Nigel Farage: A keynote speech on the role of the state

At this event, Nigel Farage, leader of UKIP, spoke at the Institute for Government on the role of the state and how his party would run a government.

Introducing the event, Institute for Government Director Peter Riddell noted that Mr Farage is the first party leader for over a century to see his party beat both Labour and the Conservatives in a national vote.

Mr Farage opened by acknowledging that although UKIP was highly unlikely to form the next government it would be in a position to affect other parties’ manifestos and may even gain some MPs at the next general election. Its view on the role of government was, he said, potentially very important.

Mr Farage lamented the breakdown in trust between voters and government and argued that government has been given away to institutions in Brussels, citing Roman Herzog’s estimations of the percentage of German laws made at EU-level. He said that the UK is not a self-governing nation because things like employment law, trade deals, agriculture and fisheries decisions and energy policy are decided within the EU. He argued that decisions should be made through intergovernmental co-operation rather than political assimilation.

Mr Farage proposed three areas for debate:

1. Direct democracy via the instruments of national referendums and MP recall: Mr Farage said direct democracy should be employed when the political class have got too far out of touch with public opinion. He argued that, like the Swiss model, a national referendum should be triggered when five per cent of the population demands one. He suggested that foreign military interventions would be far less likely under direct democracy. Mr Farage also said that a system for recalling MPs and triggering by-elections had the potential to engage voters in the democratic process. He did accept that both instruments might be open to abuse by campaigning organisations but said that he trusted the public not use them in a frivolous way.

2. Government funding of NGOs, and their influence: Mr Farage said most people believe the big, recognisable NGOs are funded by the public, but suggested that instead they are heavily funded by government at both a national and European level. He argued that the government should not fund organisations that lobby it.

3. A radical cutting back of the size and powers of quangos: Mr Farage called the ‘quangocracy’ a system which rewards members of the political class for helping their parties. He emphasised that UKIP has not yet reached the point of discussing which Whitehall departments it would abolish or merge, but announced that the party would be lobbying for radical cutsto the size, funding and power of quangos.

In response to questions from Mr Riddell, Mr Farage said that referendums would be a ‘backstop’ to prevent action, rather than a way of compelling the government to act.

When Mr Riddell pointed out the paradox in believing sovereignty should lie in Britain but wanting to undermine it through direct democracy, Mr Farage replied that Parliament has betrayed public trust and that he would favour a written constitution to prevent it abusing its position.

When asked what his domestic priorities would be, Mr Farage responded that he would like to see simplicity and deregulation. Mr Riddell suggested the implication was that UKIP favours a smaller state. Mr Farage agreed but is also deeply cynical about outsourcing and private companies making a profit from government functions.

On how a UKIP-influenced government would make long-term decisions on things like education and infrastructure, Mr Farage said that parliamentary democracy already creates problems of four- or five-year policy directions which change when a different party is elected. He accepted that direct democracy could have the same effect, but if politicians had to look over their shoulders when making decisions that could only be a good thing. He argued that enabling people to call a referendum on a national issue or sack their MP would empower them and be a recipe for bringing back trust in government.