Brexit does not Mean UKIP
Brexit does not mean UKIP. Brexit may mean Brexit. Leave may mean Leave. Aardvark may mean Aardvark. But Brexit does not mean UKIP.
It never has and it never will.
Where did you hear such nonsense? Ah, yes, it was on the BBC.
On a good day, UKIP is worth about 15 or 16%. Sometimes it is much less and on exceptional days it can even be more. Brexit, as we know, is worth 52-ish% - and is probably worth more as people who were intimidated by Project Fear regain self-confidence.
That means that three quarters of Brexit voters reject UKIP. More because the 52% was of a much higher turnout than the 16%.
In the recent Stoke by-election about a quarter of the votes cast (24.7%)- of a turnout of just over a third (38%) - so roughly 10% were for UKIP. Just short of 70% of votes cast in Stoke were for Brexit. A very small proprtion indeed of those moved to vote for the independence of their country feel any obligation at all to support the ambitions of these particular individuals. They do not think those individuals are to thank for Brexit.
The majority of Brexit campaigners are not UKIP. There is a widespread resentment of those carpet-baggers who try to cash in on the work of the broader campaign - but even the decent UKIP party worker resents those people.
In the recent referendum campaign those running the main campaign realised that only by keeping Farage and Galloway in the background could we possibly win. I am not claiming that Vote Leave did a very good job but at least we won. Had it been the Farage campaign from Bristol, we would have lost very badly indeed. It would have been their 16% plus a bit. Up to 24% in the best towns. It would have served the interests of UKIP but we would have lost the referendum.
Of those who voted Remain, a very great proportion, especially of younger voters, did not vote for the EU at all but against Farage and UKIP. But it is difficult to imagine that anyone otherwise inclined to vote Remain would have voted Leave because of UKIP.
UKIP cannot understand this rejection. The defeat in Stoke was actually not that bad for a party that replaces the Lib-Dems as an all purpose protest party - if you accept that is what UKIP is, with its full range of policies and not primarily anti-EU anymore (as Nuttall, Etheridge and others state). When we look back at, say, Buckingham in the previous General Election when Farage thought he had an open goal and threw everything they had against John Bercow but was humiliated by another candidate, John Stevens, the figures are not so different.
As was proven at Buckingham: all you have to do to defeat UKIP is to show people UKIP. They like the abstract idea of UKIP much more than the reality. Bercow saved himself in Buckingham because more people wanted to vote against Nigel Farage and his droogs than wanted to vote against Bercow. Maybe the way poor Nuttall went about repulsing voters was more spectacular but the principle is the same.
Since Stoke, UKIPpers on social media have blamed the stupid people of Stoke for voting for an anti-Brexit Labour candidate. It is this sense of entitlement that we believe characterises our political adversaries: the EU elite and, for our colonial friends, the Clintons. If they foresaw it, this would have been reason enough for the people of Stoke to vote against UKIP. But there were other reasons to stick with Labour. They were Brexit reasons. They were the kind of reasons that a southern UKIPper up on the train would not understand.
As you do not chuck your girlfriend just because she gets a zit, as you do not abandon your kids just because they get into a bit of trouble at school then you do not scab on your party just because it is going through a rough patch. It is about loyalty. And the Brexit vote was about loyalty: loyalty to your neighbour, loyalty to your country and loyalty to an idea.
There are other noble reasons to switch party but those who vote out of loyalty should not be condemned.
UKIP demand loyalty but do not earn it. UKIP talk about" targetting" Labour voters. No one wants to be targetted. UKIP do not say so much about how they seek to serve working people. UKIP seem to believe that voters owe them their votes because of Brexit, that UKIP are the purpose which the electorate must serve whereas in a democracy it is the other way round. UKIP believe themselves to be the purpose and not the people. Where is the appeal in that?
Who pretends that Brexit means UKIP?
UKIP candidates do. It is obvious why: it would be a ticket on a gravy train. UKIP activists do in the innocent belief that they,alone, changed history. Trump did. Again, obviously, introducing one of his warm-up acts as the man behind Brexit is better if you do not say just how far behind.
And the BBC and the EU pretend it. It is almost as if the BBC created UKIP, and if they did not , they should have done. The EU cannot beat the people of Europe, it cannot defeat the movement to be rid of this failed regime, it cannot beat Brexit and the broader anti-EU movement. But it can beat UKIP. It can beat 16% and it can even beat 24%. If the EU can UKIPise its opposition then it wins.
Brexit does not mean UKIP. Brexit certainly does not meant Trump. Brexit does not mean Aadvark.
Brexit means Brexit. It is in the description of that where our future lies.