Every week Kevin publishes his very own “Kev’s Column” online. This week he takes a look at the results of the recent European Election:
The media has been full of how there was a “Political Earthquake” last week when the UKIP topped the poll for the European Elections, yet what was the message voters wanted to send with their vote in these elections?
It is easy in the early hours of the morning on election night to find a range of people who, with the benefit of little sleep and lots of tiring campaigning, will go into the TV studios saying that whatever issues they have been talking about are the ones the electorate wanted to make their voice heard on.
The best example of this was the Leadership Coup attempted by Lord Oakeshott who sought to topple Nick Clegg by saying the Lib Dems poor results would have been changed with a different leader. Some joined these calls, yet in all the campaigning I have done I am yet to meet someone who said “but I would definitely switch to voting Lib Dem if only Vince Cable or Danny Alexander was their leader.”
It was ultimately their message as a party that saw them lose their sole MEP in the South West, not the messenger delivering it.
My own party’s performance was better than we privately expected, with our vote in Torbay holding up well compared to 2009. Our vote did fall by just over 300, but given the different situation to five years ago a slight fall was to be expected. Labour’s vote increased significantly in percentage terms across the bay, but overall they were far from the position they would hope to be in as the main Opposition Party a year before a General Election.
UKIP performed very well and it was clear that their supporters were enthused by the campaign, and the fact that this was a European Election, to vote. Yet what was the message sent by those who voted UKIP?
For me there are a couple of key factors:
1. Dislike of negative politics: It is safe to say much of the media, and some groups, spent the entire election period attacking UKIP rather than discussing the issues on voters minds. This has been completely counterproductive and actually made many UKIP supporters, plus those thinking about doing so, even more determined to vote for them.
2. Distrust of the European Union: It is clear from the votes not just in the UK, but across Europe, that many voters have ditched their support for the EU entirely or at the very least large aspects of it. In a European Election calling for people to express their dislike of the EU is more powerful than starting a distant debate about the issues covered by the European Parliament itself.
3. Concerns about Immigration: The most commonly raised subject by those who voted for UKIP, or were thinking about doing so, was a concern about the levels of immigration. This featured much more highly than concerns about the EU directly, although I accept the issue is closely linked.
4. Disenchantment with politics: Some voting UKIP indicated they were doing so not so much to support them but to express a feeling of being disenchanted with those meant to represent them. Yet the biggest sign of this was the fact that 2 out of every 3 Torbay voters did not use their vote
This feeling of disconnect was most vividly indicated by the results in Plymouth’s local elections where UKIP performed very strongly in seat considered “safe” for a party, yet less so in marginals that had been worked over a number of years.
This column could become a book in terms of setting out how to respond to the issues I mention above. Yet there are some clear things that can be done to respond to these messages:
1. Positive Campaigning: When selected I made clear my view that negative campaigning can be counterproductive, especially if another party or candidate is offering voters a more positive choice. I believe that voters across the bay want to hear what I will do, not personal attacks on other candidates or over the top comments about opposing political parties.
Those who spent much of the last few weeks attacking UKIP would have been better spending their time helping candidates they actually agreed with. You only have to look on Twitter to see that those who positively debate the future of the bay, from various political viewpoints, have lots of followers. Those who spend their time personally attacking others have very few.
2. No More Business As Usual for the European Union: The attempts to ignore growing scepticism across the continent have to come to an end. Europe can no longer rely on a mandate based on a post war generation who saw integration as a way to future prosperity and avoiding a Third World War.
There needs to be a settlement in Europe that reflects the desire from all for peaceful relationships, ease of trade and for sovereign states to co-operate on issues were working together is the best option, but not a United States of Europe. If this does not happen and some leaders in the EU try to force it further down the federalist path, then the next stage is likely to be referendums or election votes in nations, including the UK, on whether to leave.
3. Immigration: The right to freedom of movement under the European Treaties was first created in an era when the membership was small and all economies were fairly similar. The diversity of nations that are now members means the Labour market varies wildly across the EU, not least the wages that can be paid. This is not just an issue for those who believe wages are reduced in their country, but also the nations that see many skilled workers leave to take better paid, even though lower skilled, jobs in richer nations.
Any open market economy needs a level of migration to ensure vital skills are available and that businesses can recruit the very best people. The EU must listen to the concerns of those in the west of Europe who feel the pace of change has been too rapid or that some may take out from welfare systems they have not contributed to. In responding to the concerns expressed a listening ear, not a campaign trying to brand political opponents as racist, is more likely to succeed in resolving voters’ concerns on this issue.
4. More direct engagement: I regularly make the point to my activists that the best way to engage with people is the same as it was in the Victorian era. Namely knocking on their door, or meeting them at events, and talking about the issues they want to raise. It is not possible to do this at every door (There are about 44,000 doors in Torbay and 1 of me) but that is no reason not to try!!!!
One of the reasons I established my weekly e-mail update system was to provide regular contact that not only told people what I think, but gave them a chance to get involved as well. It has grown to the extent that it now goes to thousands of homes every week and the feedback from it ensures it is a two way street in terms of communication.
I am sure there will be many more people analysing what happened last week and offering their own thoughts. I believe there is not just one message that comes out of last week’s vote from those who took part.
They key is to consider and respond to the message being sent by voters, rather than believe shooting the messenger is all that needs to be done.