Simon Heffer on UKIP: how can he not get it?

At the end of Simon Heffer's column on the attractiveness of UKIP to Tory voters (some potential defectors came up to him at a Tory dinner in 2004, for instance), he says this of the position he urges on the Conservative Party:

The BBC wouldn't like it, and neither would Miss Toynbee, nor the Economist (whose long and unembarrassed devotion to the European Exchange Rate Mechanism I still, after all these years, recall with great fondness). But will these people really swing the next election?

The BBC? The Economist? Will they swing the election? Well, erm, I think they might make a bit of an impact, yes.

Mr Heffer earlier suggests that Paul Dacre of the Daily Mail is a politically powerful figure. And that is certainly correct. But it would have been useful if he had noted that Mr Dacre's Daily Mail has supported the Conservatives strongly in two elections and the Tories lost both in a landslide.

Of course it is a problem for the Conservatives if supporters defect to UKIP. But Labour won the election. Mr Blair not Mr Farage. 99 per cent of people couldn't pick out Nigel Farage in a line-up.

The people the party needs to win over voted Labour and Liberal in far, far, far greater numbers than they voted UKIP. It would be far better for the Conservative party if it found a way to retain the adherence of those who might be tempted by UKIP. But it did this in two elections and lost. It needs the support of others if it is to win.

This is not complicated stuff. Simon Heffer is a highly intelligent and cultured man. How can he not get it? I'm baffled.

Comments

[David Moss]

After Tim Congdon’s 11 January article in the Telegraph saying he was going to vote UKIP, Matthew d’Ancona was unleashed to deliver an amateur hatchet job on him.

According to d'Ancona, and I quote, Professor Congdon is no ordinary economist, he is one of the most articulate champions of monetarism, he has been a luminous presence in the world of conservative ideas for a quarter of a century, he is a serious man, he has stature and he is a brilliant economist. And yet, according to d'Ancona, the Professor has misunderstood Mr Cameron. Whose fault is that? And what chance do the rest of us have?

Am I seeing double? Are you doing the same thing? According to you, Simon Heffer is highly intelligent and cultured. And stupid, because he doesn’t get it. If he doesn’t get it, despite being highly intelligent and cultured, is that perhaps not because he is also stupid but because we who vote Conservative suffer at the moment from a PR man who cannot get his message across?

This knot gets more Gordian still, with the addition of a Paul Dacre string to the argument. How are we going to cut it? Oddly enough, I think the answer lies in your excellent article on corruption, in today’s Times.

How can they all three not get it? It could be that the NotGetIt 3 are all indulging in post-modern irony. Or, I submit to you, it could be that Messrs Congdon, Heffer and Dacre dislike the corruption of the present government, that they feel that corruption lies in an ever more bloated administration, promising everything, delivering nothing and listening to no-one. The government's corruption in turn corrupts the people and, it is conceivable, NGI3 would rather people weren’t corrupted. Perhaps they would like to see a smaller government, with resources allocated by the market instead of politicians. And, it may be, they cannot hear this message where they would expect to hear it, in the mouth of the leader of the Conservative party. NGI3 have a set of policies which they support, they look around for a party advocating these policies – this is all surmise, remember – and to their surprise as much as yours, all they can see is UKIP.

[Iain Murray]

Perhaps the reason for "not getting it" is best explained by Matthew 16:26?

[Guy Walters]

In the 2005 General Election, 603,298 voted UKIP. In 2001, UKIP attracted 390,563. In 1997, the figure was 105,722. I'm not a member of UKIP, but these have to be regarded as significant gains. It's right that Cameron wants to seize the centre, but the number of floating voters he gains may not be enough to make up for the trickle-cum-flood to UKIP. I know many Tory voters who are toying with the idea of UKIP because it appears to represent, despite its image, the home of traditional Tory values. I can't underestimate how much of this sentiment is about.
Of course, I'm sure Cameron is aware of this, but he now has a problem. Steer too far to the left, and he will lose many to UKIP. Or, assuage the potential deserters by offering up something meatily right wing, which will make the floating voters (ie the centre) regard his efforts merely as a cynical rebranding exercise.
Which way to turn? Or should he have just let the voters come to him? Britain is still an instinctively right wing society - you can drive from near Exeter to just south of Edinburgh without leaving a Tory constituency (OK, you have to swim across the mouth of the Humber). If the Tories won all of the UKIP votes in 2005, they would have only been 186,226 short of the Labour vote.
UKIP is a massive danger to the Tories, and I think Heffer gets it. If Cameron continues to alienate the right, I estimate UKIP polling 800,000 to 1,000,000. It looks an absurdly high figure, but it's no more outrageous than those in the past. Can Cameron deliver at least 1,500,000 to 2,000,000 centre votes to offset that?

[Gabriel]

I admit I was bemused too, but then I realised Mr. Heffer must believe that a party having conservative principles is more important than it having the name 'Conservative'. A strange man indeed

[jimmy]

Why do the Conservatives have to fight only on one front? Why are they restricted to doing so? This is the point your article appears to make, by implication.

Our electoral arithmetic is famous for granting undue weight to outcomes in marginal seats. In a marginal, where a few hundred votes swing the result, I'd say the level of support for UKIP is highly relevant - how could it be otherwise?

That being said, the Conservatives must also set themselves the goal of winning the trust of the British public through the polarising medium of the television. Yes, they need to gain some "centre" ground back from Labour.

Thus the conflict can be defused. Both you and Simon Heffer are right!

[Idris Francis]

UKIP has only one way to achieve its objective of getting Britain out of the EU, and that is by ensuring the victory at the next election of a Conservative Government irrevocably committed, if not to unilateral withdrawal, then at least to a referendum on withdrawal and support for the Yes campaign.

The only way UKIP can bring this about is to make Mr. Cameron and his colleagues understand that, for withdrawalists, the only prospect even worse than another Labour government committed to staying in the EU would be a Conservative government commmitted to staying in.

Given that pledge, millions of voters and tends of thousands of activists, of whatever party allegiance or none, who put freedom and independence above party politics would have no choice but to campaign and vote for a Conservative government that would give us at least the chance of winning the debate and getting out.

It really is that simple, Mr. Cameron - without that pladge we cannot afford to let you win, with that pledge we could not afford to see you lose.

[Steven Roberts]

I am a Conservative Party member

I will vote for UKIP at the next election.

[Matthäus Huber]

I've just read Simon Heffer's article in the Daily Telegraph:
"An education crisis is looming, unless parents do their homework"
I would say it is a brilliant article!

May I add: The headmistress of my two sons ( Thomas Arnold School, Dagenham) stated to me: "I am responsible for the children's education". I was gobsmacked. I thought I as father had responsibilities. I do not know what my children do at school, what they learn or what they are supposed to learn. All my attempts to recieve information from the school have failed.
The school doesn't even have a parent teacher association.

Matthäus Huber
B.Sc.Education

what we can learn from France is one system of education for all. Focus on one national system would initiate improvements with smaller class sizes, better teaching, sports, and equal opportunities. Withdraw charitable status from the independent schools. The present system of social division is archaic.