Blue Labour is not a new phenomenon

postwarcons

The modern Tories are often criticised by some in the right because they aren’t truly right-wing. In fact, it can be said that the modern Tory party has become more socialist than conservative. Nowhere is this criticism more pronounced than when applied to Theresa May, the sitting Tory Prime Minister who opened her premiership with an emphasis on social justice. On economic policy, she’s pretty much a left-leaning Tory cut from the same cloth as most of the party, and many have noted that she has pilfered her platform from what used to be Ed Miliband’s Labour manifesto.

Some have taken to calling this Blue Labour, and in this regard, I agree, though I think this is one of those times where it’s important to learn some history. While Theresa May’s leftward lurching manifesto is pretty much the right-wing version of a typical Labour manifesto, it’s important that the Blue Labour attitude that today’s Tory party embodies has been around for a very long time. In fact, the official name for this brand of right-wing socialism is “one-nation Toryism”. This has been the policy of every post-war Tory PM except Margaret Thatcher, and this is because it stems from the paternalistic worldview that many Tories hold in regards to society.

The Tories have always been the party of the owning class, but contrary to what most people may believe, the old Tories never believed in capitalism. This is evidenced by Harold Macmillian (who would later become PM in 1957), when he insisted that Toryism as an ideology “has always been a form of paternal socialism. Similarly, another future PM named Anthony Eden made the Tory’s opposition to capitalism clear at the 1947 Conservative Party Conference:

“We are not a party of unbridled, brutal capitalism and never have been. We are not the children of the laissez-faire school. We opposed them decade after decade.”

The reason they despised capitalism was because it went against their own view of how society should be ordered. In their worldview, your standing in life was something you were simply born into. You were rich because your parents were rich, you were poor because your parents were poor, and your children would more than likely go down the same route as you will. Capitalism challenged that idea. In capitalism it doesn’t matter how you were born, because you earn success through your own merits, and fall because of your own failings.

To the poor, capitalism presents a path out of poverty, and the old elites resented that. They resented the idea that anyone could become as rich as them, but they were most fearful of the idea that they could lose their wealth and status. Capitalism was a threat to the economic privilege of the wealthy Tories of the olden days, and thus they favoured socialism, a system that, in practice, protects that privilege under the guise of looking after the poor.

The old Tories thought that it was their job, nay, their duty to run the country, and because of their desire to limit the free markets, they ended up agreeing with Labour’s policy of nationalisation, high taxation, high regulation, and a generous welfare state. This was called the “post-war consensus”, which is basically a system of Keynesian socialism with no more than a glimmer of free markets. In the era of the consensus, everything was nationalised, and the welfare state grew until it eventually became unsustainable. Although this consensus began under a Labour government, it was the Tories that truly ushered in the era of consensus-style socialism then ran through to the 1970’s. That was one-nation Toryism in action.

Of course, while the post-war consensus was supposed to give us prosperity after the war, it ended up paralysing the economy by overburdening the state, which by the 1970’s was running out of money because it was paying to keep all the industries going, and the taxpayers were getting less and less able to foot the bill. The consensus was defeated when Margaret Thatcher took power and brought a swift end to nationalisation, putting her at odds with the traditional one-nation Tories. In the end, the EU-loving Tories ousted her from party leadership, and returned to their old ways, and now one-nation Toryism, perhaps the last remnant of consensus-era politics, is the policy of the modern Tory party, as exemplified in the current manifesto.

This Blue Labour philosophy is so entrenched in British conservatism that there really is no right wing in mainstream British politics, and no, UKIP is too weak to count. This part of how the left has come to dominate the narrative in British society, because there is no true right to oppose it, and there hasn’t been since Thatcher lost power. Now it seems like we’re headed for a long reign of protectionism, economic regulations, but at least nationalisation is not on their agenda anymore, all while our civil liberties continue the slow path of erosion. This is Blue Labour in action, but because the alternative is blatant Marxism, it seems this is the only way. Just when we thought they were gone, the days of “There is no alternative” are more alive than ever.

Advertisements

Let’s face facts – the “Liberal Democrats” aren’t liberal

liberal democrats

Tell me if you’ve heard this argument before. The Liberal Democrats are supposedly the only liberal party in an election with a far-left Marxist Labour leader running against a nanny state Tory party. By that logic, any real liberal should vote for the Liberal Democrats, right? Wrong! The “Liberal” Democrats are liberals in name only. They haven’t been truly liberal in a long time, certainly not under its leftist leader Tim Farron.

Their latest manifesto essentially confirms this, with the Liberal Democrats reaffirming their opposition to Brexit (never mind the fact that only 22% of the country wants Britain to stay in the EU, and that could be shrinking). In case Tim Farron hasn’t heard, opposing the popular vote makes you illiberal. It is anathema to liberty and liberalism. If that’s not enough, they want to ban the sale of diesel cars by 2025 if elected. If Tim Farron wants his party to fail, then congratulations, because now his party can only appeal to bourgeois middle-class leftists in London or Cardiff.

More importantly, the manifesto tells me that todays Liberal Democrats are more like social democrats, reading like the kind of manifesto Labour would release if it weren’t so far to the left. On economic policy they want to raise the corporate tax to 20% (it’s already at 19%, which is bad enough), and add 1p on income tax, which they say is how they’ll raise £6 billion for the NHS. On the whole, they’ve pretty much adopted Labour’s love of spending money. They plan to spend £7 billion on education, reverse universal credit at a cost of £3.6 billion, and £2 billion on flood defences. I’ll admit that this isn’t as bad as Labour’s spending plans (the flood defence pledge sounds like a good idea), but again, in order to spend that much, they have to raise taxes, which they’re pretty much open about.

They also want a second referendum on a “final Brexit deal”, which is completely ludicrous as we already voted on whether or not to leave the EU, and parliament already gave Theresa May approval to trigger Article 50. I assume once the British public inevitably votes for hard Brexit, the Lib Dems would probably ask for a third referendum until they get what they want. They also want to remain in the single market, which nobody wants anymore, and seeing as they favour freedom of movement as the EU would define it, I have reason to suspect that they’ll probably force the country to take in more migrants sent over from places like Germany or France, not that we’ll get to vote on whether or not to take in more immigrants.

The idea that the Lib Dems are liberal is complete nonsense. Only about 10% of their manifesto is liberal policy, with the rest being a bunch of idealistic socialist claptrap that’s at least moderate compared to the far-left Labour manifesto. It’s ludicrous to assume that the Lib Dems are liberal just because they want to decriminalise weed and scrap the Snooper’s Charter, both of those policies I completely agree with by the way. The sad truth is that there is no liberal party in mainstream politics. There is the Libertarian Party, but they’re only running a few candidates, and there’s a slim chance that any of them will gain a seat.

Ever since the rise of socialism, liberalism hasn’t been popular in British politics in a long time, to the point that even the supposed “liberal” party has forgotten about what it truly means to be liberal. I would argue that liberalism itself has become ineffectual in the days when the political centre is collapsing in on itself, but that’s another topic for another time. It would help if Tim Farron wasn’t such a complete moron who can’t even defend his views on abortion, or homosexuality. Let’s face facts. Liberal or not, the Liberal Democrats are a train wreck of a party, and they’re the liberal party, then liberalism is fucked.

#KeeptheBan: I agree but please stop the virtue signalling

keep the ban

Now this is just naked guilt mongering. Loads of these memes can be found on your Facebook feed.

Last week, Theresa May sent the British left into a frenzy by promising a free vote on repealing the fox hunting ban if the Tories win the election, which we all know they will. For those who don’t know, fox hunting in Britain is a sport in which a group of people, led by a hunt master, hunt down a fox using trained dogs that chase the fox and kill it. In 2004, the Labour government passed the Hunting Act, which effectively banned the practice of hunting mammals with dogs, but the Conservatives have been trying to repeal the ban for years.

Naturally, leftists all over the country went into a fit of rage, and reacted in the only way they know how, by spreading more annoying memes that serve no purpose other than to remind you that you’re supposed to be voting Labour, and if you vote Conservative you’re somehow some kind of monster. I see these memes all over my Facebook feed, and all they do is turn a legitimate cause (protecting foxes from a cruel and barbaric practice) into something that you just roll your eyes at because of how cringeworthy people get when they’re virtue signalling.

To make myself clear, I definitely oppose fox hunting. I see no reason why it should be legal (though I have yet to hear a convincing pro-hunting case), and I completely agree with the argument that fox hunting is unethical. This is perhaps one of the few things I could possibly agree with the left on, but even when they’re right, the left can’t help but fuck it up. Only the progressives can turn a noble animal rights cause into a noxious guilt trip, and in my view that’s exactly what’s happened with the #KeeptheBan campaign.

The reason I’m concerned with the way supporters of the fox hunting ban are going about this is because of the pattern that I’ve been seeing with left-wing campaigns. Over the past few years, leftists have conducted their campaigns not by winning people over with a strong argument, because they don’t have the winning argument, but by appealing to people’s emotions, and making it seem like you are immoral for not supporting their cause. I’ve seen this over and over again, and the end result is that eventually only a few people end up supporting, because it turns out that making yourselves look like the good guys and guilt-tripping people into supporting you isn’t a very effective tactic, and the fact that the anti-fox hunting people are using these same virtue signalling tactics (at least with the cringy leftist memes) is a sign of their idiocy.

Besides, whether or not you agree with the fox hunting ban, surely there’s nothing wrong with having a vote on whether or not it should be repealed. It could be that most of the MP’s vote in favour of the ban. If they vote to repeal, then by all means protest the decision. Start petitions if you want (not that it will do any good). Hell, you could go a step further and form your own advocacy groups against fox hunting. Why not? It’s perfectly legal after all. My main criticism of Theresa May’s proposal is that it seemed like she was blatantly taking advantage of her high electoral chances. That sounds cynical, but given how she’s pretty much guaranteed to win the election, what other conclusion could I come to?

Nonetheless, it seems to have distracted a lot of people from the Brexit issue, which is all the election is about when you really think about it. That’s ultimately the other reason I don’t care a great deal about the fox hunting ban right now. There are better times to fight on this issue, but right now there are more important things than fox hunting. The country needs a leader who can tangle with the adversarial leaders of the EU, so that we can get out of the EU, fulfilling the will of the people. As much as I agree with the anti-fox hunting crowd on the basic premise, I’m afraid this is a fight they aren’t going to win.

The smug leftist

john oliver

That face when a hypocrite self-righteously scolds the entire country for not being as progressive as he is.

Over the past decade we in the West have had to live with a chattering, self-righteous left-wing elite that has somehow attached itself to mainstream culture, and in America, they are best represented by late night “comedians” such as Trevor Noah, Stephen Colbert, and of course, John Oliver. You may remember that I recently wrote a post in which I defended him from the more dimwitted members of the right (e.g. Jack Posobiec) who were acting like SJW’s in calling for him to be fired. Let the following be known – I still hate him!

I only defended him because my principles demanded it. It doesn’t change the fact that he is a liar, a hypocrite, and a devious propagandist. At this point, his entire raison d’être is to try and be more anti-Trump than his peers. Indeed, he has been one of the most ardent critics of the Trump administration, and in his criticism he has come to exemplify the smug liberal problem (Samantha Bee may deny it, but they really are the problem). Of course, like all the smug liberal elites, he doesn’t even practice what he preaches, and it turns out that John Oliver and his wife had purchased a $9.5 million Manhattan penthouse, using a tax loophole used by Donald Trump himself a few decades ago. And to add insult to injury, he did this months before his episode on the wealth gap.

The loophole I’m talking about is the 421-a tax exemption, which was designed in 1971 in order to encourage new development in vacant or underutilised property locations. Apparently Donald Trump wanted to use it in 1980 in order to turn the Bonwit Teller building into the famous Trump Tower. When the then-mayor Ed Koch wouldn’t allow him to, he sued the city, and won a $50 million tax exemption, and thereby established that all new developments could be written off under that provision. Years later, John Oliver, who condemns the wealthy elites on a regular basis, not only used that same rule to buy an expensive penthouse, but to do so he also hired Proskauer Rose LLP, a law firm that specialises in helping the wealthy find tax breaks.

I knew John Oliver was a liar, but this surprised even me. There you have definitive proof that John Oliver is a snake with no guiding principles, and that is because he is a neoliberal corporatist. He has to feign his left-wing stance in order to keep his career afloat. It should be fairly obvious that he and his ilk are rich enough that they would stand to gain from Donald Trump’s proposed tax cuts. He’s not even the only one to directly contradict himself. Take Samantha Bee, a woman generally known for barking on about how white people have “ruined America”, but her husband opposed a move to relocate their children’s school to an area that would make it more accessible to black schoolchildren (and claims that his opposition isn’t racist).

Of course, do we really expect the likes of John Oliver and Samantha Bee to have any principles? They’re the smug leftists, the bourgeoisie if you will. All that stops them from being true aristocrats is the fact that they probably weren’t born with blue blood. In the end, they only care about their self-centred, frivolous wants, even as they have the gall to criticise other rich people for the same kind of behaviour. Come to think about it, that whole progressive shtick is probably a scam too. I wonder how many wealthy socialites they know? If they’re celebrities they’ve surely attended a number of high-class parties that only the rich and famous will ever be invited to. As for that crap about caring for the poor, I wouldn’t be surprised if they cracked jokes about poor people with chortling laughter.

They’re all the same, and I guarantee that this anti-Trump crap is just for ratings. When John Oliver did his first anti-Trump rant, he got far more online traffic than anything else he had done prior to that. What that tells me is that he’s all too aware of what drive traffic to him, and he’s capitalising on that in order to further his career. They’re all liars, and the people who still watch them and take him with a little more than a grain of salt are either idiots who have never ventured outside cable TV, or their leftists themselves who buy the propaganda. Either way they’re a diminishing audience. TV as a medium is dying anyway, and in its death throes you still have the vestigial kings and queens of late night “comedy” attempting to preserve their hold on the public consciousness, and failing because on the Internet, the people can reveal how the really feel about the smug leftists who constantly talk down to them.

My thoughts on Marine le Pen and populism

marine le pen

Previously I didn’t bother commenting on the French election, mainly because I had far too much assignment work, and didn’t know much about French politics to adequately weigh in. Before the polls closed, I thought that Marine le Pen was the best choice for France, but only because I believed she would be the one to bring France out of the EU, hastening the EU’s demise. In fact, given everything that happened before the election, I thought le Pen’s victory was a certainty. So when Emmanuel Macron became President of France – in a landslide no less – I was undoubtedly shocked.

I absolutely despised the idea of a Macron presidency, mainly because he was the establishment candidate, the man who doesn’t give a damn about Islamic terrorism, such as the kind France experienced throughout last summer. He’s basically France’s Tony Blair, peddling the same “third-way” crap that we fell for back in the 1990’s (Macron is called a “centrist”, but he’s really a neoliberal). Given what we knew about Macron, it should have been easy to defeat Macron. However, I should have known that it would be foolish to assume that the wave of populism that succeeding in Britain and America could succeed everywhere just because that was the trend. If that were true, Geert Wilders would have won in a landslide.

What I should have accounted for is that Marine le Pen’s economic policies might have been her undoing. She is essentially a protectionist who wanted to make business pay more taxes for hiring foreigners, a policy even I as an anti-globalist would oppose because it’s downright ridiculous. The problem with Le Pen was that she was too extreme on economic policy. Frexit and scrapping the euro were fine ideas. In fact, that’s why I would have liked for her to win, but given her overall economic agenda, I think I can come to the conclusion that many of Macron’s voters didn’t actually agree with Macron’s agenda as a whole, but saw him as better for their financial interests than Le Pen.

It also doesn’t help that, despite Le Pen’s attempts to soften the party’s image, it can’t escape the controversial history of the Le Pen name. Le Pen’s father, Jean-Marie le Pen, was an out-and-out holocaust denier (if he didn’t deny it, he considered it “a minor detail in history”), and Le Pen herself claimed that French police did not round up French jews in the Vel’ d’Hiv in July 1942. Of course, she was lying. The incident she was talking about was the Vel’ d’Hiv Roundup, an incident in which, yes, French police officers rounded up and arrested Jews living in Paris and handed them over to the Nazis. The name of the incident comes from the arena where the captured Jews were contained before being shipped off to Auschwitz. The incident lives on as a moment of national shame for the French, and Le Pen’s attempt to gloss it over only made Front National seem more like the radical right wing party the media was portraying them to be.

In other words, Le Pen was a crap candidate, mainly because she failed to liberalise the party’s economic policies, and didn’t do enough to clean up the party’s extremist image. If you want my opinion, the party and its populist cause would be better served if the party were lead by someone other than a Le Pen.

Now that I’ve covered my thoughts of Le Pen, and I think I should talk about populism. I used to have a lot of disdain for the idea of populism, but then, I was a left-wing moron who took his definition of populism from the dying legacy media I was fighting. So first, I should clear up the definition of populism. Populism, in the strictest sense, is the idea of uniting the common people against the elites with the goal of meeting the needs of the common people in a society where their needs are constantly ignored by the mainstream political class. A populist can be left-wing (like Jean-Luc Mélenchon), right-wing (like Donald Trump), or somewhere close to the centre.

The main thing to remember about populists is that they typically thrive when none of the mainstream political parties will listen to the common people. In this situation, many ordinary working people will listen to the populists because they’re the only ones talking about their issues (for example, mass immigration depressing wages for the working class). When that happens, you see the elitists come out of the woodwork and attack them.

The elites try to suppress the influence of populism through use of the mainstream media, which has poisoned the term “populist” by conflating it with demagoguery and bigotry, with some occasional Nazi analogies thrown in. Of course we know the mentality. When the people vote the way the establishment wants, it’s called “democracy”, but when they don’t, it’s called “populism”, and that’s because the populists want to actually change the system, and this threatens the status quo created by the neoliberals, neoconservatives, and their corporate masters. They’re the ones that actually run the show, and the populists are their enemies.

In other words, I am a supporter of populism, though I’m more cautious of the populist candidates after Le Pen’s failure. Why do I support populism? Because regardless their ideological position, I think we need populists right now, because they expose the condition of the society they operate in. In a society in dire need of social change, there will always come a populist reformer, and the longer the state of decline happens, and depending on the condition of society, the more extreme the populists get, and the more people who are willing to turn to a charismatic leader to fix everything. So yes, I believe that populism is part of the life cycle of a society. If they succeed, then there’s a chance that society will improve. But if they fail, the society becomes even worse as the old elite ingratiates itself further at the expense of the common folk, and without any intervention, the society collapses.

In conclusion, the need for populism, even in France, is greater at this stage than at any point in modern history. The problem with Le Pen is that she was doomed from the start, and yet many prominent eurosceptics simply took sides with Le Pen purely because she was the Frexit candidate. For all the good she could have done, we eurosceptics were fools to blindly back the deeply flawed candidate that was Marine le Pen. I don’t think this will change the EU’s fortunes to their favour. They’re still doomed. We’ll simply have to wait a little longer for the EU’s inevitable collapse.

Why fire anyone? Screw the FCC!

I’ve always hated Federal Communications Commission, not just as an institution but the mere idea of it. How is it that the US constitution enshrines your right to say whatever you want, but somehow that right is not extended to TV? As someone who values free expression the FCC appals me, and it should appal all supporters of free speech whether you’re left-wing or right-wing. So it bothered me when the whole #FireColbert fracas showed up. Apparently the failing agitprop artist Stephen Colbert made a lame quip about Donald Trump’s mouth being fit only for being “Putin’s cock holster”, which is about the edgiest thing he’s said in years.

With #FireColbert, I think it was both the left and the right willing to piggyback on this, and I wouldn’t feel the need to bring it up at all were it not for the emergence of a second FCC-related hashtag campaign, this time targeting someone who I cannot believe I am forced to defend here. This week, John Oliver did a segment where he again campaigns for net neutrality (which is actually one of the few things I agree with him on), in light of the Trump administration’s plans to roll back Obama-era net neutrality laws.

He launched a campaign called “Go FCC Yourself”, in which he urged viewers to send complaints to FCC chairman Ajit Pai, in the hope that he might reconsider his plans axe regulations put in place under the Obama administration. However, the campaign seems to have been marked by DDOS attacks against the FCC, which appear to have happened soon after the campaign. FCC executive Matthew Berry also took to Twitter to denounce the many racist messages and death threats that people have submitted seemingly through Oliver’s campaign.

Many people have lashed out against John Oliver on Twitter, including Rebel Media reporter Jack Posobiec, who accuses John Oliver of deliberately inciting “racist fans” to attack the FCC, as if the FCC did nothing wrong. Oh but it gets better. Now Posobiec wants you to think John Oliver is some sort of “racist hatemonger”. What the hell is he thinking? He’s literally playing the race card in the same way the SJW’s always done, and his followers are eating it up. In fact, various other right-wingers, in their zeal to get him fired, are now starting to sound exactly like the authoritarian leftists they despise. It’s not just on Twitter. On Milo Yiannopoulos’ post sharing an article I found, several commenters seem more interested in the fact that John Oliver is a leftist, than the dilemma posed by the FCC getting involved. They don’t care because John Oliver is a political opponent of theirs.

They don’t seem to be getting that this is the exact same problem, but because the FCC is targeting leftist comedians for “obscenity”, somehow it’s okay. I can guarantee however that if the FCC-compliant Steven Crowder did the exact same kind of campaign that John Oliver did, and people sent racist messages through it, he would likely come under fire from the authorities too, but everyone on the right would defend him. In fact, I suspect that most of these right-wingers don’t care about the FCC now that Donald Trump is the president, but if Hillary Clinton had gotten elected, then they would be the first to oppose the very existence of the FCC.

I really dislike having to defend John Oliver, but this time, he is actually innocent, or at least I think he had good intentions with his campaign, but he grossly underestimated what could happen with online campaigns. The problem here is that the campaign was a golden opportunity for people who wanted to screw with him. Think about it. The campaign was filled with bot accounts, and was apparently a conduit for DDOS attackers. This tells me that his campaign might have been intercepted by malevolent individuals who probably hate John Oliver to the point that they wanted to make him look bad, so they hijack his online campaign by sending DDOS attacks to the FCC, and flooding the comment section with racist bot comments in order to make it look like John Oliver was leading an army of racists, hackers and trolls against the FCC. That’s my theory at least.

Of course, nobody seems to be interested in the more important question – why does the FCC even exist? All it does is impose stifling regulations on TV and radio, and thanks to them, American cable television is so heavily regulated that nearly all of it is boring, offensively bland, and so formulaic that it it’s incapable of edgy, boundary-pushing content. Just about all the TV imported to Britain is forced to comply with these regulations, so for me, it’s no different to watching heavily regulated British television.

I think a lot of the controversy, particularly with regards to Stephen Colbert, could be resolved if President Trump did the noble thing, and simply axed the FCC. If he did that, not only would he save money by eliminating a pointless regulatory body, but he would also attract more supporters, especially from libertarians such as myself. Again, I don’t like defending people like John Oliver. I’ve gone on record denouncing him as a liar, and I consider him to be a hypocrite (which I’ll talk about in a later post), but I also believe that it’s wrong to try and get him fired because of something that offended you, which is what the left has been doing for the past few years. With Trump in power, am I going to have to sit here and watch the right turn into the left? I should hope not, but as the Trump years drag on, I worry that this may be an inevitable reality.

The death of UKIP

ukip

It could be said that the local elections were a harbinger of things to come in next month’s general election, and it’s fairly easy to see why. The Conservatives have made significant gains in local council seats, while Labour have suffered significantly. However, I doubt that the elections have been any worse for anyone than they have been for the UK Independence Party, having lost all but a single council seat.

Many were quick to declare the death of UKIP, and now even Nigel Farage, the former leader of the party, has little hope of the party lasting longer than two years. In all fairness, they’re right. The whole point of UKIP was to achieve Britain’s emancipation from the European Union, and thanks to last year’s historic referendum, that goal will be achieved, rendering UKIP obsolete as a party (though there are still a small amount of loyal supporters willing to vote for them).

I sort of expected this to happen, and I thought that they might steal Labour seats from the north in the next election. What I should have expected was that the UKIP would lose seats to the Tories, but now that that’s the case, it’s likely that UKIP has absolutely no chance in the upcoming election, and they probably won’t even have a single seat, and probably won’t even reclaim the seat Douglas Carswell gave up. In other words, UKIP’s fate is sealed.

So to the people who think UKIP are “fascists” or “Nazis”, don’t worry. UKIP aren’t a threat. In fact, if you’re a Remainer you should be happy that Brexit is even happening, because the success of Brexit will kill UKIP as a party, so if you want UKIP gone, you want Brexit to work. Besides, UKIP is probably decaying its own thanks to years of political infighting, and the ineptitude of its leader Paul Nuttall. At this rate, if they don’t disband within the next two years, then they’ll pretty much become the equivalent of America’s Constitution Party, a fringe right-wing party that never makes any electoral gains (at least no significant gains anyway), and has no influence on the political landscape in any significant way.

That is the future for UKIP, but I think the people in UKIP are already aware of that. I’d suggest rebranding the party but I think it’s too late. Paul Nuttall did consider rebranding the party for the next general election, but now that we have a snap election, he’s got no time to rebrand, and had shelved the idea. I very much doubt that there’s anything that will save UKIP’s fortunes, whether the party rebrands or not. I suppose it wouldn’t make much of a difference with Farage still leading the party.

They may yet be gone in a few years, but at the very least they will be remembered for exerting the amount of pressure on the government necessary for accomplishing the goal that they had set out to do – triggering an EU membership referendum which successfully results in a UK withdrawal. Of course, they will be forever reviled by what remains of the globalist, Marxist left in the future, but I believe that history will remember them in a positive light, if mainly because the Brexiteers will become the new establishment (with Theresa May embracing hard Brexit, that is already happening). However, I doubt that UKIP will get much credit. After all, history is written by the winners.