Steve Richards writes:
There is a striking disparity between the perception of
two party leaders and the policies they espouse. Nigel Farage triumphs as the
anti-establishment outsider, challenging orthodoxies and fuelling the
anti-politics mood of which he is a beneficiary.
Meanwhile, suffering poor
personal ratings, Ed Miliband is viewed as part of the loathed Westminster
establishment, a former minister who has spent most of his life in politics.
Such perceptions are easily formed.
Farage has never been a minister. He has no record to defend. He is not an MP at Westminster. Miliband was briefly a TV producer on a political programme before becoming a special adviser at Westminster. He has worked at Westminster ever since.
On Sunday, Andrew Marr’s BBC show staged an illuminating sequence, one that showed how easily formed perceptions are misleading.
There was an interview with Farage followed by one with Miliband. Finally, the two sat together and had a mini-debate.
What became clear was how much Farage is a product of the Thatcherite 1980s, at least as much as David Cameron and George Osborne.
Indeed I suspect if Margaret Thatcher were still active she would be a fan of Ukip, or at least urging Cameron to be more Ukip-like.
Her voice is not required in that respect because Cameron is to some extent dancing to Ukip’s tunes. He does so partly out of fear, but also because there is quite a lot on which he and Farage agree.
Both men are small-state economic liberals, except in relation to immigration.
Farage supports a so-called flat tax, one rate of tax on all earners. Osborne’s first move as shadow Chancellor in 2005 was to declare his interest in a flat tax, a support that faded only when the likes of The Economist dismissed the idea as being too right-wing.
Farage wants a smaller state. The essence of Cameron and Osborne’s economic policies has been to regard the state as the cause of the crash in 2008, in the form of too much public spending. They too seek a smaller, less active state
As Cameron declared at the beginning of his leadership, there IS such a thing as society but it is not the same as the state – an elegant reworking of Thatcherism.
Miliband and Farage were something of a novelty on Marr.
What also became clear in the programme was the degree to which Miliband seeks a break with current orthodoxies.
While Cameron, the 1980s free marketer, stands back as Pfizer proposes to take over AstraZeneca, Miliband proposes intervention.
This is not merely opportunism on his behalf. His belief that government can make positive interventions is the essential dividing line at the next election.
Since 1979, orthodoxy insists that the state is always stifling, that it wrecks markets. On the whole this remains the instinct of Farage, Cameron and some of the more extreme Blairites.
On the other side of this divide there is Miliband, Michael Heseltine, John Major (at least in relation to the energy market), Vince Cable, and more rounded Blairites like Alan Johnson, who in an interview yesterday, urged Miliband to propose a wider range of interventions.
Their advocacy of state intervention would be mainstream in most equivalent countries.
As Miliband said on Sunday, there is no other government that would sit back and let a significant takeover happen without getting involved. In the UK, Miliband’s arguments mark a big leap.
Of course, Farage seeks to leap out of Europe, and Cameron pledges an in/out referendum that could also lead to such a big jump, but these two positions are also a consequence of 1980s and 1990s-style politics, an assumption that the EU is to blame for virtually everything.
I have argued before that it is tempting to follow the personalities rather than the policy trail – good old Nigel with his pint and cigarette; emollient Dave.
When Miliband tries to look like the outsider, addressing small groups with a loudspeaker in town centres, he looks silly. He reinforces a sense that he is an insider uncomfortable with a more challenging environment.
When Farage does the same he seems the perfect fit, one of “us” raging against the political consensus.
But follow the more important policy trail and Farage moves closer to the consensus. Harold Macmillan’s policies were well to the left of Cameron’s.
In policy terms, if voters want more of the same they must choose between Farage and Cameron. Perhaps a majority of voters in England will opt for variations of that status quo.
Farage has never been a minister. He has no record to defend. He is not an MP at Westminster. Miliband was briefly a TV producer on a political programme before becoming a special adviser at Westminster. He has worked at Westminster ever since.
On Sunday, Andrew Marr’s BBC show staged an illuminating sequence, one that showed how easily formed perceptions are misleading.
There was an interview with Farage followed by one with Miliband. Finally, the two sat together and had a mini-debate.
What became clear was how much Farage is a product of the Thatcherite 1980s, at least as much as David Cameron and George Osborne.
Indeed I suspect if Margaret Thatcher were still active she would be a fan of Ukip, or at least urging Cameron to be more Ukip-like.
Her voice is not required in that respect because Cameron is to some extent dancing to Ukip’s tunes. He does so partly out of fear, but also because there is quite a lot on which he and Farage agree.
Both men are small-state economic liberals, except in relation to immigration.
Farage supports a so-called flat tax, one rate of tax on all earners. Osborne’s first move as shadow Chancellor in 2005 was to declare his interest in a flat tax, a support that faded only when the likes of The Economist dismissed the idea as being too right-wing.
Farage wants a smaller state. The essence of Cameron and Osborne’s economic policies has been to regard the state as the cause of the crash in 2008, in the form of too much public spending. They too seek a smaller, less active state
As Cameron declared at the beginning of his leadership, there IS such a thing as society but it is not the same as the state – an elegant reworking of Thatcherism.
Miliband and Farage were something of a novelty on Marr.
What also became clear in the programme was the degree to which Miliband seeks a break with current orthodoxies.
While Cameron, the 1980s free marketer, stands back as Pfizer proposes to take over AstraZeneca, Miliband proposes intervention.
This is not merely opportunism on his behalf. His belief that government can make positive interventions is the essential dividing line at the next election.
Since 1979, orthodoxy insists that the state is always stifling, that it wrecks markets. On the whole this remains the instinct of Farage, Cameron and some of the more extreme Blairites.
On the other side of this divide there is Miliband, Michael Heseltine, John Major (at least in relation to the energy market), Vince Cable, and more rounded Blairites like Alan Johnson, who in an interview yesterday, urged Miliband to propose a wider range of interventions.
Their advocacy of state intervention would be mainstream in most equivalent countries.
As Miliband said on Sunday, there is no other government that would sit back and let a significant takeover happen without getting involved. In the UK, Miliband’s arguments mark a big leap.
Of course, Farage seeks to leap out of Europe, and Cameron pledges an in/out referendum that could also lead to such a big jump, but these two positions are also a consequence of 1980s and 1990s-style politics, an assumption that the EU is to blame for virtually everything.
I have argued before that it is tempting to follow the personalities rather than the policy trail – good old Nigel with his pint and cigarette; emollient Dave.
When Miliband tries to look like the outsider, addressing small groups with a loudspeaker in town centres, he looks silly. He reinforces a sense that he is an insider uncomfortable with a more challenging environment.
When Farage does the same he seems the perfect fit, one of “us” raging against the political consensus.
But follow the more important policy trail and Farage moves closer to the consensus. Harold Macmillan’s policies were well to the left of Cameron’s.
In policy terms, if voters want more of the same they must choose between Farage and Cameron. Perhaps a majority of voters in England will opt for variations of that status quo.
But in policy terms there is only one candidate for
significant change and it is not Farage.
No comments:
Post a Comment