Were UKIP’s successes on 2 May 2013 circumstantial?

It was clear from the local elections and the South Shields by-election on the 2 May 2013 that the main winner of the day was UKIP. From being one of the “other” parties in the previous local elections, taking an unknown portion of 13 per cent of the vote (which had won them 12 councillors), the party now gained 23 per cent of the vote alone and 147 councillors. This was such a new phenomenon that a fourth party place was dedicated to them on Wikipedia, something not seen before. In the South Shields by-election UKIP secured second place, as they had done in the Eastleigh by-election (a previous post has been written on the topic), despite not standing in the seat in the 2010 general election. These results all point to a very successful day for UKIP, but was it really a result of the success and appeal of UKIP? This blog post will explore the ways in which the UKIP results were more a consequence of the failings of the three main parties (Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats).

The first of these can be taken from the consensus theory that elections are only lost by incumbents, not won by the opposition. It is no secret that the coalition government are unpopular due to all the cuts and Labour do not seem to be able to utilise their position in opposition to help them return to power. This is where UKIP have managed to find a gap to exploit in the British political system. It is possible that this was made easier for them as until the results were announced; UKIP was not seen by the three main political parties as a major problem, which was probably caused by no other party succeeding in this way in England before. This was particularly obvious from the responses by the party leaders, especially from David Cameron who said he would work to get votes back from UKIP in the future. What is more, there was seen to be a lack of canvassing in some Wards by candidate. An example of this is that in Nottingham one Ward had ten candidates but only two election leaflets were delivered.

The second advantage UKIP had in the local elections was that all but one of the councils being voted for was controlled by the Conservatives going into the elections. By also being situated to the right of the political spectrum, UKIP has the ability to attract votes from those who have felt disaffected by the Conservatives’ move to the centre to attract more votes. This is aided by the unpopularity of the Conservatives at the present, with an approval rating of about 30 per cent over the last month. It is very difficult for voters to change their affiliation to a party on the other side of the political spectrum, as people would rather not vote. However, by having another party on the same side of the spectrum, it becomes somewhat easier to vote for this right wing alternative, no matter what their main policy is. A similar thing happened when Labour was in government with the BNP, although the racist policy of the BNP bought them less popularity than UKIP have managed. This means that their position on the political spectrum has a greater advantage to their success than their own policies.

In the case of the by-election in South Shields, it was highly unlikely that Labour would lose. This is due to several factors. Firstly, that Labour had held the seat continuously since 1935 in the north east of England. For this reason it would be a miracle for either the Conservatives or their coalition partners the Liberal Democrats to win the seat, when Miliband had won 52 per cent of the vote in the constituency against eight other candidates in an election which saw Labour lose. UKIP’s success can be bought about from their ability to draw votes from Conservative supporters who saw their vote percentage fall by 10.1 per cent and the Liberal Democrats whose vote percentage fell by 12.8 per cent. These two combined percentages are only 1.3 per cent less than the percentage of the vote that UKIP won in the by-election. Of course these percentages do not relate directly to the same people as the turnover of the electorate and those not voting would be different, but there is too much of a similarity between the figures for it not to be too much of a coincidence. The loss of support for Labour by 1.6 per cent was possibly caused by the new Labour candidate rather than UKIP’s actions, as they are on opposing sides of the political spectrum. These results point more to a loss in support for the coalition government rather than a gain for UKIP as it is the coalition’s reputation that is being voted on in an election.

In conclusion, UKIP have been able to build their support from those disaffected by the coalition rather than UKIP winning their own voters. The protest vote and tactical voting in the UK has been growing over the last decade. The Conservative Party lost support after Thatcher’s Poll Tax policy and Labour lost support from entry into the Iraq War and the 2008 financial crisis that has yet to be resolved. The current coalition was a result of the problem that the British electorate have between the two main parties who seem to be unable to fix the economy which has been marred by debt since WWII (the Liberal Democrats have not held sole power since then so cannot be compared alone). The British electorate are searching for solutions to the economic problems so many of them face something they seem not to be able to find in the major political parties. UKIP failed to make massive gains in the local elections because they were not targeting specific seats by putting forward over 1000 candidates, but were more putting themselves forward as a presence, which can often leave a more spread result but not a major amount of seats won. What cannot be ignored, though, is that the results from both the by-election and local elections are that the British electorate is looking for an alternative. By the time of the next general election, which will take place within the next two years, it is possible that UKIP may have lost its momentum from their success. There is also a huge difference between getting seats at a local election than a national level as party loyalties make it difficult for even the opposition party to win votes in the Commons, which is even more difficult for single MPs or a small party.