In an effort to find out why UKIP is failing to attract young voters, UKIP Daily has interviewed Sarah, a 29 year old marketing manager. She has voted for both the Liberal Democrats and the Conservatives in the past, but is unsure who she will vote for in 2015.
UD: What do you think are the problems facing young people today?
Sarah: I can’t speak for all young people, but as a young professional I can certainly comment on the problems that worry me. If I get ill will there be a good health system in place to look after me? How can I afford a house? Can I afford to have children?
I think the biggest problem I face is that neither this government nor the last seem to offer a realistic and viable answer to these questions. Take for example the recent changes to allow a 5% borrowing match for first time buyers. {the Help to Buy Scheme}. Although in principle it is a help, in reality the market prices have been pushed up as a result. It appears they have used a plaster to fix a gash; it looks to help but does not get to the nature of the problem.
More and more I have found myself turning away from government as a solution, wondering, “what vote-winning unrealistic solution will they come up with next?”, and have instead turned to something I know will provide answers. Private healthcare for example. I am now contemplating taking this out, rather than be faced with a centrally controlled healthcare system in which I have no say.
Raising children – again I am looking to do without government help, an odd concept it seems in this century in the UK, but I would rather secure my own financial back up with a job that pays maternity, rather than rely on a government for funds (on that note, I am quite puzzled as to why anyone thinks it is their right to have children and get the government to pay for them).
Unfortunately, I now see political parties as a pain, no one really differing from another, and as such find myself turning to solutions that are market lead rather than ego led.
UD: In your view, what does UKIP stand for?
Sarah: Refreshingly I do think UKIP “cut through the crap”, so to speak. Nigel Farage is a refreshing person to hear speak, often giving a clear take on subjects and thankfully a direct answer to questions, which is unheard of in politics making it all the better. Unfortunately though, other than this straightforward attitude, I am not really too sure what UKIP stand for. They seem to talk more about the problems we face than any solutions to those problems.
UD: Would you consider voting for UKIP?
Sarah: I would consider voting for UKIP. At the moment I feel that they would have to overcome the two reasons I have for not voting for them, which are 1) not really knowing what they stand for, and 2) my worry that – even though all they have said to the contrary – they will still not be able to win enough in parliament to make a difference.
UD: What would UKIP need to do to secure your vote?
Sarah: They need to give me a strong reason to vote for them. Something to get behind and believe in that is not to do with foreign policies like exiting Europe or immigration.
I think that the biggest mistake made by all the political parties is that they treat young people as though we are stupid. They think we can be deceived by empty promises. If anything, we are the ones who care more – this is our future that you are risking.
Giving me something to get behind, something of benefit to my future that addresses the issues I worry about, then I would feel happy to say, “I am voting for UKIP because X” . Just a word of warning though: please don’t do what the Liberal Democrats did with their ‘free education for all’. I have had enough of policies to win votes with no real intention of ever following though. That’s political suicide (and stupidity) at its best.
Regaining our sovereignty is something I can get behind.
What was revealing for me is that she called immigration and EU membership ‘foreign policy’, which of course it isn’t. We in UKIP are particularly exercised about EU membership, but that vast majority of the population still see it as a minor issue, rating it far behind the economy, housing, jobs and even immigration in terms of importance.
To me its clear that it’s not enough to set out where the other parties are going wrong, we also need to present a clear and positive message about how we would set about really fixing things. Until then, we’re an interesting side show, not a convincing alternative.
We must consider this, the 50 odd million we send to the EU a day will not magically appear back in our budget. We will lose in some areas and gain in others. We have to decide which regulations are worth keeping and others we want to scrap, then we need to figure how much we can expect to pay to the EU in tariffs, and figure out how much EEA EFTA membership will cost us and so on. Leaving the EU is no free win.
But it is not just the £19.2 billion a year membership that we will be reclaiming by exiting the EU, it is the £150 billion a year in EU costs which our opponents and apparently you do not take into account. As for tariffs, if Peru & South Korea can negotiate FTAs with the EU I am pretty confident that we can, especially considering we buy a lot more from them than they but from us.
Just in case you missed this rather remarkable speech at the Exeter spring conference, here it is again.
To think that we allowed the media to force us to dump this man. What a terrible shame.
“We have to decide which regulations are worth keeping and others we want to scrap….”
Instead of delivering the regulations via the EU – the UN, WTO etc. will simply tell the UK direct what the proposed regulations are….then the UK can have it’s say – as you rightly point out – but in reality I don’t see much changing.
For example, UK will still enforce SOLAS, customers will still want cars that pass ENCAP standards. product technical specifications will remain in place, HSE requirements will remain in play for most industries and of course no version of HMG is going to dismantle much if any employment law protection.
As Ol’ Cast Iron found out when Beecroft wanted to make it easier to ‘hire and fire’, there was an uproar as the average working man and woman (myself included) said no way. After all bosses like Fred the Shred and Dyson hardly seemed to have the interests of the workers at the top of his agenda when it came to maximising profits whilst chopping workers….
…and workers have the vote……
If the youth of today want something to get behind how about they get behind their own futures, at the moment that future is a country in massive debt being ruled by a foreign power and if this is what you really want to inherit from this generation of politicians then simply vote for any of Lab/Con/Lib lot, the outcome will be exactly the same regardless. However, if you want to stop throwing away £150 billion a year on an already failed project called the EU and use that money to reduce national debt to a figure whereby we can safely raise interest rates and start rebuilding a better economy and a better future then vote UKIP, because at the moment they are the only party of the four majors that seems to have any real faith in Britain’s capabilities or more to the fact the capabilities of today’s youth. It is your future and it is your responsibility today to ensure that future is a good one for those generations that will be following you.
The UK debt is £1.3 trillion excluding pensions obligations (IEA estimate this takes us to £5 trillion) so I am afraid that fag packet policy ‘direction;’ is insufficient. How do we expect to pay for Trident, new nuclear power stations, grammar schools, bobbies on the beat etc etc etc. Without proper answers to how we are going to raise revenue or cut spending the electorate will not take us seriously.
I am sorry to sound repetitive and boring, but for UKIP to be taken seriously they need a full suite of well thought out and costed policies presented by a Shadow Cabinet made up of credible people. Until that happens, in my opinion, we will struggle to be seen as a trustworthy electoral option when it comes to the General Election.
and the established parties have been doing SO well with thought out and costed policies like HS2, Help to Buy(votes), energy price caps et al.. UKIP’s direction is what needs to be made clear, together with relatively simple pointers for each policy.
So the very fact that UKIP have created the mallet to break the mold is pretty much irrelevant to you then ? People need vote UKIP not because they think UKIP can win in 2015, because in fairness that is extremely unlikely but what UKIP can do is change politics for the better, the more people who vote UKIP the greater that change will be.
I totally agree with you on the Shadow cabinet idea but the next general election we will either be part of a coalition or nowhere at all, we certainly will not be the shadow government will we. There are only two real choices in the 2015 GE, Lab/Con/Lib or UKIP and that decision should be based on whether you want Britain to remain British or not. Those costed polices will be there on show in the run up to 2015 but as we have already seen, any great ideas we show now will be used by the others before was get chance to use them ourselves.
I’m not sure that I agree. Taken in isolation your view is sound, but in practice “thought out and costed policies” haven’t worked in recent decades.
As I’m sure you know, the reality is that we have to take an axe to the welfare state and the public sector. Seven million on the public payroll yet only two million providing “front line” services. Five million bureaucrats sucking the life out of the economy.
The problem with saying up front that we are going to reduce the public sector by half would be that the entire panoply of the state would be brought to bear against us. Cameron has been sent a clear message by the Police about cuts (Mitchell scandal) and any party that tells the truth will get much worse treatment.
The only solution I see is to avoid specifics until power is achieved (not impossible) and then set about the public sector vampires.
I understand your point, but people respond much better to positive messages, and to policy that points to what we would do as well as where we think the others are going wrong. It wouldn’t be impossible to construct something along those lines that doesn’t entirely scare the horses.
For example – on immigration, rather than highlighting the negatives of high immigration, let’s promote the positives of an immigration policy that sets a level playing field for people worldwide wishing to come to Britain.
You are damned if you do and damned if you don’t. I would suggest that by choosing our ground carefully we could test the water with a selected policy. This would give UKIP “air” time and tie the other parties into either agreement or rebuttal. Joanna Lumley seems to be able to pick the right fight. The second thing to do is to present a broad vision of what Britain could be outside of the EU. This would be more difficult to challenge and its attraction would give something for people to get behind. As for the reduction in the public sector, I would advocate the same tactic that the EU uses:conceal your brilliant plan so that no-one notices.