Thursday, 26 July 2012

UKIP: Lack of Joined up Thinking, or Something Else?

UKIP never showed much of a propensity for joined up thinking. I well remember the much vaunted policy paper launches which were embarrassing, with content being so controlled (and redacted) from above, and with the suggestion of unseen hands in the background that I eventually came to agree with Roger Knapman - architect of the 2004 Euro election success - that UKIP should have remained a one issue party.

I note an article on their party website complaining that a recently announced cut in wind energy subsidies is not enough - (complaining about wind energy is the party's stock in trade). But I also note that in UKIP's aged and out of date environment and energy policy, the party calls for 50% of Britain's power to come from nuclear generation. I have no problem with that per se, in fact I contributed to that paper, but does the party not realise the extent to which nuclear energy is subsidised in the UK?

Subsidies for nuclear energy are largely disguised, a matter recently brought up with ministers by backbenchers in the Commons. For example: limitation of liabilities, underwriting of insurance costs, subsidising waste disposal, and most importantly providing institutional support for the concept of nuclear energy. Other areas of concern have been identified.

UKIP states in the article I refer to above that "The whole wind farm industry is a con and is not viable without subsidies. It is wrong that the taxpayer should be paying to keep afloat private businesses, often based abroad,..."

British energy, which operates nuclear plants, came close to bankruptcy in 2004, and was saved by, guess what, a government subsidy of £3billion. France's EDF now owns 80% of British Energy.

Do you see what I mean about lack of joined up thinking?

But as regards UKIP's position, we have to ask if it is indeed lack of joined up thinking, or is it those aforementioned unseen hands in the background that are responsible for the lack of consistency, at least in this policy area? I personally suspect the latter.

1 comment:

  1. Hi,

    isn't it possibly just The Farage Party jumping on yet another shodily researched & crassy amateurly presented 'Band Wagon'?

    It becomes ever cleare that UKIP has become part of the problem - sustained by a claque of self interested hopefulls willing to bully, abuse and lie to advance their own chances of enrichment & glory.

    UKIP can note cire a single achievement of any consequence towards the aim of Leave-The-EU since 2004 & before that its only real achievement was Roger Knapman leading the party to 12 MEPs!

    12 MEPs & huge opportunities & huge amounts of money squandered to turn it into The Farage Party with Farage given near dictatorial powers & fall out with 1/3rd of his own MEPs!

    IF Farage Quit has he so damaged the brand as to ensure it would wither & die as clearly there is no one of consequence to take over.

    Farage built the party helping others who were leaders in turning it into The Farage Party for lack of ANYONE of probity, competence, gravitas or ability has he destroyed the very vehicle that has enriched him after his catastrophic failure in The City before he became a career politician?

    It does seem that part of UKIP's lack of joined up thinking has led to it being a one man band & irrelevant in the cause of Leave-The-EU moving between 'BandWagon' jumping, foolish stunts & crassly amateur or even bad publicity!

    It is sad to see the party & ideals I supported destroyed & as Gary Cartright implies, there is still an outside chance it could be 'cleaned-up' and made Fit for Purpose.