, Jeremy Corbyn did not refuse to condemn the IRA. Please stop saying he did

Guys, seriously.

Okay, I’ll bite. Someone’s gotta say it, so really might as well be me:

No, Jeremy Corbyn did not, this weekend, refuse to condemn the IRA. And no, his choice of words was not just “and all other forms of racism” all over again.

Can’t wait to read my mentions after this one.

Let’s take the two contentions there in order. The claim that Corbyn refused to condem the IRA relates to his appearance on Sky’s Sophy Ridge on Sunday programme yesterday. (For those who haven’t had the pleasure, it’s a weekly political programme, hosted by Sophy Ridge and broadcast on a Sunday. Don’t say I never teach you anything.)

Here’s how Sky’s website reported that interview:

 

The first paragraph of that story reads:

Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn has been criticised after he refused five times to directly condemn the IRA in an interview with Sky News.

The funny thing is, though, that the third paragraph of that story is this:

He said: “I condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA.”

Apparently Jeremy Corbyn has been so widely criticised for refusing to condemn the IRA that people didn’t notice the bit where he specifically said that he condemned the IRA.

Hasn’t he done this before, though? Corbyn’s inability to say he that opposed anti-semitism without appending “and all other forms of racism” was widely – and, to my mind, rightly – criticised. These were weasel words, people argued: an attempt to deflect from a narrow subject where the hard left has often been in the wrong, to a broader one where it wasn’t.

Well, that pissed me off too: an inability to say simply “I oppose anti-semitism” made it look like he did not really think anti-semitism was that big a problem, an impression not relieved by, well, take your pick.

But no, to my mind, this....

“I condemn all the bombing by both the loyalists and the IRA.”

...is, despite its obvious structural similarities, not the same thing.

That’s because the “all other forms of racism thing” is an attempt to distract by bringing in something un-related. It implies that you can’t possibly be soft on anti-semitism if you were tough on Islamophobia or apartheid, and experience shows that simply isn’t true.

But loyalist bombing were not unrelated to IRA ones: they’re very related indeed. There really were atrocities committed on both sides of the Troubles, and while the fatalities were not numerically balanced, neither were they orders of magnitude apart.

As a result, specifically condemning both sides as Corbyn did seems like an entirely reasonable position to take. Far creepier, indeed, is to minimise one set of atrocities to score political points about something else entirely.

The point I’m making here isn’t really about Corbyn at all. Historically, his position on Northern Ireland has been pro-Republican, rather than pro-peace, and I’d be lying if I said I was entirely comfortable with that.

No, the point I’m making is about the media, and its bias against Labour. Whatever he may have said in the past, whatever may be written on his heart, yesterday morning Jeremy Corbyn condemned IRA bombings. This was the correct thing to do. His words were nonetheless reported as “Jeremy Corbyn refuses to condemn IRA”.

I mean, I don’t generally hold with blaming the mainstream media for politicians’ failures, but it’s a bit rum isn’t it?

Jonn Elledge edits the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric, and writes for the NS about subjects including politics, history and Daniel Hannan. You can find him on Twitter or Facebook.

0800 7318496