A few observations on respect

Understandably the airwaves are full of the news that George Galloway has triumphed in the Bradford West by-election, with accusations full of recrimination coupled with other articles containing supposed enlightened comment flying about left, right and centre. Methinks all need to calm down as one or two matters do not appear to have been considered, namely;

• What percentage of the votes cast for Galloway were postal votes;
• What percentage of those postal votes were from the ethnic electorate;
• What were the percentages of ethnic votes by races and religion;
• What percentage of those postal votes could be considered 'justifiable';
• Galloway has in the past shamelessly played the 'Palestine' factor while campaigning; consequentl he brought together his anti-war, pro-Palestine views and aimed his message at the ethnic community;
• Galloway is a politician and consequently any views he expresses about speaking and caring for the people of Bradford West can only be viewed with suspicion, especially when one bears in mind his parliamentary attendance just before and after the 2005 general election.

In view of the above I would tend to disagree with those who hold that this result was a rejection of the Lib/Lab/Con and all for which those parties stand. Is not the public perception of our political elite as one that comprises white, educational elitists who have never had a real job and consequently invite ridicule when they talk about hard-working families? Was this not a by-election and not are such events renowned for protest votes?


Cranmer has written what can be considered a condemnation of Ukip and Nigel Farage, which brought forth a comment on twitter that Ukip needed to change their strategy in order to win - a comment which, in turn, prompted my response querying how can one change something that does not exist in the first place. To be fair to Ukip, it could be suggested that they were on what may be termed a hiding to nothing in a constituency that contains significant numbers from abroad, a section of our population that Ukip have vowed to repatriate.


It is worth considering other factors following the result of Bradford West. 

• With Galloway being a 'lone voice' in Westminster, will he now be ostracised by his fellow MPs?
• Has Galloway 'debased' our electoral system with what may be termed a cynical campaign in which he targeted and exploited ethnicity?
• Has the policy of multiculturalism not polarised the political views of electorates as a result of ghettoising areas of the country - for example, Bradford, Leicester and Newham?
• Would Direct Democracy, with that system's inbuilt ability of the electorate to challenge government policy, have allowed multiculturalism and wars to proceed?
• Had Direct Democracy been the 'norm', would the platform on which Galloway stood have existed; and would politicians such as Galloway exist?

Just asking....................

Clegg: a different galaxy

Nick Clegg must by now be wishing that he hadn't joined the political club who's motto must surely be: "I so wish I hadn't said that." From the Daily Telegraph and an article in which it is reported that Clegg is demanding a 'typhoon tax':

".......It makes people so incredibly angry when you are getting up early in the morning, working really hard to try and do the right thing for your family and for your community, you are paying your taxes and then you see people literally in a different galaxy who are paying extraordinarily low rates of tax."

And which galaxy would that be, one can but wonder. The one in Brussels whereby one can enjoy a short working week, low taxation, free schooling for your children, generous pensions and allowances; or the one in Westminster that provides cheap food and drink, that pays what is a ridiculously high salary for little, if any, productivity and where honour and principle have been left at the door?


Damian Thompson, in his normal Daily Telegraph Saturday comment piece, reckons that the 'middle middle' are lost to the Tories. Condemning Cameron and Osborne as 'toffs' and whether they will be smirking at us 'underlings', Thompson ends:

"Come election day, an awful lot of retired men in blazers will be enjoying a leisurely game of golf rather than ferrying old ladies to the polling station. When they reach the 19th hole, they’ll pour themselves a G and T and say: “Looks like Labour will get back in, doesn’t it?” And then they’ll shrug their shoulders and go back to talking about cruise holidays or some other subject that our one-term Prime Minister finds amusingly common."

 Raedwald has an amusing post on the subject of the Guardian article - which in turn refers to the paper published by Goodwin and Evans, which I mentioned in a previous post - about what he terms "equating UKIP, the EDL and the BNP as part of a shared 'armed rising' fantasy". Referring to Ukip supporters, Raedwald ends:

"He's not an Enemy of the State, a dangerous radical, a subversive, or any of the filthy things the Guardian may want to term him in its nasty little campaign of vilification. To dun Chesterton's words, smile at him, pay him, pass him but do not quite forget England's full of such good men who haven't spoken yet."

Unlike Damian Thompson, who mentions he has to yet meet Cameron, I have on a number of occasions and I have to admit that it would be difficult to meet a more pleasant and well-mannered individual. However I would readily agree that beneath the veneer of pleasantness there appears to lurk another characteristic, one that can best be summed up with the word 'patronising'. In the use of that word lies a certain amount of truth when the deficits in our democracy are raised. Observe any politician and the 'presence' that they bring with them, one which immediately conveys an impression of not being one of us, of being 'special'. Did not Eric Joyce intimate he could not be touched because he was an MP? Of course Clegg believes he is special as he appears able to see into other galaxies - yet he is not that special in that he is unable to see what is happening less than two hundred miles distant.


That in 2015, or maybe earlier, through the apathy of the electorate he who Thompson refers to as a one-time prime minister may be kicked out only to let back in another bunch of self-serving 'specials' - and the same ones who created the present mess we find ourselves - speaks not a great deal for our system of democracy, a system that allows them to act as an elective dictatorship. Neither does it say much for the electorate who, spending most of their time complaining about the status quo, bother not to ask themselves if an alternative, better, system exists ie, is there a better way?


There are those who will maintain that we can rid ourselves of the Lib/Lab/Con parasites, at the ballot box, by favouring Ukip, a party that has leanings towards direct democracy with their promise of the introduction of referendums. It would perhaps help were we able to be certain that this is the case - unfortunately their latest manifesto is far from clear on that point. Ukip also seem typically vague on their recall mechanism too. When the choice of where to cast your vote is concerned, one can but recall  the words of Nigel Farage: "You can't get a cigarette paper between them".

Another 'look' at Ukip's 'New' Policies

Following on from my previous post, another aspect of Ukip's 'New' policy document raises yet another problem with me and this one is to do with the subject of the recall of MPs. We all know that political manifestos are worded in such loose terms as to be virtually meaningless and that that which is promised, when realised, bears no relation to the original promise.


Consider the Coalition's promise contained in their Programme for Government (paqe 27) in which was 'promised':

"We will bring forward early legislation to introduce a power of recall, allowing voters to force a by-election where an MP is found to have engaged in serious wrongdoing and having had a petition calling for a by-election signed by 10% of his or her constituents."

As we all know now, that 'power of recall' is dependent on a committee of an MP's peers agreeing to the demands of a constituency - in other words voters can force squat-diddly!


Now consider Ukip's 'promise' contained in their document "The Constitution", in which it is stated:

"Introduce a right of recall whereby electors can challenge an errant MP and force a by-election in exceptional circumstances, such as abuse of expenses"

I have to ask what, exactly, is the difference twixt the two? Does not that of Ukip imply that it will not be the electorate's decision? Does that not imply that the present situation, whereby politicians 'look after their own', will continue?


How about political parties 'spelling out' that which they mean, when issuing 'promises'? How about Ukip doing likewise - or are they too, despite their Libertarian claims, a practitioner and believer of 'central control'? How about Ukip learning from the errors of another party?


Digressing slightly, Dougas Carswell complains today about civil servants 'controlling' ministers and calls for civil servants and ministers to appear before the relevant Select Committee to justify their annual budget with the proviso that no approval means no fee. Should not 'Government' also appear before their electorate for approval of their spending plans on the same basis of no approval, no fee? If Ukip maintain that they are a party for 'small government', should not that aspect of 'Referism' also be part of their manifesto?


Helen, Your Freedom and Ours, posts on Ukip and queries their lack of strategy. As I have commented, Ukip's problem appears to be that they believe the word 'strategy' is spelt F A R A G E! One can but hope that Alexandra Swann may be able, without ruffling too many feathers, to change their strategy!


Not another amendment to something which they have, allegedly, been doing since 2010....?

C'mon Ukip, make your mind up

I have been reading the 'New' Constitution on the Ukip website and am slightly puzzled by apparent contradictions where the granting of referenda are concerned.


In the section "What We Stand For" it states: "Give the public power to require binding local and national referenda on major issues."


In the section "Criminal Justice" it states: "Allow binding national referenda on controversial public law and order issues that are outside party politics. The public must have the final say."


In the section "Constitution" it states: "Introduce ‘Direct Democracy’ whereby 5% of the national or local electorate can demand a binding referendum on any issue."


So, are referenda to be allowed on "major issues", or "issues that are outside party politics", or "on any issue"? What are the definitions of 'major' and 'issues that are outside party politics'? If referenda are to be granted 'on any issue', why are the others mentioned?


If there is any member of the Ukip NEC or party heirachy among my readers, perhaps they would care to solve my dilemma? I do not mind waiting whilst 'New' policy documents are drafted..........

Why Ukip languish in the polls

Exhibit 1 (and only 1 example is needed, really) Gawain Towler, Ukip Press Officer, posts on Twitter:

"@GawainTowler: I liked a @YouTube video http://t.co/jzHzzG22 New Project"

a link which appears not to be 'repostable', but one in which Lawrence Webb, the Ukip Mayoral Candidate, talks about third place being up for grabs as Ukip are on 6%, only 1% behind the LibDems.

6%?! Bearing in mind the political climate why the hell are Ukip not on 26% - more importantly, for a party that would have us believe they are a force in British politics, why are they boasting that third place is 'up for grabs'? Would not any political party, 'worth its salt',  not be proclaiming it could take 1st place - whether it believed that or not?

The mind 'boggles' - let alone go into decline. Who allowed such a 'message' to be produced? Where is the leadership, the strategy, the management? If a political party, one that maintains it could form a government, cannot put out a positive political campaigning message and do so competently - what chance does it have of convincing a country that it is capable of forming a government?

Just asking.................

And Ukip are doing............

So a 'mock' referendum is to be held in Witney, Sheffield Hallam and Doncaster North – the constituencies of David Cameron, Nick Clegg and Ed Miliband.


At the time of writing, mention on the Ukip website amounts to.........Zilch, Nada, Nowt! The fact that these 'mock' referendums were to be held has been known for some time now - which begs the question what Ukip branches across the country have been doing by means of preparation. Probably Zilch, Nada, Nowt - yet would not a committee of a constituency where the sitting MP was a party leader surely be interested and do their utmost to gain support for their party? Would not a party, intent on gaining support among the electorate for their policy of leaving the European Union not ensure that local committees were making preparations? Would not the leadership of that party have thought about - oh, hang on..........


UKIP - U Know Its Pointless.........

A word to the wise, Janice

Janice Atkinson-Small was a member of the Conservative Party who, it will be recalled, defected to the UK Independence Party and now also writes in the Daily Mail.


It would perhaps help stay in the good books of her leader were she, when 'lifting' almost word for word parts of a speech he gave to the EU Parliament, to include a little attribution within the article?


Just suggesting............

Questions for Ukip?

An article has appeared in the Mail today in which Paul Nuttall castigates the EU for 'brainwashing children in our schools', the article referring to an 'Education Show' held in Birmingham. 'Googling' 'education show birmingham' brings forth an announcement by the European Union of an event that took place on 4th and 5th of March 2010. Later, on the 11th November a related event took place at the RAF Museum, Cosford in November 2010. That this matter was raised on this blog 4 days ago and now appears in the Mail may be just a coincidence, however it has to be asked why the time-delay on the part of Ukip in raising this subject and referring to the event? 


The excuse that a direct link could not be proved does not hold water as would not a political party like Ukip keep track of such events and send an observer along? The Ukip website has an entry on this subject here. Saying on the Ukip website that Paul Nuttal has demanded of Michael Gove is not the same as saying he has written to Michael Gove and once again questions have to be asked of those responsible for input into the Ukip website - so the question arises, has Nuttall demanded verbally (which can be ignored) or has he written (which requires a response) - big difference in message and of content - and importance.


Being unable to find reference to any later 'Education Show' or 'Conference' event on Google begs the accusation that like all politicians - and irrespective of party - rule number one is to never miss an opportunity to get your name and that of your party in print.


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

Pause for thought - as its Sunday

This Sunday morning was no different to any other Sunday morning if you were on Twitter with 'soundbites' being tweeted about the 'great and the good' who were appearing on Marr's political 'love-in'. Actually, when considering those appearing, the term 'great and the good' is a tad of a misnomer - but I digress.


From the BBC we learn that:


Vince Cable, when questioned as to whether Cameron's 'phantom veto on the phantom treaty' (my phrasing) had caused him to consider resignation, Cable replied that while frequently wondering about his position in government, he believed that on reflection a commitment to actually making this government work; to deal with the very serious problems in the economy; was the most important point. A little honesty from St. Vince along the lines that the additional £70k, on top of his £65k salary as an MP, might have also played a part, coupled with his appearing as a 'big man' in the political word, would have been more than welcome - and would no doubt have earned him plaudits from the public for his 'openness'.


Next up, the BBC features Boris Johnson, who we all know is no more than Mayor of London while well-earning the title of Bumbling Idiot. Bumbling Idiot indeed - "there will be no more threats for the City of London from Brussels"? And they talk of this man being a future leader of his party? Sheesh!


Last, we come to Peter Mandelson, 'Blairite' and ex-Commissioner of the European Union, who also maintains that "there is no threat to Britain whatsoever" with the recently published draft of the ESM document. Of course Marr, the 'face' of the BBC, didn't question Mandelson whether his views may be tempered by the conditions imposed on his pension as an ex-Commissioner of/by the EU.


When such blatant 'untruths' and 'spin' is allowed to pass without question, is it any wonder that the British public are so ill-informed about what is happening in their country; is it any wonder that 'career politicians' are allowed to continue plying their 'trade'; is it any wonder that incompetent nonentities rise to the top of the cesspool that politics has become? At the time of writing, 18:50, on the Ukip website nearly 7 hours later, not one word of rebuttal to those three politician's utterances mentioned above appears - and Ukip believe they are, or about to become, the 'third party' in British politics?


That change is required to our political system and of those partaking in it - underlined by the three examples above - is undeniable. That the vast majority of our politicians are 'career politicians' - and I exclude no party in that statement - is also becoming undeniable. To those who believe my statement is wrong, the comments section to this blog is open to all - prove to me that I'm wrong in that assertion. We, as a country, are being led blindfolded up the 'political garden path', at the end of which there will be only one winner - and it won't be we, the people!

Thank heavens we still have one Hitchens left

This week we witnessed the sad passing of Christopher Hitchens and condolences must be passed to his brother, Peter.


In what is, for him, a relatively short article Peter Hitchens blows apart the myth of 'Cameron the Saviour/Defender/Eurosceptic' of Britain. Repeating what Richard North and I have been 'banging on' about, Peter Hitchens makes the point that there was no veto, there was no treaty. Comparing Cameron to Chamberlain, he makes the point that people want to believe Cameron and want to believe he is a true patriot - but making the even more important point that they shouldn't and that he isn't.


There are those who, understandably, laud Nigel Farage - and to a certain extent so do I. Unfortunately for Farage, the political class have created a situation whereby I am cynical of all politicians and their good intentions, as it seems all they are interested in is words - aka the soundbite. If Farage is different, then he needs to 'come out' and show us that he is different, that he really does believe in independence, not only for the country but for the people. He needs to admit that the present political system is, indeed, 'broken' and that change is required. He needs to admit that the political system has too many 'representatives' both in Parliament and elsewhere. He needs to sell a 'vision' to the nation - something he and his party have failed to do. As Cameron failed to 'kill' a hated opponent and his government, so Farage is failing to 'kill' his enemy which comprises the Lib/Lab/Con and the present 'system' of democracy. But then Farage, being a 'politician', never listens - does he? Why should he when the present 'system' provides a 'home-grown' gravy-train similar to the one in Brussels?


If Farage and Ukip won't, or cannot, awaken the public to the dangers into which we are being led, what chance have we bloggers who know the true facts and therefore understand what is being done to us in the name of 'democracy'? Don't, please, counter this by stating that those, such as I, should 'stand for office - I have had more than enough of 'office' and look to those much younger to fight for what is their future, not mine - I am at a stage in life where my future is far more 'limited' than those younger than I.


An old adage states that, in times of crisis, leaders will appear and that as 'saviours' they will lead us to salvation - well, that is one adage which, presently, appears to be untrue!


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

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..............

Welcome to fantasy island - Britain, its politians and media

Wow, we are informed that David Cameron has 'sprouted a pair of brussels' and vetoed any new treaty, that he has stood up for Britain and said 'No' to the mighty European Union resulting in him being feted by his party and their journalistic mouthpieces. A number of matters arise:

1. As Richard North, EU Referendum, asks: just where is this treaty? There was no treaty on the table; if there was, can we see a copy please? Cameron obviously thinks there was one (maybe it was invisible) because Russia Today quotes him saying that there was a treaty on the table, that it didn't protect British interests so he didn't sign it, as that's his job.

2. There would appear to be an area disagreement over whether the 'arrangement' that Merkozy wish to put in place has legal standing. According to the Guardian France suffered a setback when EU lawyers ruled that the changes would be illegal if approved by only the 17 eurozone members, yet on the BBC Barroso is of the opinion that legal advice states it is possible. The Guardian is not the only newspaper carrying reports that questions the legality of what Merkozy wishes to do, with Spiegel OnLine reporting that because monetary union is regulated extensively in the Lisbon Treaty, reform can only be implemented within the existing legal framework. The legal services experts of the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the European Council, which represents the member states in Brussels, are all in agreement. A treaty concluded only by the 17 euro-zone governments would be illegal, they say. Individual countries could only issue a "political declaration of intent," in which they determined, for example, how they would decide on the use of sanctions against budget offenders. But such a declaration would have no legally binding character and, as officials point out, could also be revoked following the election of a new government.

3. Ambrose Evans Pritchard, Daily Telegraph, writes that the  leaders of France and Germany have more or less bulldozed Britain out of the European Union for the sake of a treaty that offers absolutely no solution to the crisis at hand, or indeed any future crisis. It is EU institutional chair shuffling at its worst, with venom for good measure.At first it did look as though there were four countries in the outer bloc with the Czechs, Hungary, UK and Sweden (which some wag had promptly named the CHUKS), however it now seems that the UK is indeed alone with the news that the other three have agree to ratify the Merkozy 'deal'. There is a further 'fly in the ointment' in respect of the ratification process with the news, via Bloomberg, that Finland is reported to have said if each of the 27 nations isn't in agreement with the new treaty they they will pull out of the eurozone.

4. Just what is it that Cameron has achieved and what has changed? The answer to both question is exactly nothing, zilch; although one thing has become only too clear. What chance repatriation of powers when the other member states would not even concede an itsy-bitsy concession? This of course now creates yet another headache for David Cameron, because every piece of legislation going through the parliamentary process should now receive even greater scrutiny. Note I said should, as I don't believe it will - should being the case of those matters of a financial aspect currently in the pipeline. Thanks to Open Europe, Annexe 1 (p.54) of the linked document lists EU financial regulation in the pipeline; the current status; and entry into force. The annexe also helpfully contains a list of proposals that have yet to be adopted (pp55/56). 

5. It is a tad ironic that for centuries this country has fought wars to ensure that no one power became dominant on the continent and that for decades our politicians have fought to prevent a two-speed EU from happening, yet almost overnight we are about to get both. In the defence budget review one can only hope that Cameron retained some anti-missile-missiles as methinks he will need a good stock to counter the fiscal bombardment that is sure to be launched from Brussels.

6. The Boiling Frog has some succinct comments on 'Events Bruxelles', ones worth reading in stark contrast to offerings by James Kirkup and Charles Crawford. Some questions have been raised as to Cameron's real motives for 'spoiling the party' and, in that respect, James Delingpole comes closest in my opinion when he writes that Cameron's only wish was to find the line of least resistance which would keep him in power longest. At all costs Cameron wished to avoid a referendum because it is on record that in a cabinet meeting he stated that such an occurrence, which would no doubt split the coalition asunder, was to be avoided at all costs.

7. The burning question which few, if any, have seen fit to tackle is the future political landscape in this country - especially when considering the involvement of Ukip. Nigel Farage has been on the airways, understandably, but not said anything of substance - in my opinion. If recent events are anything to go by, we may as well not hold our breath.

Afterthought: Remarks of Herman Van Rompuy here; Conclusions of the Council here; and the Statement by the Euro Area Heads of State here.

No, Mr. Farage, No!

Ukip has made a submission to the Commission on a Bill of Rights, one that leaves me incredulous as to his and his party's motives. Surely Ukip and Farage have not succumbed to the politician's belief that only the state knows best, that the people must accept what the state decides?

It may have escaped the attention of Nigel Farage that a Bill of Rights already exists on the Statute Book and all that is needed to cement that within our society is a return to the practise of Common Law. In that respect I would suggest Nigel Farage reads this post from Ian Parker-Joseph.

As with the party's - and Farage's - belief that taking the 'EU Shilling Euro' was a resigning matter for me, so is this latest 'idea'.

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..............

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:

Politicians live in a 'fantasy/fiction' world

It has been a long held view that politicians live in a fantasy/fiction world, one in which truth is of little consequence and that their 'world' is definitely not of this planet. Norman Baker has been speaking at the Liberal Democrat Conference, but the words are not his but a mere regurgitation of EU policy (which is what you will hear at the Labour and Conservative conferences).

He speaks about HS2, about smart-ticketing, about reducing the need for travel by cars and cars being the cause of congestion in urban areas, growth and carbon reduction, about efficiency gains resulting in saving being returned to the public. I defy anyone to point to one aspect of his speech that is not governed by the EU having shared competence in every field of transport and on which they have yet to issue a statement.

Digressing slightly, Norman Baker is not alone in admitting that the policy of HS2 is governed by EU requirements, because surprise, surprise neither does Derek Clark of Ukip - as I have commented on that article, a comment which at the time of writing has still to appear. It is indeed odd that a representative of a party that is continually 'banging-on' about EU interference in our country fails to mention just that fact.

With the present state of our membership of the EU - coupled with developments in the pipeline - it is apparent that not one of the Lib/Lab/Con 'govern' this country, neither will they (and I will not, now, go down the route of asking why we need to be 'governed'). Just what is the point of the party conferences other than to talk to their converted - and mindless - disciples? With their stated policy of remaining a member of the EU, one wonders why those three parties don't just save themselves a packet of money and hold one conference and call it The EU Conference. As I write Ian Parker-Joseph has posted, a post which touches on the subject of the conference season, whilst linking to an EU body that does have a hand in making policy.

The whole of our politics in this country is a fantasy and a fiction!

Elected Dictatorship

It is, I hope, well known by now that I consider our present form of democracy nothing but that of an elected dictatorship - or as some commenters on this blog tend to term it, an oligarchy. For politicians today to repeat the mantra that they represent their constituent's views and are likewise elected to serve those same constitutents is a lie and consequently a sham.

Without rehashing old posts to the point of boredom, we are all aware that MPs are constrained in their voting patterns by party whips; that they insist on the ability to vote with their conscience - in other words, how they feel about a particular subject - rather than voting how the majority of their constituents feel; that constitutents have no means of recalling their MP to be held to account; that they consider Parliament "Sovereign"; and the 'killer point', that as I was informed by my MP, who also happens to be the Prime Minister the current elected dictator: no matter what my personal 'local' problem/grievance - if it conflicts with 'national policy' then I may as well forget it.

Many words have been written about the need for an English Parliament and a resolution to the West Lothian Question - with an impassioned speech reported at the recent Ukip conference -  thus enabling only voting by MPs on matters that affect their own constituencies. What, exactly, would the creation of an English Parliament do - other than preserve the status quo of elected dictatorship? Political parties, including Ukip, talk about localism, yet at the very heart of their ideas of localism lies central control and the belief that MPs are elected to rule. As with the EU, where national 'governments' do no more than implement EU law, so all local authorities do is implement central government decrees - and that is localism? Just what exactly do local councillors do other than applying knuckles to foreheads, in the manner of all good politicians, whilst collecting their allowances?

As I have, no doubt, 'bored to tears' readers with my rants about HS2, politicians and their lack of principle and honour; I trust you will bear with me for yet another example of the latter. I would refer to David Cameron's infamous article in The Sun newspaper, one in which he gave a cast-iron guarantee on a referendum. Little noticed, I believe, is another classic quote, one in which I have made two small amendments:

"One of the great challenges we face is rolling back the tide of bureaucracy that is drowning our country in regulations and forms. And you can't do that without targeting one of the main sources of this bureaucracy — Brussels. Because it is Europe that ties our businesses up in red tape. And it is Europe that ties the hands of our courts. We won't be able to deal with any of this unless we have a referendum. The final reason we must have a vote is trust. Gordon Brown David Cameron talks about "new" politics. But there's nothing "new" about breaking your promises to the British public. It's classic Labour.Cameron."

Which is why Richard North and I, with no collusion whatsoever, are the only two bloggers* - to my knowledge - that are prepared to put our heads over the parapet and suggest something different.

* Don't even mention Carswell and Hannan with their 'Plan' as it is but continuance of the status quo!

Ukip & an English Parliament

In his speech, posted here earlier today, Nigel Farage announced a policy change that meant his party now supports the creation of an English Parliament. Whilst details at the time of writing are sparse, it would appear from the party's website that this would involve the creation of a First Minister and executive which would be responsible for domestic legislation such as education, health, the environment and transport. 

I have for some time complained about Ukip's lack of ability in the areas of administration and presentation; and the announcement above illustrates that point admirably. If a party is to announce a new policy - and presumably one that has not been decided on the spur of the moment - might it not be a good idea if the details of that policy were immediately available on their website? Unfortunately, the policy for the constitution of the United Kingdom has yet to be amended, as can be seen.

In view of the fact the present policy complains that:

"Bureaucracy overrules democracy at every level, from Brussels to Whitehall to the town hall."

perhaps someone can explain the logic of creating yet more politicians and more bureaucrats? Does the club not already contain far too many self-opinionated and self-centred members? If, as Nigel Farage maintains, Ukip is a Libertarian party then surely they are in favour of small government - not increasing the existing large one?

Just asking, you understand.......................