The General Election

As far as I'm concerned, the General election produced mixed emotions. The Tories won with an acceptable majority, keeping out Labour and its extra taxes on the rich which would be required to fund their promises. I've nothing particular for or against the rich, but if they are to spend their money rather than keep it in a bank vault, it must result in additional employment and jobs either directly as staff or indirectly on purchases. But apart from the so-called mansion tax, the other proposed Labour taxes would end up falling on the ordinary worker. A tax on banks would mean that the banks would seek to make more profit elsewhere, which could mean even lower interest rates (hitting pensioners in particular) or even the end of free banking, as has been mooted from time to time. A landlord tax would do much the same; landlords would either find some way of increasing the rent for any new tenant, or sell-up and pull out of the market. Either way, it is unlikely to be the landlord who would lose out. A tax on non-doms looks attractive, but Labour overlooks the fact that they could equally live in another country, Ireland having made it clear that they would be very welcome. But the big thing, as far as I'm concerned is that both Ed Balls and Vince Cable are out and that the LibDems won't be part of a coalition.

The big disappointment is that UKIP didn't get more seats. The fact that Nigel Farage didn't win in Thanet, I would suggest is due to the effort that the Tories put into the election with almost every Minister visiting the constituency, plus the activities of various left wing organisations who were not standing for election and thus could effectively run riot with false claims about UKIP.

However to my mind, the biggest scandal is our electoral system, which allows a party, which overall collected more votes in the coutry than both the SNP and the LibDems combined, to get only have one MP, whilst Queen Nicola claims the right to tell us all what to do.

It one thing comes out of this election, it should be some electoral reform which ensures the parliamentary representation more closely matches the actual votes cast. One assumes that Cameron will push through the Boundary Commission's report, which the LibDems failed to support in the last parliament, so ending the anomaly of a vote in many cities being worth two in the country. But more than that. Now that Scotland has its own Parliament, and Wales has its own Assembly, there is surely no longer a case for having a disproportionately large number of MPs from these regions. We should be aiming for the situation in a modern democracy like Australia or New Zealand where all constituencies by law must have an electorate within 5% of any other. New Zealand is proposing to do even better and get the figure within 3%.
Other reform must be to ensure that Scottish/Welsh MPs do not have any say on English matters where such matters have been devolved to Scotland/Wales. It is iniquitous that Scotish MPs can come to Westminster and support tuition fess at universities and charges for NHS prescriptions, whilst their fellow members in The Scottish Parliament vote to make them both free in Scotland.

To a cynic like me, Cameron's biggest problem with having an overall majority is that he will have to keep his promises. No longer will he be able to blame the LibDems for preventing him doing something that he had promised!

As for the SNP, I'm sure they will make a lot of noise and hope to be able to tell Cameron what to do. He could simply point out that Labour have more MPs than the SNP which illustrates the relative importance of the SNP in the Union as a whole. As Queen Nicola won't be at Westminster, I would hope that Cameron would have no problem dealing with Alex Salmond who expect to the the leader of the SNP in the Commons.

We could have an interesting time ahead.

Thank Goodness for the Royal Baby!

The birth of the, as yet unnamed, Princess of Cambridge at least brought relief from the incessant drone of politicians and political journalists on the TV news programmes. Not that the reports on the baby actually provided any real news, but it was a change to see cheering crowds rather than the usual rabble of demonstrators which seems to be the norm these days. The BBC, of course, managed to produce an anti-monarchist for interview who ranted on about the cost of the monarchy (but didn't feel it appropriate to mention the far higher costs of Presidents like Obama, along with the costs of all the ex-presidents) and who also seemed to believe that the birth had been timed as a political event to interfere with the general election. If interfering with the general election means getting politicians off the screen for a while, please carry on interfering!

Elsewhere in the political news, Guido shows us this picture of a Labour Party Public meeting in Birmingham.

 

I wonder what Harriet thinks about it!

To most English this is totally unacceptable in a public place, and it simply shows how subservient Labour is becoming to the diktats of Islam. If I'd been going to the meeting with my wife and we were asked to sit apart, we'd have simply walked out. I do hope all the non-Islamic voters in Birmingham see this picture.

Now to the "Greens".  Breitbart tells us that Green Party leader Natalie Bennett has said her party would consider allowing polygamous marriages and civil partnerships in the UK. This of course was the fear of many of those who opposed Gay Marriage; that one thing would lead to another and that it would lead to marriage being redefined in other ways, including allowing more than two people to enter into a union.

Which brings us back to Cameron and the Tories. Traditionally, political parties in power have only introduced legislation that they had proposed in their manifestos unless there was some overriding imperative that was not anticipated at the time of the previous election. Gay Marriage can hardly said to fall within that category; there was no reason for it not being included in the Party Manifesto for this election and brought forward by the Tories should they be in power. For that reason, if no other, I am not prepared to vote Conservative and have informed my sitting MP accordingly. Who knows what Cameron might do if he thought polygamy might increase his share of the Islamic vote.

Every day as I read the news, or watch it on TV, I become more than ever convinced that UKIP is the only party that genuinely represents the ordinary voter of British ancestry.

Nigel Farage at his best!

I liked this latest piece by Nigel Farage on the subject of Juncker
Note that for once some of the MEPs are clapping, not listening in stony silence as in the past.

A real defector, a plant, or just on the make?

A scandal at UKIP - or is it?
UKIP's General Secretary, Roger Bird, has been suspended over allegations that he made improper approaches to a potential female Asian candidate.
Surprisingly, the media hasn't made such a fuss about this as one might have expected and one wonders whether this is because there is "more in this than meets the eye" and they don't want to take any risks with possible damages claims.

The female in question is Natasha Bolter and she was first seen at this year's UKIP conference when she was on the platform as a Labour defector.

She is described by the media as being a single mother of five children, Her maiden name was Ahmed, so one assumes that she was married at one time although the media has not mentioned an ex-husband. So she's hardly a single mother, she's either divorced, separated or widowed.

Roger Bird has taken the rather unusual course of publishing all her text messages that she'd sent him, and she hardly seems to be a reluctant participant in whatever happened! Roger is single, so there is no reason whatsoever why he should not pursue any woman of his choice provided that he does not offer her advancement within the party in exchange for sexual favours.

Her claim claim of a top degree in politics, philosophy and economics from Oxford University unravelled yesterday when the Wadham College (she spelt it Wadam) took the rare step of denying she had ever attended the institution.

So what was she, a real defector, a plant or just on the make?
I don't think she was a plant; if she'd come from the Tories, I would probably have taken that view, but some how I don't see it as a Labour tactic. Was she a real defector, I'm inclined to say no, as if she had been, she wouldn't have resigned from UKIP at the start of this saga but stood her ground.
I tend towards the belief that she was "found out" by Labour and realised that she would never achieve candidate status and so looked for another home. She picked UKIP as a suitable choice,  knowing, quite rightly, that as a female from an ethnic minority she'd be welcome if only to prove that the party wasn't racist or anti-female. Perhaps Roger Bird realised this and rejected her as a candidate with the resultant harassment complaint.

Time will tell, but as usual in cases like this, no-one emerges smelling of roses and the innocent party (if there is one) invariably suffers with the guilty.

Whatever the outcome, the party will have learnt a valuable lesson, be wary of new members who join the party and rapidly seek a position of importance. UKIP is going to have to be somewhat more professional in vetting its candidates for all posts where they could harm the party.

Former councillor charged with defrauding council she sat on

I'm a week late with this item, but did anyone read about this in the MSM or see it on television?
Can you guess what party the councillor belonged to?  Perhaps, quite reasonably, you will have concluded that it wasn't a UKIP councillor as, if it had been, it would have been headline  news in much of the media and on BBC TV news.

But it wasn't UKIP, so the news went no further than the local paper as the ex-councillor was a female Labour councillor who had falsely claimed an allowance for child care .whilst carrying out council duties.

We wouldn't expect the BBC to mention such a trivial matter as UKIP wasn't involved!

In "Wigan Today"

A "No" Vote - So what is next?

Scotland has voted to stay in the Union. In spite of all the polls which tended to suggest a "close run thing", it was "No" by a decent margin which one hopes will put the issue to bed for a generation. Why were the polls so far out? My instinct says that a large number of Scots keep themselves to themselves and probably were recorded as "undecided", or, in certain areas simply said what the pollsters expected to hear for fear of intimidation.

The three party leaders at Westminster offered a load of last minute bribes to Scotland should they stay in the Union, but these have got to be approved by Westminster and many MPs are unhappy that the English were not consulted as it would seem that they will undoubtedly carry any extra costs. And, of course, there remains the so-called "West Lothian" question with Scottish MPs being able to vote on English legislation, whilst English MPs are unable to vote on those same issues in Scotland, as they have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament.

It is clear that Westminster will now be forced to address this issue and there a number of solutions. Simply saying that Scottish MPs can't vote at Westminster on English issues could give major problems. What happens if country as a whole decided to elect a Labour government, but on English issues there was a Tory majority?

If the referendum has achieved one thing, it is that Westminster will have no option as to produce significant constitutional reforms. It seems doubtful that these will be introduced during the remains of this Parliament and I suspect we will have to wait until the next. Hopefully the parties will come forward with detailed proposals in their manifestos.

The next political event is of course the forthcoming by-elections, particularly at Clacton where the sitting MP changed his allegiance to UKIP and, unusually, called for a by-election, rather than simply hanging onto his seat. Let's hope he gets back with a huge majority as this will at last prove that UKIP is beginning to be a force in UK politics following the election of so many UKIP MEPs

Just One More Reason for Supporting UKIP

Peter Hitchins writes in the Sunday Mail that

Brussels distributed more than £300 million of taxpayers’ money in Ukraine between 2007 and 2013. It went to all kinds of lucky recipients, so it is no great surprise that Kiev blossomed with EU flags last winter during the violent mob putsch which so many idiots in the West supported.

Why? Why spend our money, largely as bribes, on a corrupt non-EU state? What has this done for the people of Europe other than bringing them nearer to a conflict with Russia? From a Russian point of view, with which one might agree or disagree, the EU has already gobbled up the old east bloc states which were once part of their sphere of influence, and, now in Russian eyes, the EU is seeking to include Ukraine in a pan-Europe Empire largely influenced by Germany with the assistance of France.

Russia was invaded by Germany in the Second World War, and a century earlier by the French led by Napoleon. The EU has, in the past, claimed that it would like to see a single trading zone from the Atlantic to the Urals; unfortunately, as we have seen, they want to dominate far more than trade.

Elsewhere, the news is of a major NATO meeting in Wales. Apparently Ukraine is seeking membership of NATO! What part of Ukraine wants admission to NATO? The whole of the country as it was, say last year, before the recent events? Were this so, we would be admitting a country where part is already in foreign hands, and thus the NATO powers would be obliged to fight to recover it. If it is the de facto Ukraine as it is now, it would be recognising the Russian annexation of part of the country.

World War Two was brought about mainly by Hitler invading Poland and our coming to their defence. These days, I suspect it would be very difficult to get the British people to accept the need to go to war over Poland; what hope would NATO have of convincing this country it should get involved in a war over Ukraine? Let's hope our government, for once, shows a bit of common sense.

To me the only solution is to get out of the EU and regardless of what Cameron says about his "pretend" renegotiations, I still believe that the only way forward is UKIP.

Newark

The Conservatives won the Newark by-election with a much reduced majority and the Tories are shouting about it being a great defeat of UKIP.
Now I don't believe anyone except the most incorrigible optimist expected UKIP to win a seat where the Tories had a 16,00o majority at the last election. But for the upstarts at UKIP to cut that majority by more than half to 7000 is, however you look at it, a great achievement. The Conservatives threw everything they had at the seat, nearly all their ministers visited Newark, all prospective Tory candidates visited Newark under pain of de-selection, and all local Tory Councillors were told to get canvassing.

It was said that this Newark was the 44th safest seat for the Tories and in that they have 305 MPs, this would suggest that there are 261 seats which are less safe. I wonder how the MPs in some of those seats are feeling about this great Tory victory!

UKIP are here to stay, they are steadily getting more organised, weeding out the more extreme fruitcakes, and getting their candidates and spokespersons "on message". To some extent, their future is determined by what happens within the EU; Will the EU select arch-federalist such as Jean-Claude Juncker as their President?; Will the EU courts continue to interfere with UK justice? Time will tell!

Meanwhile, as far as I am concerned the best news was that LibDems were beaten by both the Greens and an Independent Candidate and they lost their deposit.

All things considered, not a bad result!

The EU Elections

We all know by now that UKIP attracted most votes in the elections for the EU parliament,  but there appear to be widely contradictory views as to what this means in national terms and in particular what it means for next year's general election.
Although I'm a keen UKIP supporter, I'm also a pessimist, and find it hard to believe that what happened in the recent election will be repeated next year.  I feel that any meaningful prediction is virtually impossible as there are so many unanswered questions.

The main result seems to be that the LibDems have lost a lot of ground both in the local and the Euro elections. This, I suspect, is because people have realised that the LibDems were trying to be all things to all people and you can't do this when you are in power and actually have to be party to real decisions. Until now, it didn't matter if they promoted a different policy in Penzance than in Newcastle because no-one noticed, but once they came into power, they had to make choices which were bound to upset a lot of people.

The Tories and LibDems clearly lost out to UKIP because of their EU policies. Although Cameron has promised a referendum if his party is re-elected, this is dependent upon "renegotiations" and he has made it clear that he wishes to stay in. I don't believe this policy will attract voters unless he provides far more details of what he expects from the renegotiations. For all we know he might secure an exemption allowing us to sell Coxes apples by the pound rather than the kilo and claim that he has secured a great victory! I suspect those Tory voters who are Euro-sceptics prefer the straightforward position of UKIP.

When it comes to Labour it seems clear that many traditional Labour supporters are not attracted by current policies. Contrary to the perceived view, my impression when working as a site engineer and talking to, presumed Labour supporting, site workers was that they were probably even more opposed to the benefits scroungers and immigrants than many Tories. I suspect that Labour is out of touch with the real working class whom they claim to represent. However, as the people I describe are unlikely to ever bring themselves to vote Tory, it is possible that many could be persuaded to vote foe UKIP, and Farage's image of the "man in the pub" won't do him any harm, especially when compared with Miliband.

We then come the "wasted vote" category. Up to now, many have considered a vote for UKIP is a wasted vote and so have voted for one of the other parties. This could change significantly now that it has been shown that voting for UKIP does not result in a wasted vote.

Finally, we come to the non-voters. Only about a third if the electorate voted in the Euro elections whilst about double that number vote in a general election. The main parties like to assume these voters will support them at a general election, but there seems no logical reason for such an assumption. It could be argued that many can't see any real difference between the two main parties and thus don't bother to vote. Perhaps they might see UKIP as something different which could bring changes.

So, I'm still unable to make any logical predictions about the future, other than that there are two events which will undoubtedly have considerable influence. The first is the Newark by-election where UKIP will deploy all the resources at their disposal. Even if they don't win (which I believe is unlikely), a "near-run thing" will do the Tories a lot of harm. Will the Labour supporters vote tactically for UKIP knowing that their candidate is unlikely to win?

The other event is, of course the Scottish independence referendum. As an Englishman I would like an independent Scotland if only because it would bring us nearer to an independent England, although as a Unionist, I believe we should stick together. I've been unable to find any reasoned arguments as to how independence would affect Westminster politics other than the fact it would severely reduce the number of Labour MPs.

I await with interest next week's by-election and look forward to politicians and the media trying to explain what has happened!

The Local Elections

I've been busy reading the various media reports about the local elections and the contortions that some columnists and political leaders are getting into in their efforts to minimise UKIP's achievements.
Labour is claiming that they're the winners, and statistically this is true in that they gained the most seats. But they didn't gain some of the seats they would need to gain if they are to win next year's general election.
The Conservatives lost 231 seats but retained some 1350 with the LibDems being the biggest losers having lost nearly half their seats, losing 307 and retaining a mere 427. So UKIP, coming from nowhere and collecting 163 seats is quite an achievement, particularly when you read the fatuous comments from the leader of the Green Party, Natalie Bennet, who claimed "We're becoming much more of a national party.". Now many seats did they win? A mere 36 in total, up from their previous 20!
Meanwhile, Nick Robinson, the BBC's political correspondent, takes the view that "UKIP have not turned into a party of power. They have though confirmed their power to disrupt." As this is what the LibDems have been doing during the past four years, it's not a position to be despised.
George Osborne, meanwhile has decided that 'he respects Nigel Farage but that the UKIP leader does not have "answers to the country's future".'.
One suspects that George is carefully positioning himself to be in a position to negotiate with Nigel Farage in the event that the Conservative Party decides that it's had enough of Cameron.
So now it's a matter of waiting until tomorrow for the results of the elections for the EU parliament.

It's not in the News

The main political parties are making an all out effort to discredit UKIP and are feeding the mainstream media with any scraps of news which might conceivably discredit UKIP, and even better from their point of view, demonstrate that UKIP is racist.

Fortunately, this joint campaign seems to be having little effect, and support for UKIP seems to be growing. The suggestion that a remark made by a UKIP member questioning why a runner, Mo Farah, who was born in Somalia and is resident in America should run on behalf of Britain is, I am sure, something that many people have asked or thought. It's hardly a racist question, at least by any reasonable definition of the word.

What the media don't tell you, but was revealed yesterday in Guido Fawkes blog is that:
Labour have suspended a candidate for a councillor post because he has been as accused of defrauding his own council.
A LibDem councillor remains a candidate in spite of being photographed with an AK45 in his native country.
The Tories have selected as their candidate for a seat on a Lincolnshire Council an individual who was formerly an active member of the BNP.

Had any of these been UKIP candidates, one imagines it would have been headline news, but as they were not, these items only get a small mention in the local press.

It is fortunate that there are people around like Guido to blog on these issues, and it is easy to see why, as far as politics are concerned, I prefer reading the various blogs to reading a newspaper or listening to the BBC.

"I'd rather be poorer with fewer migrants"

For years, those supporting immigration have argued that we couldn't do without the immigrants and that our public services would collapse without them. Many economists link higher immigration to stronger growth and increased personal wealth.
But today, a different argument was offered by Nigel Farrage of UKIP when he said:

"I'd rather be poorer with fewer migrants"

“If you said to me, would I like to see over the next ten years a further five million people come in to Britain and if that happened we’d all be slightly richer, I’d say, I’d rather we weren’t slightly richer, and I’d rather we had communities that were united and where young unemployed British people had a realistic chance of getting a job.
“I think the social side of this matters more than pure market economics.”

This is a different approach from that of most mainstream politicians, who automatically assume everybody wants more money and base all their actions on that assumption. But being better off economically is not the same thing as being better off personally, and during my lifetime, there have been occasions when I felt quite well off, although financially I was almost stony broke. Politicians generally think that money is the solution to everything, whereas "Quality of Living" to most people is defined by much more than money. Politicians can't understand the concept that it is possible to be happier with less money.

A friend of mine is an accountant and worked for one of the top city firms when he was younger, no doubt earning the high salary that such firms pay. But now he is working in the west country for a small local accounting partnership, certainly earning far less than he could have done in the city, and yet he is far more content with life. Why? Well he can jump in his car and be at work within 15 minutes or so and not face an hour or more commuting each way. He can afford a home which is probably comparable with that which he would have been able to afford near London, but at considerably less cost. There is not the hassle of clients as with city firms, nor does he come home late each evening as a result of having to work late. In exchange for money, he has a family life, fresh air, along with countryside views and walks;  both he and his family are able to lead less pressurised lives and have time to engage in other activities.

 This illustrates the very point which Nigel Farage is making, that probably most of us would be quite content not to be slightly richer if it meant we could cut back on immigration, especially as, unlike my friend, they have never had the extra riches in the first place.

Nobody has ever asked the British people what they want, politicians always assume it is money or state provided services. Nigel Farage appears to be the first politician to question this assumption.

UKIP - A Racism Non-Story !

Headlines once again about "Racist UKIP", this time of all places in the Mail on Sunday.
A UKIP County Councillor, Victoria Ayling, is accused making a racist rant in a video in which she said that all illegal immigrants should be sent home, something, I suspect that most readers would agree with.
But more to the point, the video was made five years ago, in 2008, by her ex-husband when she was preparing a video in her bid to become a Conservative MEP. Yes, at the time she made it she was a member of the Conservative Party!

Seemingly, they had an acrimonious divorce following her husband's affair with an American ex-beauty queen, and, for reasons we can only guess at, her ex-husband has now chosen to release the original tape to the media. And as might be expected, some of the media, along with the usual gaggle of MPs and Quislings are in full cry shouting "racism" at the top of their voices. In fact there was nothing remotely racist in the published extracts as she didn't mention country, race or religion. Or has it now been decreed that the word "immigrant" is racist?

Remember that this was a video in the making before editing. I wonder how many politicians have sat down and written a speech without making any corrections or alterations. How many of those when they read it again decided to make further alterations for fear of upsetting someone's susceptibilities? I would suggest that almost every speech of any importance has been written and re-written before delivery, and that this video is equivalent of the first draft.

But, even so, if the video had been used without any alterations, there would have been no reason for offence. Looked at in detail, there is really nothing that Theresa May, the Home Secretary hasn't said, perhaps more tactfully, over the past month, essentially that illegal immigrants and refused asylum seekers should be sent back home, and that multiculturalism is dead.

Lets face it, in my opinion, Victoria Ayling said no more than what an overwhelming majority of this country is thinking, but is frequently frightened to say out loud.  Judging by the readers' comments on the Mail on Sunday website, most take the view that she has merely reflected their thinking and that she is certainly not racist. The publicity should get UKIP a few more votes at the next election!

The Telegraph takes a more reasoned view of what was said and clearly Nigel Farrage has not been bounced into denouncing what she said.
We need more politicians to discuss the issues related to immigration, not less.

Bongo Bongo Land (Part 2)

It is worth reading this piece in today's Mail outlining how some of our foreign aid is spent.
Highlights are:
Rwanda - The President has two private jets – South African-registered Bombardier BD-700 Global Expresses – costing £30million each.
Uganda - Here the President contents himself with just one jet, a 30million top-of-the-range Gulfstream G550. The country is also intending to buy six Russian made fighter planes at a cost of about £500million.
Gabon - The state bought a £85million property in the heart of Paris.
Congo - The President here has a multi-million pound property portfolio in Paris.

And so it goes on, with most Bongo-Bongo land presidents having private aircraft and properties abroad, mainly in Paris.

All the media here are interested in is one short phrase, not the rest of Godfrey Bloom's speech about the waste and misuse of our foreign aid. But, of course, with modern political correctness, if one points out what is happening in these countries, one is immediately declared racist by our self-serving politicians and media, who no doubt are wondering why they, too, should not have such luxuries.

Bongo Bongo Land

The BBC along with the usual left wing media are getting themselves worked up into a sweat because a UKIP MP, Godfrey Bloom, referred to much of Britain's overseas aid being sent to "Bongo Bongo Land". Now I can see nothing wrong with this phrase and those British who take offence should come back and join the real world. From my experience, that is how many, probably a majority, of us British feel about many African countries with names that that no-one recognises. So what is wrong with "bongo-bongo"? It is hardly a racist expression, although I suppose that the BBC will argue that the McPherson criteria of "if the listener believes it is racist, it is racist" applies here.

I believe that the use of this phrase by the UKIP MEP will do them more good than harm. People are fed up with the LbLabCon political correctness, and like to hear someone who actually says what they are thinking but afraid to say themselves. But then the LibLabCon politicians, along with the BBC, only ever talk to like minded people and so haven't got the vaguest idea of how the average person thinks or talks about. At least Nigel Farrage visits his local, our MP wouldn't be seen dead in ours.

The other interesting thing about this spat is that no-one has commented on what was actually said, just on the words that were used, presumably because they know what he said is largely true. Most of the aid money is spent on luxuries for the elite or ends up in Swiss bank accounts. The rest is probably spent on armaments, as in the case of Pakistan. Why should we give aid to a country which can afford F18 fighter aircraft?

Whilst what was said was certainly not politically correct, but it needed to be said and in terms that we all understand. Those in the Conservative party who want to "dig the dirt" on UKIP members had better be very careful as it could rebound on them, as has the recent allegation about a supporter who had in the past been a member of the BNP. This was correct, but when the truth was revealed, it turned out that he had been a member in his youth, but had then been a member of the Conservative party for 20 years before joining UKIP!

I'm all for political incorrectness if it means we get the truth and it means that ordinary people understand what is being said.

Is the Conservative Party in Terminal Decline?

The Conservative Party is steadily loosing members at constituency level. Although they never announce their membership numbers, various media sources suggest that the membership has probably fallen to probably a tenth of what it was in Margaret Thatcher's days and is now at around the 100,000 level.

Today, we have Lord Howe, the traitor in Mrs Thatcher's cabinet, telling David Cameron that he has lost control of the party, a report that follows closely on one which suggests that a senior party member has referred to the ordinary members as being swivel-eyed loons.

Now I have always believed that it is the members of any organisation who appoint the organisation's leaders and decide its policies and it is for the appointed leaders to do their best to carry out those policies and not produce new policies without the approval of their members. If for some reason, the members are pressing for a policy which the leader is unwilling to pursue, the normal procedure would be for that leader to resign, or in the limit for the members to put forward a vote of no confidence and require his resignation at a special meeting.  Indeed this has recently happened at a (non-political) organisation to which I belong where the chairman stood down because he disagreed with the policy required by members. All very democratic and as it should be.

But somehow with politics, the whole scenario is turned upside down. Once a leader is appointed, he takes it upon him self and his cronies to decide policy and expects the members to support him, even if they disagree. He is expected, in Lord Howe's words, to control the members, who, in the view of an unidentified party official are "swivel-eyed loons"

Now, I have never been a member of a political party, but were I a member, I would expect my views to be taken into account on a democratic basis when deciding party policy; I would certainly not pay my subscription in order to be told how to think, and to be just seen as an available pair of hands to stick leaflets through letter-boxes. Pay £25 to the Conservatives for that privilege - they must be joking.

So where is the Party going? We now have two right-wing parties, the Tories and UKIP. The Tories like to see themselves as "centre-right" and in general are little different from the Blair administration. With Labour moving steadily leftwards under Miliband, this centre-right position is also moving leftwards and now is probably more left wing than, say, the post-war Atlee administration. Meanwhile UKIP is picking up traditional right-wing Tory policies and is probably in the same position in the political spectrum as the Tories were immediately after WW2. According to a recent poll they are now attracting something in excess of 20% public support.

A lot will depend upon how UKIP performs in next year's elections for the European Parliament, but if they do well, there is no doubt that many more will support them at the next General Election. So unless those at the top of the Conservative Party come to their senses and start putting forward true Conservative policies, we could be looking forward to a long period with Labour in power, essentially as happened in Canada when the right wing split into two factions. There, the right only got back to power once there was agreement between the two factions and a leader appointed who returned to true Conservative values. This, as Nigel Farrage has made clear, won't happen here whilst Cameron is leader of the Tories.

The grass-roots, the paid-up members of the Conservative party, will soon have to decide what to do about Cameron and his out of touch old-Etonian clique. The sooner the better; I've no desire for a Labour government.

Listening Tories ?

Following the UKIP gains in the local elections, Tory party chairman Grant Shapps says that the party must listen to the electorate. This is effectively an admission that they haven't been listening up to now.  But even if they do listen, will they take any action? I suspect that their listening will be much the same as that of my four year old grandson, who listens to granddad, and then does exactly as he pleases! The only way to get him to do as requested is to apply sanctions such as 'you won't get any ice cream', and it seems that the voters are having to adopt a similar approach with the Conservatives by voting for UKIP.

When one talks of the party listening one is referring largely to those at the top, the local party chairmen are, in the main, listening, but seemingly those at the top are not listening to them. Part of the problem is that the top Tories have been listening to the wrong people, mainly so-called "Business leaders" along with minority groups which make a noise which is disproportionate to their size.

The business leaders invariably come from big business and favour immigration as not only does it give them cheap labour and save them the problem of staff training, but also, in the case of the construction industry, provides them with an increasing population  which requires additional homes, schools, hospitals, etc. And one must not forget that the pressure for HS2 also comes from the same source.

Then there are the "one issue" pressure groups, of which two come immediately to mind, each of which, in reality, probably doesn't have more than maybe a thousand or so active supporters. These are firstly "Hacked Off", a group comprising mainly celebrities who want to prevent the media reporting other than favourable news about their activities. They don't in any way represent the public at large, who may favour some restraint on the press, but certainly don't want the North Korean type of press censorship which these celebraties would seem to favour. The other pressure group is Stonewall which has been pressing for "Gay Marriage". There was no public pressure for this, even from Gays, many of whom haven't even taken up the option of a Civil Partnership.

But whilst the top Tories are listening, and pandering to, these organisations and focus groups, they are not listening to the vast majority of the public who have no vocal organisations to make their views known. The following issues seem to be of concern to this majority, regardless of their party affiliations.

1. The economic situation, usually doing too little too late with the word "cuts" meaning a smaller increase than anticipated.
2. Immigration, both from within and outside the EU. Associated with this is the emigration of some of our best graduates who are seeking a better life elsewhere.
3. The EU. Trade is one thing, but government from Brussels is another
4. The Human Rights laws, where our citizens' human rights seem to be subservient to those of the criminal
5. The NHS, which seems to be an "International Health Service" and which far from being the 24/7 service that one expects is largely an 8/5 service with ever longer waiting times for emergency treatment at a decreasing number of A&E units,
6. Education, where our standards, particularly in the core subjects, are lower than most countries except those in the third world. Teachers Unions are now advocating shorter hours!
7. Defence, where we are to spend billions on about twenty fighter aircraft, rather than ensuring we have sufficient manpower in our Services to combat the more likely scenarios.
8. The benefits system which rewards idleness rather than work for the lower paid.

UKIP doesn't pretend that it can instantly solve all these matters, but making a start by withdrawing from Europe would help with all of those items listed as more money would become available whilst demands on the NHS and the education system could fall, as presumably would unemployment. At least Nigel Farage is honest in that he says some of the party's aims are "aspirations", which contrasts with Cameron who seems to have no "aspiration" other than to stay at No 10.

So as far as I am concerned, the Tories can listen to whoever Grant Shapps considers appropriate, but it is actions that speak louder than words.

Desperate Tories?

Reading the media it seems that, whilst Cameron and his Etonian friends are oblivious of the progress being made by UKIP over recent months, the rest of the party and Conservative Central HQ are becoming increasingly worried.
Yesterday, cabinet minister Ken Clarke pronounced that UKIP was a bunch of ‘clowns’ and he had met supporters who ‘satisfy’ David Cameron’s 2006 assessment that UKIP is packed with ‘fruitcakes and closet racists’. Of course, Ken's remarks are somewhat akin the the "pot calling the kettle black", as one of the biggest clowns is, of course,  Boris Johnson. And it shouldn't have escaped his notice that being a clown doesn't make one ineligible to be a politician, as a party led by a stand-up comedian has recently won about 20% of the votes in the Italian general election!

But more importantly, according to a number of media sources (The Daily Telegraph, The Mail and the Commentator) Conservative Central HQ now has a team of about 20 people at work trying to “dig the dirt” on UKIP candidates for the local elections and trying to show that some are, or were, members of the BNP or have made “racist” remarks. They are apparently scouring Twitter, Facebook, etc for such evidence and I have no doubt that they will claim some success as I am quite sure that there will be a few members who are trying to use UKIP as a platform to promote their own personal interests or extremist views. This I believe is inevitable with any party.

Equally, I am sure that there are both Tory and Labour candidates and sitting members who have previously belonged to other parties or have made racist comments, but UKIP doesn’t seem to be wasting time seeking them out. Certainly UKIP has made it clear that  they will not tolerate racist, homophobic or other ‘unpalatable' views, and whilst they do not have the finance or facilities to vet all their candidates, they have said that they will take immediate action if any candidates with such views are drawn to their attention. As a result of this policy, they have just suspended two UKIP candidates amid claims of alleged racism. UKIP also point out that they are the only party in British politics who does not allow former members of the BNP to join, even as ordinary members, let alone stand as candidates. Labour, apparently, has sitting councillors who are former BNP members, which supports the view that the BNP is an extreme left wing party as was Germany's National Socialists.

To me, the CCHQ actions suggest extreme despair, the Tories have no arguments against the UKIP policies, so they attack the candidate. Personally, I don’t believe this will do the Tories any good, particularly when it comes to accusations of “racism”, as the public becoming inured to such accusations and now seem to regard them as a standard method of attack by politicians who are unable to counter their opponents' arguments.

With every day that passes, most of us take reports of racism less seriously in view of some of the ludicrous decisions that have been made on the subject. Seemingly, if one says something like "I am proud to be English", this is a racist remark as it denigrates those who are not English, although it is apparently not racist to be proud of one's Scots or Welsh ancestry!  Opposition to unrestricted immigration was considered to be racist for quite a while, but the Tories and Labour are busy back-peddling here as they realise that many of their members support the idea. And, of course, if one is opposed to same-sex marriage, one is automatically "homophobic", so again the two main parties must have many homophobic members.

It is time that, instead of mud-slinging, the Tories tried to come up with some real policies to counteract the UKIP threat, as by all considerations, I should be a natural Tory supporter. Regretfully, however, the only place that I now feel that I am likely to find true Conservative policies is within UKIP.

The Tories - All Talk and No Action

The main problem with the current Conservative Party, and the reason why it is where it is in the polls, can be summed up in two words - "David Cameron".
As a retired engineer, there are a number of phrases that I could use about him (without resorting to foul language), but the one at this time which seems most appropriate is that he should "learn to put his brain into gear before opening his mouth".
Only this morning, we are told that he has dropped his proposal for a "per unit" tax on alcohol, apparently under pressure from some members of the Cabinet. One might ask why on earth did he put forward the proposal without first discussing it with his colleagues? It seems to me that he heard about the idea, decided "That's great" without even the slightest thought that there could be problems in implementation. In any case, a subject like this is surely for a junior minister to consider, not the Prime Minister personally.  Next on the PM's agenda - Plastic bags!. We'd have never won the war if Churchill had worried about such trivia rather than fighting the war!

Another problem with Cameron is that in issues that matter to the electorate, all we get are promises but no action. "If" (a very big "if") he wins the next election, and "when" he has held negotiations with the EU, we are then promised a referendum on our membership. But he has said that he will campaign to stay in which hardly indicates much enthusiasm for real change.

He is loosing votes to UKIP because they make their position very, very clear; they want out of the EU. No "ifs" or "buts", they just want to get out. If by some miracle they were elected, no referendum would be needed as it is part of their manifesto, and they would simply be doing what they said that they would.

In my view, if Cameron wants to stop the erosion of votes to UKIP, he needs to do one thing, table the necessary legislation before Parliament for a referendum at the earliest possible date. We know the LibDems would oppose this (although in doing so they oppose democracy) but what would Labour do? Milliband has said that he opposes a referendum, and if he does, at least the public will know where Labour stands come the General Election.

Theresa May could also follow the same approach with the European Human Rights legislation. Put forward changes to our own laws to allow our Supreme Court to be the highest court of appeal. If Labour opposes this, the Tories would be in a far stronger position to blame Labour for all the difficulties in deporting illegal immigrants who manage to argue their right to family life under European law.

Meanwhile I am confident that UKIP's position in the polls will steadily rise followed by a big boost early next year as the Romanians and Bulgarians start to arrive here.

Cameron's Speech

At last we have the long awaited speech outlining Cameron's position towards the EU. Made at 8am yesterday morning, I wasn't up in time to watch it.
Nevertheless, having read the various reports and blogs, and listened to the views of both Labour and UKIP on television, I must admit that I'm not much wiser. To me it appeared to be one of those speeches which seems to offer something to everybody, but when closely examined, actually offers nothing.

The whole speech seems to be a blatant attempt to win the next election as everything mentioned is conditional upon the Conservatives being re-elected. Whilst he doesn't mention UKIP, the whole thing seems to ba an attempt to get the "fruitcakes and nutters" back into the Tory fold. In effect he was saying to people like myself, "UKIP don't have a hope in hell of winning the next election, so the only way that you will get a referendum is to vote Tory". Whilst this might seem a valid argument at the moment as Milliband is against a referendum, I'm sure that if the Tories enter the election campaign promising a referendum, Labour will do likewise.

As  understand the situation, Cameron is saying that if he wins the next election (and that's a very big "if"), he will take that as a mandate to renegotiate our relationship with the EU, and following these negotiations, he will put the result to a referendum at which he will campaign for a "yes" vote. There is absolutely no indication as to the matters which would be subject to re-negotiation or what outcome he would be seeking.

For me, the best assessment of his speech, albeit from a UKIP point of view, is by Alexandra Swann in her blog for the Telegraph (here) in which she concludes that it is "waffle, platitudes and vague promises".  Milliband's response that the uncertainty brought about by this speech is damaging to industry and investment is probably the most stupid of all as he could call for a referendum at any time and would probably get sufficient support from the Tory Eurosceptics to get it through parliament..

Meanwhile, I have this vision of Cameron returning from the EU negotiations, waving a piece of paper and proclaiming that we have "Europe in our time".