Education, Education, Education: Aspiration Tax

Tuition fees do not help fund higher education - they are a punitive tax on aspiration

The Genesis of Tuition Fees

  It is a fundamental principle of socialism that education should be provided equally and freely to all. It is a fundamental principle of neoliberalism that aspiration should not be taxed. And yet the Labour governments of 1997-2010 broke both of these principles - the socialist one they claim as their heritage, and the neoliberal one which they adopted under Tony Blair in a bid for power.

  How did they do this, you ask? Simple - Labour first introduced, and then trebled, tuition fees for University courses. Before 1998, you did not pay for your education - it would be to go against both the post-war social democratic consensus and the post-Thatcherite neoliberal consensus for such a thing to happen. John Major first floated the idea of alternative sources of higher education funding, but it was the Blair/Brown New Labour project which finally implemented the policy.

  The Coalition government, of course, are now most linked in the minds of the British people with tuition fees - as well they might be. The spectacular way in which the Liberal Democrat promise to scrap tuition fees entirely was broken is the stuff of political legend; what is even more worrying, though, is that the Conservative party wanted to remove the cap on fees altogether, leaving the UK higher education system completely open to market forces in a way even the USA cannot match (not all American colleges are for-profit institutions). As it stands, students are now saddled with a £9,000-a-year debt.


A Tax on Aspiration

  It is pretty clear to see how tuition fees violate the principle of free and equal access to education - in short, it makes education no longer free and restricts access to it on the basis of wealth (or willingness to accrue large amounts of long-term debt). It is somewhat less straightforward to see how such a policy constitutes an aspiration tax, but all it requires is a moment's consideration.

  Education can be seen as a way of improving one's chances in life: it is no secret that even fairly mundane jobs these days often require a degree, and access to many professions - law, teaching, the civil service etc. - is almost impossible without one. Possession of a higher education degree, then, can improve your quality of life quite considerably; it is, in short, a key to what is for many a lifestyle they aspire to. Simply put, someone with a degree earns on average 85% more than someone with only GCSEs, while someone with only A Levels earns just 15% more. A degree, in the brutal monetary terms in which we are forced to see it, equals earning potential.

  Slapping a £27,000 price tag (more if it's a longer course, plus the cost of paying back your student loan, plus interest, plus other costs - the true cost of getting a degree is estimated around £100,000) on this potential makes it harder for people to access. Though loans are of course available, taking on that kind of debt is a terrifying prospect for many young people. It puts them off furthering their education, and application levels - despite having risen this year - are still below the level they were before the tuition fee hike. Consider that the economy has 'recovered' during that time, and population has grown by three-quarters of a million, and this is an alarming thing.

  So, tuition fees are a method of imposing what is in essence a tax on the aspiration of young people to improve their lives. They also discourage degrees which do not translate directly into a high-earning job at the end of it, such as finance or law - in order to pay off this huge debt, students are leaving behind courses in the arts and humanities in favour of the physical and social sciences. The true purpose of learning - the acquisition of knowledge - has been supplanted by bald monetary calculations.

  It should also be noted that tuition fees are not equal across the UK - in England, they are capped at £9,000; in Scotland, they do not exist; in Wales, grants exist to cover the first £5,315; in Northern Ireland, they are £3,685. Even more ridiculous, EU students in Scotland and Wales receive the same tuition fees as Scottish/Welsh nationals; whilst English and Northern Irish students have to pay. This patchwork system of fees means that the English in particular are grossly discriminated against.


What's Their Motivation?

  So, why would the establishment parties want to impose such an aspiration tax? It isn't for the economic benefit to the country - it is estimated that the average student won't actually pay back 43% of their loan - they'll just be saddled with a huge debt for 30 years - and the increase to £9,000 will actually end up losing the government money. Furthermore, Higher Education in total costs £27.9 billion a year; the UK spends £45.6 billion a year on defence. What would YOU consider more important?

  No, the real reason behind the aspiration tax is an attempt to prevent students from furthering themselves. It stands to reason: knowledge is power, and the ruling elite are quite fond of having all the power, thank you very much. A degree also, as we have discussed, translates directly into economic benefit - and as we know, thanks to the neoliberal deregulation of the financial sector, there's only so much money to go around. It is in the interests of those who have it to prevent others from acquiring it - hence the aspiration tax.

  Overall, tuition fees are a policy designed only to hurt students. The recent rise is going to end up actually costing the government £5 billion a year anyway; why not just scrap it? The Treasury saves money, students aren't faced with mountains of debt and education might actually come to be seen as a priority again. 

The REAL Problem With Europe

Most criticism of the EU is right-wing vitriol - but there are real problems with the Brussels machine

  Europe-bashing has become mainstream within British politics. UKIP have succeeded in driving the political debate sharply to the right on immigration, with the result that a recent ICM poll put immigration as the number two issue in the British political mindset - just four points behind the NHS. This has fuelled a backlash against the EU - now, even the Europhile Liberal Democrats are joining the assault against Brussels.

Right-Wing Pet Hates

  Criticism of the EU from the right-wing political establishment focuses around what is really two points - freedom of movement and human rights laws. Freedom of movement is a fundamental principle behind the European Single Market - something which David Cameron is otherwise very much in favour of - and freedom of movement of labour cannot be separated from the other three freedoms - goods, services and capital - which are essential for allowing an integrated European economy. 

  The four freedoms are also, incidentally, something which derive from the Single European Act of 1986 - a treaty which was in large part the brainchild of Margaret Thatcher, something which is a never-ending source of amusement for me as the Thatcherite parties (the Tories and UKIP) try to backpedal on one of the most important achievements of their predecessor's premiership.

  On the subject of human rights, any attempt to withdraw from the European Convention would be inconceivable. Not only is the Convention itself another fundamentally British invention - Winston Churchill's this time; not looking good for the Tories, is it? - but it would be virtually impossible to remove European human rights protections without replacing them with essentially identical British protections. The alternative is to cast in our lot with countries like Belarus and Saudi Arabia - something which no British government could do without inspiring general outrage.

What About the Rest?

  Beyond these two non-problems, the right-wing political establishment and media seem to be pretty happy with the EU as is. Yes, there are periodical requests for more money - such as that for another €2.1 billion which hit the newspapers on the 24th of October - which elicit indignation from the supporters of so-called Tory austerity, but these are fleeting objections. More or less, mainstream politicians couldn't care less about the rest of the EU's problems.

  But there are some real issues with the way Europe works. For starters, consider that the EU is a fundamentally undemocratic organisation. The European Parliament is the only EU body which is actually elected and, despite receiving new powers under the 2008 Treaty of Lisbon, is still very much the weakest EU institution. The Conservative Party, it should be pointed out,

actually opposed even these limited powers to Parliament - they would rather appointed institutions like the Commission and Coreper (the EU civil service). Some areas of policy, such as taxation and justice policy, still aren't subject to any kind of democratic scrutiny at all. Instead of wasting time attacking the basic principles of the EU, the changing of which will be neither possible nor beneficial, why don't the mainstream parties focus on this absurd lack of democracy?

  Perhaps the greatest example of the anti-democratic nature of the EU at work is the TTIP corporate power grab. This is a free trade treaty currently being negotiated, in secret, between representatives of the EU and the USA. The current proposals for the treaty include 'Investor State Dispute Settlements', allowing American corporations to sue the British government in secretive, closed tribunals for any action they take which might impact their profit margins. This would not only make renationalisation of key public infrastructure - supported by over 65% of the British public - impossible, it would also open up existing public services such as the NHS to American corporate buyouts. If the government resisted, they would be subject to legal action and crippling damages payments.

  TTIP has the support of the Conservative, Labour and Liberal Democrat Parties and even UKIP supported it until recently - abandoning the idea as soon as it became clear that there was public opposition to it, another fine example of principled UKIP policy-making. Only the Green Party opposed this dangerous treaty from the outset, along with a grassroots campaign mustered by 38 degrees (sign their petition against TTIP here). This is a clear sign if one was needed that the mainstream political parties don't really care about the sovereignty of the United Kingdom, just clinging on to their own positions of power.

Conclusions

  The European Union was a fantastic idea which has gone badly wrong. Anti-democratic organisational features and economic incompetence have led what should have been a wonderful experiment in international peace and co-operation into a deepening crisis, while TTIP threatens the very economic sovereignty of its members. UKIP's solution to the problems of Europe is to jump ship; my preference would always be to push for reform first, but what is clear is that the establishment parties will not tackle the real issues with Europe, so obsessed are they with chasing UKIP's right-wing narrative over immigration and human rights laws. As usual, it's up to us - the people - to force the idiots and self-serving careerists who rule us to take the right course. Don't hold your breath.

Ramblings of a Godless Heathen

Atheism and religious extremism are both on the rise - it's time we talked about it

  To be an atheist in the United Kingdom today is a thankfully easy thing. The 2011 census states that a more than a quarter of the population officially have no religion, and a poll this April revealed that only a third of Britons believe religion has a positive role to play in the country, while over a quarter believe it has an actively negative effect. However, religious extremism is also on the increase - the exodus of British Muslims to fight for IS in Iraq and Syria and the rising social media popularity of Protestant extremist groups like Britain First prove that.

  In a Britain where both extremes of attitude to faith - total disbelief and total belief - are becoming more common, it is important to talk about this, even if it does provoke discomfort to do so. The champions of what is often (mis)termed 'militant atheism'  - people like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris and the late Christopher Hitchens - have reached the point now where they are alienating as many people as they convert. It is perhaps time then for a less charged discussion. Here goes...


What's in a Name?

  To start with, let's define some terms. We'll kick off with the aforementioned 'militant atheist' - a nonsense term if there ever was one. A militant is someone who takes up arms in the name of a cause; very few people have ever taken up arms in the name of not believing in a god - why would you? (And no, Stalin doesn't count. Don't go there.)


  Atheist means simply someone who does not believe in any gods. To be clear, it does not mean they believe there definitely aren't any - just that, on balance, they think there is insufficient reason to believe there are. What people mean when they say 'militant atheist' is usually antitheist - i.e. someone who is opposed to religious belief. It is entirely possible to be an atheist without being an antitheist. 

  Theist, as you probably guessed, is someone who believes in at least one god - they may believe in many more. The word for this is polytheist, whereas someone who believes in a single deity is a monotheist. Some faiths have a concept of multiple aspects of a single deity having semi-independent existence of their own - e.g. Hinduism and most denominations of Christianity - which is known as pluriform monotheism. 

  Agnostic is a more ambiguous term - technically it describes anyone not 100% certain that god(s) either exist or that they don't, which includes most atheists and most theists. More usually, however, it is used to describe someone who is halfway between the two - i.e. someone who considers the probability of the existence of god(s) to be as likely as it is not. These people are pretty rare, in my experience.


Who's Who?

  The three most important faiths within the UK, according to the 2011 census, are Christianity (59.5%), Islam (4.4%) and Hinduism (1.9%), with 25.7% of the population having no religion. Within Christianity, the most important denominations are Anglicanism (62%), Roman Catholicism (13.5%), Presbyterianism (6%) and Methodism (3.4%). 

[statistics from a 2005 estimate]

  The British Social Attitudes Survey suggests a somewhat different picture, however. The 2013 edition put Christianity on 41.6%, Islam on 4.6% and Hinduism on 1.5%, with a majority (50.6%) stating they had no religion. There are numerous possible causes for this discrepancy - more up-to-date data, a smaller sample size, the elimination of the problem of parents putting their own faith as their children's on census forms etc. (it should be noted, however, that the margin of error in the Survey was only 1.72%).


What I reckon...

  I am, and have been more or less since the age of fifteen, an atheist. This does not mean, as noted above, I am certain no gods exist - what it means is that I have never seen any particularly compelling evidence to prove that any do. The claim that one or more supernatural entities exist, hidden from our sight, and control many aspects of the world and human life seems to me to be quite an incredible one. It requires, therefore, some fairly incredible evidence - evidence which is not apparent to me.

  Though I was raised a Christian (of somewhat hazy denomination - mostly Anglican with a bit of Methodist thrown in for good measure) I was never a particularly devout one, and - following a brief period of heightened religious awareness in my early teens - more or less slowly lost my faith over the course of a couple of years. It simply seemed to me that the only reason I believed in God was that I had been told he existed, without any independent corroboration of the fact. Whilst I am open to any evidence any theist might care to proffer, so far I have seen nothing even remotely convincing.

  Following the loss of my faith I became fairly antitheistic for a brief period. I would now consider myself somewhat less so, but I do believe the existence of religion causes a few problems. My opposition is not really to the kind of personal spiritual belief which characterises many ancient polytheistic religions and the so-called New Age beliefs of the twentieth century. Whilst some of these ideas do strain my credulity - frequently well past breaking point - they do little real harm. No, my main concern is organised religion.


The Dangers of Organised Religion

  I would define organised religion as one which has a hierarchy within it - where certain people are placed above others in the religious pecking order. They also tend to have what you could consider the 'traditional' trappings of religion - holy books, places of worship, formal prayers and rituals. The Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England are the two clearest examples of this kind of set-up, but it also includes most other Christian denominations, as well as most Judaic, Islamic, Sikh, Buddhist  denominations, and many others besides.

  The issue with these kinds of hierarchical religions is they impress upon their members the idea of obedience - blind obedience, without question. The problem is especially marked when children are introduced to such organisations - the human impulse to listen to and take heed of the advice of our elders, essential for survival in early humans, allows indoctrination and exploitation of young people. Vulnerable adults, such as those with severe learning difficulties or mental illnesses, are also easy targets for these hierarchies. The upper echelons of such religious groups - Archbishops, Cardinals, Ayatollahs and the like - are able to exert massive influence over vast swathes of people.

  This is a form of social control. Throughout history, the unelected leaders of religious organisations have wielded enormous power over the populations they ostensibly serve. They have also frequently collaborated with governments to the detriment of the people - the complicity of the Catholic Church in the atrocities of the fascist regimes in Italy and Spain  in the twentieth century (though less so in Germany) being perhaps the most dramatic example of this. Ultimately, the fact that anyone wields such power without being democratically elected is concerning.


Blind Faith

  This leads me to another (linked) problem with the more dogmatic religions - the accepting of doctrine on blind faith alone. This occurs in most religions, to varying degrees, but it is particularly pronounced in Wahhabi Islam, Orthodox Judaism and Christian denominations such as Mormonism (and in other Christian Churches before the secularisation of the late 20th Century). There is a fine line between these extremely dogmatic faiths and dangerous cults and extremist groups. It is no coincidence that IS, for example, are followers of a particularly extreme form of Wahhabi. 

  The practice of accepting doctrine on the basis of faith - i.e. without independent evidence - is inherently worrisome. It begets a mindset which is easily corruptible - even if the faith itself is benign. Stalin, for example (see, he does come in somewhere) received training as an Orthodox priest; since the population of the Soviet Union was predominantly Orthodox Christian before the Revolution, he and the other Soviet leaders were able to exploit this to inculcate a culture of blind obedience to the Stalinist version of Communism. Indeed, he revived the Church in 1942 in order to assist in the war effort. 

  Unquestioning obedience to authority and acceptance of doctrine without supporting fact is how demagogues build up support for their ideologies without challenge, and it is a mindset which is fostered by the dogmatism of many religious groups. Sceptiscism is the sign of a healthy, enquiring mind -  nothing should be taken on faith alone.


Conclusions

  I hope I have outlined clearly my own beliefs and just two of the principal issues I see with organised religion in the 21st century. This is not to say there are not others, and it is certainly not to say that religion does not have its positives. Talking about faith, why one is or is not religious, and what the issues are which one sees in people of differing beliefs to oneself is still something of a taboo in British society today - but it shouldn't be. Only by having a frank, honest and open dialogue can we resolve these issues and challenge the extremist positions taken by some individuals. Faith - or lack thereof - is a protected characteristic under UK anti-discrimination laws, but that shouldn't mean we can't talk about it and criticise it if need be.

  if we don't, after all, we've seen what the consequences can be.

Politicians: They Won't Change Unless We Make Them

For decades, and particularly since the expenses scandal of 2009, politicians have grown steadily more despised - but why should they change?

  An ICM poll, published in the Guardian on October the 13th, gave us some interesting information on the state of politics in October 2014. The party polling itself was fairly standard fare - the only real point to note is the expected 5-point increase in UKIP's share in the wake of Douglas Carswell's election in Clacton - but more interesting is the data on the leaders' personal ratings, shown below:

  One point to raise straightaway is the absence of two individuals: Natalie Bennett, leader of the Green Party (expected, due to the outrageous anti-Green media bias) and Nick Clegg. Clegg's absence is particularly telling - it demonstrates the total lack of regard given to the now-decimated Liberal Democrats. But more important still is the data itself.

  Notice the numbers on the graphs. It will not escape your notice that they are all significantly below zero. Now, it is clear that certain leaders have strengths in certain areas: Farage leads significantly on perceived ability to understand the public and on perceived honesty, while Miliband is clearly ahead on looking after the interests of the many over the few. 

  Farage's party, then, will use these data to improve their anti-establishment credentials; Labour will (cautiously, so as to avoid cries of 'evil socialism) capitalise on the sense that they, not UKIP, are the true party of the working classes. Cameron will do his best not to mention them at all. But none of these approaches get to the real heart of the matter - and why would they? It is in the interests of all the neoliberal parties not to raise this question. So It's going to have to be me.

  The question is this: Why are our politicians so awful that we are having to differentiate between different degrees of negative publicity just to draw out some meaningful comparison?

  At the end of the day, it shouldn't matter that Ed Miliband is only 10 points below par at looking after the working classes while Farage and Cameron are 20 points below, because the key thing is this: They are ALL seen as terrible. Even 'anti-establishment', flavour-of-the-month UKIP has a leader seen as generally incapable across these three fairly broad categories. The fact that one leader might be slightly less bad than the other two should be irrelevant. The only reason it isn't is because the leaders are more or less identical, so the minutiae become suddenly vital differentiators.

  Why, then, do our political masters get away with being seen as universally useless? Sadly, the answer is because we let them. This most recent poll makes one thing clear - despite seeing their leaders (two potential Prime Ministers and a potential Deputy Prime Minister) as incompetent, 80% of the population who state they are likely to vote in May 2015 are planning to vote for either Labour, UKIP or the Conservatives. Add in the Lib Dems - whose neoliberal policies make them virtually identical to the other three, despite their current disfavour - and that's 91%.

  Even worse than this overwhelming lemming-style rush towards parties which these data prove we have no enthusiasm for is the number of people planning not to vote at all. The same poll shows that 23% of people rate themselves as 50% certain or less to vote, with 10% saying already that they definitely won't. Results from past elections show that, on average, around a third of voters do not vote on polling day. I've spoken at length about voter apathy before, so i won't wax lyrical about it here, but this also feeds into the overall issue.

  And that issue is this: Politicians won't change, they won't become any better than their current abysmal low, until we make them. And, much as Russell brand would have you believe otherwise, refusing to participate - tempting as it is - will not do that. Neither will voting for parties who espouse the same hypocritical, neoliberal-authoritarian post-Thatcherite political consensus as the Tories - and that includes UKIP as well as Labour and the Lib Dems. 

  The only way to force a change is to get involved. Campaign on issues which animate you, which make your blood boil; speak out when things occur in the world which are unfair; vote when polling day comes around, and for the Greens or the nationalists or any other party which challenges the status quo. But don't limit yourself just to voting - Brand is right about that: the once-every-five-years electoral ballot is the establishment's way of keeping us quiet in between. Fight for the things you deserve and for what you believe in, and maybe - just maybe - we might get some politicians who aren't universally reviled.

  One can but hope.

Chart Music - How Bad Can It Be?

Pop music in 2014 is frequently slated as generic, bland, meaningless rubbish. Is that fair? Let's find out...

  Those who know me at all will know my musical tastes are not attuned to those of the 21st century zeitgeist. My passion is, and has always been, for what are rapidly becoming niche genres; hard rock, punk rock, heavy metal, grunge - these are the styles of music which I love, but I'm under no illusions - they aren't exactly what's getting played on Radio One. As a rocker, I have entered into more than my fair share of slating modern pop music - this article, for example - but have I been entirely fair? 

  In the interests of science - as well as (hopefully) proving myself right to shun the chart-toppers of today - I have set myself a challenge. Five songs - the top five on the Official Chart Company's most up-to-date list - get one playthrough each. I shall be as objective as possible - i.e. not very. Let us take the plunge...

No. 1: All About That Bass - Meghan Trainor

  First things first: Autotuned to all hell. I know this is pretty standard for modern pop tracks, but it is used far too heavily here. The chorus is catchy, there's no denying that - this is one I have heard before, and it does worm its way inside your head - but more or less meaningless. it does work as a hook, though, and the rest of the lyrics are fairly pointed. 

  The overall message of the song - that people (specifically women) should be less concerned with their weight and physical appearance - is unquestionably a good one (provided they do not become unhealthily overweight, of course), but Trainor does fall into the all-too-common trap of countering the media-fuelled obsession with being thin with an overt sexualisation of women's bodies which, to me, rather misses the point. Surely it should be possible to encourage women to care less about their dress size and attack the misogynistic culture of women as sex objects? Evidently not.

  Still, at least the artist actually had a hand in writing the lyrics, and the instruments were all played by the track's producer and co-writer (Kevin Kadish), making a refreshing change from the usual assembly-line construction of pop tracks. Overall, it could have been a lot worse and I'm glad that the no. 1 spot is filled by something which at least has a message to it.

No. 2: Bang Bang - Jessie J, Ariana Grande & Nicki Minaj

  The video is more or less the polar opposite of Trainor's offering, glorifying the so-called 'beauty' enshrined in being super-thin. It is characteristic of the general dichotomy of the modern world that these two tracks can both be at the top of the charts at once. The hook is undeniably well-crafted to be as catchy as possible, but the lyrics are more or less uninspired - the singers desire to copulate with an unnamed fourth party. There isn't anything more to it than that.

  The track is carried by Jessie J (real name Jessie Cornish)'s voice - it is, I have to admit, strikingly powerful, if ill-used. Grande's, meanwhile, is nothing more than mediocre (even with a generous helping of autotuning) and why Cornish chose to include Nicki Minaj - possibly the worst rapper currently in existence - in this project is beyond me. If the abysmal rap segment were to be removed, the R&B-influenced pop tune which would be left would be passable. As it is, my poor ears urge me never to listen to it again, and I think I shall acquiesce.

No. 3: Shake if Off - Taylor Swift

  Aptly named.

  Yes, the lyrics are repetitive and I think that if I ever here the words 'I shake it off' again I might cry, but the sentiment is at least admirable - sod the bastards, I'll do what I want. A welcome departure from whinging about her ex-boyfriends, it must be said, though the musical style chosen is something of a step in the wrong direction. Swift is an artist for whom I have previously had very little respect, but this latest offering - when boiled down to its key message - is something I can at least relate to. Now, stick some guitars in the background, swap that trombone for a saxophone and ramp up the percussion a few notches and I can feel a bit of a ska-punk classic in the offing. No? Perhaps not. In any case, its a marked improvement on the last one, but my faith in humanity has not yet been completely restored.

No. 4: Changing - Sigma feat. Paloma Faith

  This is more of a Paloma Faith featuring Sigma track, to be honest. It's been a while since I heard a proper drum 'n' bass track - dubstep, house and trap seem more the go-to dance genres these days - and frankly, this isn't it. Faith's vocals are soulful and quite strong, but that's the problem - the actual drum 'n' bass element of the song is completely overwhelmed. This is no Propane Nightmares - but then, Sigma are no Pendulum. Not even close. If you want drum 'n' bass, give In Silico a listen. If it's dance music in general, The Prodigy exist for heaven's sake! 

  Take this as a Paloma Faith soul ballad, and it's just a fairly mediocre song by a slightly-above-average singer, devoid of much meaning or lyrical depth. Take it as a drum 'n' bass record, and it's not even worth your time.

No. 5: Blame - Calvin Harris feat. John Newman

  Pretty standard electronic dance fare. You could certainly dance to it, and if that's all we're looking for in what is admittedly a dance track, we can leave it there. However, I like a little more in a song - I've moshed to Cry For the Indians, but that also has a powerful message of its own, so why can't I dance to a track which has one? Blame certainly doesn't - while Newman's vocals are passable, the lyrics are dull and repetitive, and don't really gel with the upbeat tempo of the music. 

  

  There we go, all done! That was a long five songs, but an interesting experience. From this little experiment, I think we can gather three things: One, that pop music can have a message, but that it all too frequently doesn't; Two, that overall the charts aren't entirely devoid of musical talent - just mostly; and Three, that now Queen have come on Spotify and I feel much, much better.

UKIP - The Purple Menace?

Does UKIP's performance in Clacton and Heywood & Middleton mean the 'big three' are in serious trouble?

Carswell's Triumph

  Douglas Carswell's crushing victory in the Clacton-on-Sea by-election should come as a surprise to precisely no-one. The seat was described as the most-UKIP friendly in the country, Carswell had a huge personal following - demonstrated by the mass exodus from the local Tory association to his UKIP branch - and the UKIP propaganda machine has been working overtime ever since the by-election was called.

  However, the sheer scale of the victory - 59.7%, a rare majority, with the jump from 0% (UKIP did not previously contest Clacton) the biggest in by-election history - should of course be noted by anyone with an interest in the growing right-wing force. As birthday presents go, this one is probably not David Cameron's best. Carswell did not just beat the Tories, he thrashed them, and such a result will be invaluable to UKIP come 2015.


Miliband's Nightmare

  Of course, Clacton was not the only by-election result to be announced during the night - Heywood and Middleton also voted, and they voted to keep Labour in power. However, UKIP came deadly close, with just 617 votes between the two. The Labour victory is important for the party - failure to hold the seat would have been another nail in the coffin of Miliband's leadership - but the significance of this close call is huge. Farage has long proclaimed that UKIP has a broad-based appeal, attracting defectors from each of the traditional 'big three', and the near-success of the party in this northern, working-class constituency - seat of former Labour Prime Minister Jim Callaghan, no less - seems to confirm that.

  Of course, the Labour party line is that the UKIP surge was driven mostly by the collapse of the Conservative and Liberal Democrat votes, and the nose-dive in turnout to 36.2%. This is quite probable, but that does not excuse the Labour failure to capitalise on this collapse. Anti-UKIP tactical voting should have lent weight to the only party in the seat with a reasonable chance of defeating them, and yet the margin of victory remained pathetically small. Some UKIPpers are calling for a recount, and the party's candidate John Bickley stated that “I’m under no illusions. Another two or three days and we would have won this.” Such a delay would have put the poll in the wake of Clacton and the UKIP landslide there - Bickley is probably right.


Same Old Party?

  Winning an elected MP for the first time, and their second ever UKIP MP overall, will lend a legitimacy to the party that their 24 MEPs and 370 Councillors could not do. So Westminster-focused is British politics in the 21st Century, only a UKIPper in the House of Commons would do to persuade some sections of the establishment to take them seriously. Despite Conservative HQ's line today that people will not vote for 'alternative' parties come 2015, even the most traditionally self-confident Tory must now admit that UKIP are a threat.

  The question is, what do UKIP represent - and is it something the British people will ever vote for en masse? The label 'fascist' has been applied to the party in the past and, whilst it is an exaggeration, there are some fascistic elements to the organisation. They can be seen in the party's de facto English nationalism; in the veneration of a single charismatic individual as leader; in the party's corporate backing; and in the appropriation of the odd traditionally left-wing policy in order to garner populist support.

  Glimpses of UKIP's more unsavoury aspect are also revealed by those of its members less willing to toe the party line. Though the sagas of Bongo Bongo Land and storm-causing gay marriage are beginning to recede into the past now, these kinds of people are still present in the party - just masked by an increasingly effective and media-supported propaganda machine. The fact that the blatantly and pathetically prejudiced Alan Craig, former leader of the hard-right Christian People's Alliance, has defected to UKIP and campaigned for them in Clacton - this a man who equates equal marriage with child abuse - and that UKIP has defended him demonstrates quite clearly that, however much it may have appeared to move on, the party is still stuck exactly where it was ten years ago.

  
  Will UKIP do well in 2015? Almost certainly. Will they increase their vote share? Undoubtedly. Will they pick up a handful of extra seats, the better with which to harass the Tories in Parliament? Quite probably. But will they ever become a force which the people of the UK will select to represent them on a national basis? I doubt it. Not without quite a considerable reformation of the party and a purge of those less salubrious elements within its structure.

  Meanwhile, are they a threat to the 'big three'? The by-elections of the 9th of October tell us, absolutely. And, much as I despise UKIP itself, upsetting the cosy establishment apple-cart can't be an entirely bad thing.