UKIP has acted as the Provisional Wing of the Pub Bore Society for some years. Seated on the far stool of political life, they have droned on endlessly about the failings of the big three parties. âTheyâre all the same as each otherâ, ânothing to chose between themâ, â a shower of professional bastardsâ.
The resident Landlord has tried to shut them up, calling them a âbunch of clownsâ, and âfruitcake racistsâ. It had no effect. They droned on. âGet us out of Europeâ, âitâs them thar Europeans that is causing all the problemsâ, they said as they ordered another pint. A warm, cloudy, British pint.
âUKIP if you want toâ said the Landlord, ânobody is listening to you anywayâ.
This morning he found out that 14% of the population were listening. He sent his potman out with something akin to an apology.
âPeople have sent a message, we get it, we hear what people are saying, people are concerned that we get on with the big issues facing hard-working people in this country, like fixing the economy, sorting out the welfare system, helping hard-working people to get on.
âUkip have done well, I donât make any secret about that at all. We need to make sure that we are addressing the concerns of the public.â
Revolutionary stuff! âAddressing the concerns of the publicâ! That is a U-turn of megalithic proportions. When did the last politician even pay lip service to âaddressing the concerns of the publicâ? We have a government that is so proud of the ânudge unitâ, the department that seeks, not to address the concerns of, but to re-educate the public, that they are privatising it, convinced they can make money out of it. We had, for 13 years, a government that was solely concerned with re-educating the public. Can it really be true that the Pub Bore has succeeded in revolutionising government to the point that it might actually act as representatives of its various constituencies and âaddress their concernsâ?
The big three parties (though the Lib-Dems seem to have a nasty dose of political anorexia, compared to the over-fed beasts of Labour and Conservative) have relied upon people not âkippingâ, but âsleepingâ their way through the voting process. If they voted at all, it was as their Father had done. The public didnât seem to get the rather obvious point that if you vote as your Father did, you are liable to end up with the same government that your Father did â an oxymoron, if âchangeâ was what you wanted.
UKIP have done well, most definitely. But are they the answer to Britainâs problems?
It seems to me that our problems are global ones. A global financial crisis, regardless of where it started or who did what. Global weather patterns changing (and no, I havenât become a âban all aerosols, fight climate changeâ enthusiast, just aware that the jet stream is/has been a different position to the one we are used to, as it has been beforeâ¦) and thus different crops will need to be grown in different parts of the world, and if people wish to keep eating the food they are used to, they might have to get it from somewhere else in the world. Religious affiliation changing, and with our modern inventions of air travel, and television, not to mention the Internet, we are becoming a more global society, with people committed to the eradication of âall infidelsâ happily studying computer science in the universities of Infidel Centralâ¦
Global problems require global solutions. I donât see how retreating into nationalism and brave little Britain âgoing it aloneâ can possibly solve the problem. Nor does that make me a defender of the EU, too small a solution, based on an outdated political modus operandi. So while I sympathise with UKIPs anti-EU stance, I donât think that they hold the answer.
What they have done is wake up those quietly kipping over their pint, that âsomethingâ needs to be done, and not something that we have tried already.
We have to get out of this âFort Little Rockâ mentality, the idea that those who are different are to be feared, outsiders. We are all the human family, and the sooner we stop squabbling amongst ourselves the better. It is a product of democracy, the idea that the majority âmustâ win. Why must there be âwinnersâ, black and white, good and bad, left and right? If we all took responsibility for ourselves and spent our spare time helping others, we would be a lot better off than struggling to make sure that âour manâ gets the controlling job.
For sure, someone will come along in the comments and tell me that human nature isnât like that, that people are selfish, some will take more than others â but isnât that a product of our conditioning? That if we just vote the right man, our man, into the top job, he will take care of us, his supporters, and we donât need to think about it anymore? And if somehow the âother sideâ manage to get their man into the top job, we just have to belly ache long enough and point out all his faults, and along will come another chance to get our man, our protector, into place.
And that is where all our energy goes to. Ridiculous.