Woe is Ukip

For 'yonks' this country's membership of the European Union has never registered with the British public as an election issue; albeit that the politicians from the Lib/Lab/Con have refused to discuss it; the media have refused to raise it at election time as an issue; and the only party against said membership - Ukip - has gone about their business in what can only be described as an amateurish manner.


It is accepted that for what is considered a 'minor party', in political terms, to gain media attention is extremely difficult - especially with a media that is undoubtedly 'influenced' by the Lib/Lab/Con with their dire threats of 'non-access' should what may be termed 'negative copy' be filed. Having made that basic point, one would have thought that in the current climate, where the subject of membership of the European Union - and of that body itself - has been one of the main topics in the news, Ukip would have polled highly. That this did not happen may be due to the 'bounce' Cameron and his party received from Cameron's non-veto on the non-treaty. Digressing slightly, that was some 'bounce' when considering that the Conservative candidate actually lost votes compared to the 2010 general election.


That there is something greatly amiss in Ukip's strategy is even more self-evident, especially considering what can only be termed their dismal showing in Feltham & Heston. Ukip have, of late, made much of the fact that nationally they are polling 8%, compared to the national figure of 7% for the Liberal Democrats - but one has to say that surely, in these circumstances Ukip should have been polling in the 'upper teens' as a bare minimum. I think that all - maybe with one or two exceptions - would agree that Nigel Farage is charismatic, likable and appeals to a great number of people because he tends to speak in 'plain English', unlike most politicians. Yet the point has to be made - what is the benefit of making what some have termed 'barnstorming' speeches in the EU Parliament, or on Russia Today, when they are only available to those with internet access, said speeches and interviews being totally ignored by our MSM?


The problem that Ukip has is not just with the strategy, one presumably 'directed' by Nigel Farage - it goes much, much deeper. Those of us who are members of Ukip are continuously reminded that to gain national seats it is absolutely necessary that local seats are obtained. Yet when, in conversation with a Regional Organiser, I raised the question of how many branches had anyone conversant with election law, or had anyone with the faintest idea how to conduct an election campaign, the answer received was that the figure would be extremely few. Having done both with the Conservative Party - when I was a member - and offering to visit branches to talk about these two aspects, among others,  I was advised that it would be considered. Since then - four weeks ago, come next weekend - the response has been deafening by its silence. That a 'following' can be gained is only too apparent when considering Aylesbury or Ramsey at the time of the last local elections - yet, again, it is obvious that 'lessons have not been learnt', something 'par for the course' where politicians of any party is concerned.


Richard North, EU Referendum, together with Helen, Your Freedom and Ours, pass on their own views on this subject. Richard North is of the opinion that it may be worthwhile to formulate a gathering together of  interested parties and disaffected 'eurosceptics' to see whether there is a common, positive ideology that could unite us all, and provide a standard around which the disaffected of this nation can muster. I am of the opinion that the core already exists and it exists within Ukip. The problem is the present strategy - and those dictating said strategy - and both need changing. Perhaps it is possible that those within Ukip who recognise that a problem exists - and those ex-members, who could perhaps 'bury the hatchet', got together to discuss a way forward.


This is not to suggest creating a division within Ukip, but merely to educate a few people in that party. When considering the standard of response the Albion Alliance received from Ukip candidates during the campaign they carried out with candidates of all parties, prior to the general election of 2010, there is definitely one hell of a lot of education required where Ukip is concerned. As readers will be aware, I am a great advocate of 'Referism' and 'Direct Democracy' and I would have thought that those ideals would be the cornerstone of a party that has the word 'Independence' in its title - independence not only for the country, but independence for the people.






Just saying..............

We can trust politicians and their sycophants to be truthful?

Benedict Brogan, writing in the Daily Telegraph, states the obvious when he writes that Cameron is now engaged in a major operation of keeping the Coalition together (something most of us had realised for some time now, BB). He does raise one good question which is what, exactly, does Cameron do next, having raised the expectations of his supposedly 'eurosceptic' backbenchers. It would be nice to believe that Cameron and his backbenchers know damn well they can't repatriate one single comma of the Lisbon Treaty without the agreement of the other 26 - but hey, we are talking Conservative Party here........

Tim Montgomerie tweets:

"Tories hit 41%. Clear message: Voters like strength, honesty, patriotism (roughly in that order). EU is now no.3 issue http://cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/kr7zejcby7/YG-Archives-Pol-Sun-results-131211.pdf"

If only Cameron did exhibit 'strength' ('U'Turns?); 'honesty' (Localism Bill, Recall Bill, Repatriation?); and 'patriotism' (Rule from abroad by the EU?); but hey, we are talking Cameron here........

And we, the people, are kept 'informed' of the true facts in an impartial manner?

When will we love Ukip?

Peter Oborne, in that which will probably be the 'op-ed' piece for tomorrow's Daily Telegraph has what, for him, is a reasonable bit of prose and one which makes a fair number of good points - although he who is probably my favourite blogger will probably disagree! As a member of Ukip, the comments I am about to make - ones well known to those in the upper echelons - will no doubt bring forth criticism.

Oborne is no doubt correct when he maintains that Ukip is the Conservative Party in exile (or what used to be the Conservative Party before the 'Cameron rebranding' changed it beyond all recognition). One only has to read Ukip's manifesto to realise that the policies on which Ukip campaigns is that on which the original Conservative Party campaigned. Ukip suffers, without doubt, from the label of being a 'one-trick-pony', namely exiting membership of the European Union, one which unfortunately for them is firmly fixed in the mindset of the electorate

That this is due to a lack of good presentation of their policies, an abysmal website and bad administration is, I believe, matters that are undeniably true. That Farage is an extremely good speaker, one who uses language with which the man in the street can resonate is, again, undeniable and as an example of that it is only necessary to see the reaction he received from the audience of Question Time last week where that audience made their views plain. However it would seem from appearances that Farage has committed the error, one practised by all party leaders, of having surrounded himself with sycophants; otherwise I maintain the party would be polling far better than it has of late - and that is not to decry the recent improvement the party has made, albeit one that can be laid at the door of the heightened present coverage of the EU in the media.

The other criticism I have - and it is purely a personal one - is that Ukip appear to wish for the continuance of the existing system of representative democratised dictatorship, albeit with more use of referenda, rather than a participatory system of democracy. The latter would 'sit' well within their stated view that the people should have more choice in 'government' on both a national and local level. That a participatory form of democracy is one that would gain a following, once it is understood, is, again I believe, unarguable and Ukip have the 'voice' and 'means' of promoting it. Consider: if, as Ukip maintain on the question of sovereignty, the people's voice must be heard; once they have regained their sovereignty, should they not have a voice in the continuation of their country's independence and what laws are proposed?

Just saying Nigel, just saying..............

So all those Tory rebels were 'eurosceptics' were they?

"I'm not upset that you lied to me, I'm upset that from now on I can't believe you."
Friedrich Nietzsche

With all the political commentators, Conservative Home and Jacob Reese Mogg maintaining that the Conservative Party are by nature eurosceptics and that 81 of their number voted accordingly, a small paragraph at the end of an article by James Kirkup in today's Daily Telegraph caught my eye (unfortunately it does not appear to be on line). In this article he quotes Conservative MPs who say they are worried about reselection come the new boundary changes and at the end of the article comes this:

"One rebel confessed: "I'm actually not particularly anti-European. If there was a referendum tomorrow, I'd vote to stay in. Supporting the motion was partly about keeping faith with the people who sent me here and partly about taking a swing at No10."

This unnamed rebel will not be the only one from the 81 holding similar beliefs and reasons for rebelling, hence the electorate has every reason to be doubtful when a Conservative MP declares himself a eurosceptic. The fact that this rebel is prepared to disregard his/her constituent's faith speaks volumes about polititians principle's and their sense of honour.

And people are petitioning for a second debate on the referendum question? Bearing in mind the above - for what and why, exactly?

Lobbying one's MP - or as I wished, just lob!

I spent a delightful day yesterday in London, sharing the company of Mark Wadsworth, The Boiling Frog, The Talking Clock, Katabasis and Harry Aldridge amongst others. Having previously assembled on College Green where a demonstration of defiance was staged by Ukip against the impending debate and vote in the House of Commons, processed around Parliament Square, it was time for a drink or two prior to queuing to lobby our individual MPs. Having waited for two hours, the queue being allowed entry in groups of 30, it was our turn, where security is akin to that at airports. Never having visited Parliament previously it was an intriguing experience - on entering one has to obtain a green card on which it has to be stated the MP you wish to see, your name and address and the subject matter to be discussed. From 'the lobby area' a short corridor leads to another vestibule area beyond which are the doors, opposite the Speaker, into the chamber. The short corridor is guarded by two members of Plod to ensure that those members of the public who do not have the requisite piece of paper cannot proceed further. After two hours, during which my MP appeared not, I approached one Plod and requested whether it would be possible for him to go and finger the collar of my MP and inform him he was wanted for questioning. This met with a wry laugh from Plod and, needless to say, a refusal. 

At 6:15pm it was necessary to leave as The Boiling Frog and I wished to attend a debate held by the Bruges Group, the debate being entitled "Euroscepticism or Secession". The speakers were supposed to be Peter Hitchens and Mark Pritchard MP, however with the parliamentary debate having been brought forward obviously Mark Pritchard was unable to attend and his place was taken by David Campbell-Bannerman MEP who had, a few months ago, defected from Ukip and joined the Conservative Party. Peter Hitchens was on good form and tore into the Conservative Party and Cameron to the extent that both were left in tatters. At one point Campbell-Bannerman made the statement, in answer to a question, that he did not believe in 'renegotiation' and preferred a 'free trade' type of association with the EU. This prompted me to ask him the following question (verbatim):

"It would be agreed by most people gathered here that a most important deficit in our democracy is the lack of principle and honour of politicians. Bearing this in mind I would like to ask Mr. Bannerman whether it was political principle that made him join a party with whose views he was at such variance"

Needless to say the question was not answered. There will no doubt be a video of the proceedings produced by the Bruges Group and when available I will post a link to this. It was also a delight to make the acquaintance of Helen, Your Freedom and Ours, a most delightful lady and one whose views I hold in high regard.

I am now going to listen to the debate in the HoC and will be posting on that later today. 


Update: The Bruges Group have made available videos of the speeches by Campbell-Bannerman and Hitchens:

".....there were hundreds of empty seats at the back of the hall for Cameron's speech"

So posts the self-opionated, self-publicist of the Conservative Party.

Methinks young Tim needs to remember that if the star comedian is not that highly thought of.........

The cost is neither here nor there - remember the likes of Les Dawson, Bernard Manning, Max Miller, Tim? People travelled miles, at great personal cost, to hear them and they played to packed houses.

Just saying........... (as always!)

Afterthought: On the subject of Max Miller, a short monologue:

"I like the girls who do,
I like the girls who don't:
I like the girls who say they will,
And then decide they won't.
But the girls I like the most of all,
And I know you'll think I'm right,
Are the girls that say they never will,
But look as though they might!"

More cockwaffle from some cockwafflers

It is expected that come 'Conference Season' the media will be full of utter claptrap written for one reason and one reason alone - promotion of whichever political party the authors support. The latest example appears in tomorrow's Sunday Telegraph, a piece authored by Tim Montgomerie and Stephan Shakespeare.

That the Conservative Party is a mess is probably the result of being led by a mess; 'mess' being a pseudonym for David Cameron. That these two authors should write that Cameron should instigate changes that he cannot due to his subservience to the EU and changes that he cannot due to his inability to think, clearly should result in two outcomes.

Montgomerie should stick to managing a website where ideological reasoning is not required - and where future literary attempts are required, Shakespeare should be 'bard'

We've heard this all before

With the Conservative Party conference about to begin, Cameron hits the press with this piece in the Mail which can only be described as yet more political claptrap. The first bit of claptrap comes in his opening paragraph when he states his party will not be meeting to talk amongst themselves but to talk to the nation; yet of course that is exactly what the Conservative Party will do, as do Labour and the Liberal Democrats, whilst allowing the nation to listen in. He writes about the worries of every home in paying rising energy bills, yet who condones the continuance of those worries by his insistence of continued servitude to Brussels who sets the parameters by which energy bills continue to rise? He writes about laying the foundations for a solid future and that as we are not in the euro, that can be done on our terms. We may not be in the euro but we sure as hell are liable for future bail-out sums via the IMF until 2013 and we sure as hell are subject to economic oversight by the EU Commission, with further 'controls' in the pipeline. He also raises the red herring of immigration and the cost of welfare for those immigrants, conveniently omitting the fact that he cannot limit those from the EU and equally he is unable to stop those EU immigrants getting all the benefits of the welfare system.

In a separate article in the same newspaper we are informed that Cameron promises to slash red tape, although in Cameron's piece he does not explicity say that - which is probably just as well because we have heard that from him before here, and here and we are still waiting for it to happen, which it can't again due to EU membership. As Alex Brummer, This is Money, writes:

"Phrases like ‘ending the red tape’ of legislation which has tied business in knots, and a ‘bonfire of the quangos’ trip off the tongues of our politicians so very easily, and are a standard part of almost every speech made on business by prime ministers, business secretaries or chancellors."

Richard North, EU Referendum, 'fisks' Charles Moore's op-ed piece in today's Daily Telegraph, to which little can be added, other than the fact that all Cameron can do where the governance of this country is concerned is 'whistle in the dark'. I can but reiterate that which Richard North writes, that our democratic system is totally unfit for purpose and is rotten to the core both morally and financially. On this subject an interesting article appears in the Daily Telegraph by Graeme Archer; and one passage is worthy of note:

"....... but I’ve never believed the reductionist argument which says we cast our vote primarily for economic reasons. We vote because there’s something about society we want to see re-engineered. Conservatives feel let down, not because the deficit is being tackled, but because too much in society feels the same as it did before the election. They understand that Mr Cameron requires Lib Dem votes to retain his anti-Labour majority, and that being politically shackled to the decaying Lib Dem corpse prevents the introduction, in this parliament, of proper Tory measures – such as tackling the Human Rights Act."

We may well vote in the hope that society will be re-engineered, but it never is - at least not in the way people would like to see. It never will be either, whilst politicians can act as elected dictators and decide matters amongst themselves, consequently, under the present system of democracy, they are wasting their vote.

Reverting to the subject of claptrap, we get more of this from Philip Hammond who again is on his HS2 'hobbytrain' with this article - never heard of TEN-T then, Mr. Hammond? John Redwood posts on the government's plans where development of our rail network is concerned. That the "Delivery Plan" seems to have totally ignored the EU's intended legislation that the user pays and subsidies will not be allowed appears to have escaped their attention - and that of John Redwood. That the "Delivery Plan" reads like the old USSR Tractor Stats makes one wonder whether this document is Tract or Fiction?

We are indeed being led by our political elite like sheep to the slaughter - and still the people remain unaware. No doubt the lightbulb will come on just as the bolt to put them out of their misery is about to be fired into their brains.

The Agenda for the "Conservative" Party Conference

This is the home page of the Conservative Party website; and the agenda for their 2011 conference has been published here.

Two points:

• I am unable to find any statement on the Conservative Party website setting out their core beliefs or political creed;

• Can anyone name one of the stated topics for discussion/debate in which the EU does not share competence - especially the last item at 14:30 on Wednesday 5th October?

And the Conservative Party is a 'Eurosceptic' Party?
 
Just asking.............

Fe-fi-faux-fum

I smell the blood of an Englishman - and blood there may well be some time in the future when the people will, no doubt wake up far too late, regardless of what may be thought by others.

It is conference time again and where the Conservative Party are concerned that means a change of attire, whereby the don their 'anti-EU' garb in order to impress fool the electorate yet again. As Richard North, EU Referendum, so rightly says, this story is nothing but another attempt to make the Conservative Party appear anti-EU, something which we know to be the exact opposite bearing in mind the words of his Party Leader who has stated that out future lies in continued membership of the EU. In order to ensure that EU memebership does not become 'the' topic of the Conservative Party conference we get this article from the BBC featuring a plea by Nick Boles that the topics with which the British public are most concerned about are growth, jobs and the rising cost of fuel, not their little petty obsessions. The fact that the rising cost of fuel can be laid at the very door of those about which he does not want his party to become obsessed illustrates just what a narrow and small mind Master Boles possesses - but hey, fairs fair, he is but a Conservative politician. With regard to Boles, it has long been held that he is the unofficial mouthpiece of Cameron - presumably the 'bottom' one - so anything that Boles says can be taken with the required sheets of Andrex.

During the run-up to the Conservative Party conference we have been presented with an 'alternative' view of what that party should stand for with the publication of a paper authored by Dominic Raab, Andrea Leadsom and others. Lo and behold, yet another view has been authored by Graham Brady, Geoffrey Cox, Edward Leigh, Colin Moynihan, John Baron and David Davis. In his introduction to this new 'alternative' view of what the Conservative Party should stand for John Redwood uses the word 'we', so one can but presume he is in full agreement with its stated aims. Redwood writes:

"We want affordable and effective government, doing those things which only government can do. We prefer our government to be more enabler than provider. We like government to remember that the best answer for most people most of the time is that they be left free enough to take responsibility for their own lives." (Emphasis mine)

We all know that government can 'do' squat diddly, as they have demonstrated time and time again, so it must surely be that government butts-out of trying to 'do' anything - other than that which the people have said they want done. To state that government should be more enabler than provider is but code for allowing people to do whatever they want, providing our elected dictators have permitted same. As for the part in which Redwood states that people should be left free to take responsibility for their own lives, then why the hell is he a proponent for government?

That Open Europe has long been held as a mouthpiece for Cameron's vision of EU membership is amply demonstrated by this post. For an organisation which appears to pride itself on the research papers that it produces, it is totally amazing that they fail to mention that which Richard North highlighted, namely the hand of Blair. At the same time, whilst FactCheck are correct when they write:

"Given this dubious evidence base, Mr Duncan Smith’s comments are going to stay firmly down at the Fiction end of the FactCheck-o-meter for the time being."

it would seem that they need to get the full facts.

If the Conservative Party 'faux eurosceptics' really wished to 'stir the pot' then they would be discussing this snippet of news, one supplied by Ian Parker-Joseph!

The Conservative Party and 'Europe'

Much has appeared in the press and blogosphere about the 90 Conservative MPs and their meeting tonight to discuss how to dilute the effects of our membership of the EU without causing David Cameron too much of a problem.

Amongst those who have articles are: Lord Tebbit; David Davis; Bernard Jenkin; George Osborne; John Redwood; Your Freedom and Ours; and Douglas Carswell. The latter had obviously been reading the paper published by Open Europe yesterday as he is already putting forward the idea of Euro-Localism. Reading this latest paper by Open Europe only confirms Richard North's assertion that they are but a mouthpiece for Cameron's vision of our participation in the EU.

Helen, Your Freedom and Ours, wonders whether Hague is looking to the future, one where Cameron and Osborne are toast and he is the only 'leader left? Bearing in mind Hague's categorical statement (foot of article) that leadership in the future was not on the cards one might say that idea is a non-starter. However, knowing that 'U' turns are all the vogue Cameron at present, Helen's thoughts may not be that far out.

Autonomous Mind has suggested that the term 'Eurosceptic' is now outmoded and that 'Europlastic' is more in keeping with the present stance of Conservative MPs. Might I suggest that for any politician who believes in the subjugation of our nation through rule from abroad, the term 'Euroturd' might be more pertinent?