Whats in a word?

Like any other discipline, political and social sciences throw up some interesting terms that are largely unfathomable to outsiders. One of my favourites has always been 'crippled epistemology' We all have a unique epistemology. It is the sum of all the sources of information a person has been exposed to. What you have read, heard, seen, or experienced, and most importantly, how you have interpreted all these things. In short, it is how you know what you know.

A crippled epistemology is not a good thing. This is what can happen when people with shared interests and beliefs come together to the point where they communicate with and relate only to one another. Eventually all other information sources are excluded, and they become locked into their own obession. Inevitably their beliefs and values become distorted; they cease to understand reality, or to be of interest to anybody outside their own community. Its sort of an intellectual form of in-breeding.

That is 'crippled epistemology', or to give it an anacronym that might be considered highly appropriate, UKIP.

Another term that I only recently came across is 'Hypothetical Causal Reconstruction'. I will call it HCR simply because I don't want to keep typing it out in full. It is quite obvious what it means, I think.

This is basically "What if we had done this....", or more likely "What if we had got it right first time?" Invoking the negative conotations of HCR is a clever way of saying "I screwed up, and I don't want to talk about it.

Lets apply a bit of HCR to UKIP.

What if Kilroy had bided his time in 2004 and waited for the promised UKIP leadership in 2006?

What if Lord Pearson, then party leader, had not urged voters to back the Tories in the 2010 General Election?

What if the UKIP party name had appeared on the ballot papers in the London elections this year?

What if UKIP's collective epistemology were not crippled?

I could go on and on. If UKIP were a movie, it would be the Keystone Kops, it really would.

The sad thing is, there is now no effective eurosceptic voice in the UK, and with a referendum on our relationship with the EU seemingly looming, that could be a disaster. In favour of continued membership we would have the Conservative, Labour, Liberal Democrat and Green parties. Opposing continued membership we would have UKIP and the BNP. Can you see the problem here?

Its a shame it has come to this, but UKIP is now a liability for the withdrawalist arguement. It has always been thus where the BNP are concerned, of course. If you want to be taken seriously, the last you want is them agreeing with you.

A journalist recently described UKIP as a "nutter magnet". Some years ago I would have argued strongly against that comment, now I would agree with him. Its such a pity, it really is.