Two articles in the Wail today, one about half of the Tory MP's wanting to leave the EU and another about, errrm, half of the Tory MP's wanting to leave the EU.
Trooper Thompson nails it in spades over at his place and I find it difficult not to echo the same sentiments.
I am no Tory, however so important do I believe the issue of our continued membership in the EU to be that if at the next election the party made it clear that a vote for the Tories was a vote to get out, or at least have a referendum on the issue, that I would vote for them without hesitation. Even if the rest of the policy book was about putting kittens in microwaves and coating the cliffs of Dover in custard, I'd still vote for them. So much of our sovereignty has been handed over that nothing else matters, if we don't take that power back the issue of debt, cuts, taxation, law and order, smoking, databases, all of it, is just jigging around on the sideline like a 4 year old at a wedding reception disco.
So here's a message to all the Conservative MP's; if the reportage in the Mail is accurate (and I appreciate that it may not be), then grow a fucking pair and force the issue.
We've heard time and time again, especially during the expenses scandal, that MP's enter the job with the sincerely held intention to make a difference. Well now is the time to step up and bloody prove it.
The old doubts will come in. Is it better to be in power than to risk everything by sticking your head above the parapet? The answer is a simple no. Where is your self respect? You have an amazing opportunity to make a difference, take it. You bloody managed it in the face of the party machinery over live animals performing in circuses, you can do it on a really important issue.
Without doubt the LibDems would start cutting up rough about it, but you know what? You have to be true to your beliefs, your membership's beliefs and more importantly, your constituent's beliefs. My experience tells me that the vast majority of people are now thoroughly sick and fed up to the back teeth with the EU.
I'm not making a demand that we withdraw from the EU, but I think we at least deserve the opportunity to have our say. If an in/out referendum goes the way of 'in', then fair enough. What is not fair is that Cameron talks of cast-iron guarantees as a tool to keep the party membership happy, and then totally betrays that. Not good enough. It also means that I will never again believe a word he tells me. Why should you?
This duplicity means that your party is in real, real trouble. I know, for I have seen it with my own eyes. On Tuesday I attended a meeting held by Nigel Farage at Charing Parish Hall. As a recent joinee to UKIP, I was interested as to what I would see and hear. What surprised me was not what Farage did and said, but the people in the hall. It was standing room only, all the doors and windows were propped open as it was such a warm evening, loads of people were fanning themselves to keep cool. Not one person left before the end. The questions these people asked were salient, their responses to the answers telling.
To contextualise this, Charing is a charming little village between Ashford and Canterbury, it is right out of Darling Buds of May. The whole area is as Tory as Tory can be. There was one person in that packed hall that I would be confident in saying was younger than me, the gap between we two and the rest of the crowd was immense. These were retired people, or people well down the road to retirement. At the outset, Farage asked how many in the hall were UKIP members, fewer than a quarter of the hands went up. At the end of the evening, despite the heat, they were queueing in their droves to sign up as members.
These people ARE the Conservative party, they are the old women with elaborate hair dos, twin-set and pearls that you see at conference every year (or used to before the renta-diversity young crowd were used for doughnutting on the stage). When Farage mentioned Call Me Dave's cast iron guarantee the response from the floor was almost tangible. These people are very, very unhappy about the lie and the situation we now find ourselves in.
These are not the sort of people to bang drums and wave trade union banners, they will not storm Fortnum's or smash up the Savoy. These are the generation that were evacuated during the war, these are the people who have remained stoic in the face of Republican terrorism. There's no histrionics or shouting and chanting of slogans. They just stick their chin out with a steely determination and say, 'we'll see about that'. These are the people that the Conservative party have relied on for generations, and if what I saw on Tuesday night is representative, they're leaving the party in droves.
And you know what? These people have bridge clubs, bowls, coffee mornings, charitable events, and they'll all be telling their friends about how they joined UKIP, about how much sense that charming Mr. Farage spoke, and the word will spread.
If the Tory MP's don't snap Dave out of it, then the pro-euro wing of the Conservative party will have won, and a Pyrrhic victory it will be.
The question you need to ask yourself, as a Tory MP, is not 'can I afford to force the issue with Cameron', but 'can I afford NOT to force the issue with Cameron?'
What I saw on Tuesday was an earthquake, I reckon it is going to generate quite the tsunami. It was the first of such meetings that Farage is running in similar venues around the country, he's hit the demographic perfectly and it could spell very bad news for the Tories very quickly.
Showing posts with label UKIP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UKIP. Show all posts
Saturday, 2 July 2011
Thursday, 26 May 2011
Did I do the right thing?
A few days ago I set out my thinking about jumping ship from LPUK to UKIP. Well, my membership card arrived on Monday. That means I can now register for the UKIP forum and read about what is going on in the UKIP world.
I'm not sure how I feel about the UKIP forums being available to registered members only. Posting, probably fair enough, reading? I don't know. One of the strengths of the Libertarian cyber-movement is the ability to access material without trouble, what also sets the Libertarian set apart is the willingness to allow unmoderated comment on party and personal blogs, something most other parties would run a mile from.
Although as we'll see, this isn't without its down sides.
Still, we'll see. I went and visited the old house this morning, to see what has been going on over at the LPUK site. Since I left, it appears that the place has continued to fall apart, although I don't think the two are linked, it was heading that way anyway, that's why I left.
The whole thing is dominated by truth, half-truth, spun-truth, conspiracy theory and complete fantasy. It made it impossible for me to have any faith in any of the people involved. It is a complete bun-fight, and I should imagine to an outside observer it is very, very funny.
There are three news stories over at the LPUK site, where the same old people go on and throw the same old accusations, with the same old people issuing the same old rebuttals, and the same old people running the same old smear campaigns. The comments on these articles really are most . . . interesting? Enlightening? Entertaining? I don't know. But when articles start referencing a forum run by David Icke, you have to wonder who and what is involved in the party.
Maybe there is some grand conspiracy involving Common Purpose, the Illuminati, the Masons and lizards from outer space, I suppose we'll know when tin foil is banned. Up until that point and given the inability of governments to organise the simplest of tasks, I'll remain sceptical.
Have I done the right thing in joining UKIP? That remains to be seen, I do believe that the question of our EU membership is the biggest item on the agenda, arguing about anything else is a waste of time. It's like discussing what colour your new curtains will be while watching your house burn down. What you should be doing is calling the fire brigade. Let's sort the big one out and then worry about the other stuff, eh?
Have I done the right thing in leaving LPUK? Without doubt. I can't read the musings of those involved, the excuses, the accusations, see the smoke and mirrors and the rapidly swivelling eyes, and think that anyone would want to be involved with the party.
To those involved in the ridiculous arguments; well done, you've killed the party stone dead. A plague on both your houses.
I'm not sure how I feel about the UKIP forums being available to registered members only. Posting, probably fair enough, reading? I don't know. One of the strengths of the Libertarian cyber-movement is the ability to access material without trouble, what also sets the Libertarian set apart is the willingness to allow unmoderated comment on party and personal blogs, something most other parties would run a mile from.
Although as we'll see, this isn't without its down sides.
Still, we'll see. I went and visited the old house this morning, to see what has been going on over at the LPUK site. Since I left, it appears that the place has continued to fall apart, although I don't think the two are linked, it was heading that way anyway, that's why I left.
The whole thing is dominated by truth, half-truth, spun-truth, conspiracy theory and complete fantasy. It made it impossible for me to have any faith in any of the people involved. It is a complete bun-fight, and I should imagine to an outside observer it is very, very funny.
There are three news stories over at the LPUK site, where the same old people go on and throw the same old accusations, with the same old people issuing the same old rebuttals, and the same old people running the same old smear campaigns. The comments on these articles really are most . . . interesting? Enlightening? Entertaining? I don't know. But when articles start referencing a forum run by David Icke, you have to wonder who and what is involved in the party.
Maybe there is some grand conspiracy involving Common Purpose, the Illuminati, the Masons and lizards from outer space, I suppose we'll know when tin foil is banned. Up until that point and given the inability of governments to organise the simplest of tasks, I'll remain sceptical.
Have I done the right thing in joining UKIP? That remains to be seen, I do believe that the question of our EU membership is the biggest item on the agenda, arguing about anything else is a waste of time. It's like discussing what colour your new curtains will be while watching your house burn down. What you should be doing is calling the fire brigade. Let's sort the big one out and then worry about the other stuff, eh?
Have I done the right thing in leaving LPUK? Without doubt. I can't read the musings of those involved, the excuses, the accusations, see the smoke and mirrors and the rapidly swivelling eyes, and think that anyone would want to be involved with the party.
To those involved in the ridiculous arguments; well done, you've killed the party stone dead. A plague on both your houses.
Wednesday, 18 May 2011
Jumping ship.
Well folks, that looks like it is that.
The Comms Director, Rantin' Rab, Dick Puddlecote and no doubt many others are reporting the demise of LPUK. According to the official site, it ain't so. Yet. But let's face it, it is only the ventilator which is keeping the party alive, why delay the inevitable? Just pull the plug.
It was a noble experiment, but unfortunately it has been undone by inaction, a few swivel eyed loons and what appears to be a con-man or two.
Soooooooo, what now?
I'm with Dick Puddlecote. There are those who counsel a sort of political isolationism, and I understand where they are coming from what with the coalition, the continuing horror show that is the Labour party, the self-important faux-presidential style of Salmond, Cast Iron Dave actually being papier-mache, the Lib-Dems self destructing in an even more spectacular style than LPUK and the general slavish devotion to the EU (this is the biggest issue we have in my opinion), I find it hard to hold much faith in the political parties.
That being said, I feel that I believe in something strongly enough, and I do, that I should do what I can to promote and bring about that change. As a result, I will be joining UKIP.
I have concerns; despite the party's claim to be Libertarian, I'm not entirely convinced. The whole ban the burqa thing still leaves a bad taste in my mouth. Dictating what someone may or may not wear is decidedly anti-libertarian on pretty much every level you care to consider.
However, I feel it is preferable to be a Libertarian in a Libertarian faction in a party with designs on Libertarianism and have the opportunity to expand the ethos within an established party, than it is to be part of a wholly Libertarian yet dysfunctional, incredible and deeply flawed party.
I'm disappointed, but times of upheaval can result in opportunities not previously identified.
My membership will be taken up with UKIP within the hour. The ironic thing being that all the time I've been a Libertarian party member, I've voted either UKIP or spoiled my paper if they weren't on offer (with the exception of Dan Hannan). I never had the opportunity to back a Libertarian Party candidate.
Friday, 6 May 2011
Where do they go from here?
I was expecting the LibDems to get a shoeing, but I wasn't expecting them to be taken out the back and kicked to within an inch of their lives. I find I'm asking myself the question where do the LibDems go from here? This is a disaster of such magnitude for the party that it is difficult to know where to begin.
Clegg is done, of that there can be no doubt, he had his five minutes in the sun during the TV debates, but it soon clouded over. Chris Huhne has run the most appalling campaign for the yes vote, more of which in a moment, Vince Cable shot his bolt with his quite remarkable declaration of war on Murdoch. Who on earth is capable of stepping up to replace Clegg when the inevitable happens?
The LibDems have conjured up a perfect storm and make no mistake, it is all their own fault, no-one has stabbed themselves in the back here, they've committed ritual suicide infront of an entire nation. They've pulled off a master stroke by being able to alienate their own core support and the support of the non-member voters - they have utterly destroyed their powerbase which was always at the grass roots level.
I think most people who voted LibDem did so because of what they were not, rather than what they were. The most important thing they were not was either of the other two. Then the coalition came and the terrible truth dawned on the public; the LibDems were as grasping, power hungry, unprincipled and opportunistic as Labour and the Conservatives ever were. I said it at the time, the moment they entered into that coalition they had loaded the gun and pressed it to their own temple.
Now they are stuck. They daren't pull out as the Tories would most likely go to the polls, and their destruction would be complete. They have no cards to play, they are completely reliant on their Tory masters for their oxygen, from where I'm sitting it isn't the LibDem MPs keeping a coalition government breathing, it is a Tory party with the power of life and death over their junior, subordinate partners keeping the party breathing. I wonder how long it will be before the Tories start kidding on that they'll pull the plug?
Most of the non-members who voted LibDem did so because they couldn't stomach the other two, and they've now found that they've got exactly what they didn't want.
As for the members, the crushing defeat for the yes campaign is a slap in the face which must sting as much as the results in the locals, Scottish and Welsh polls. The LibDems have been banging on forever about PR, it is the thing their members seemed to desire most, once you factor in the understanding that they'd never get a majority under FPTP in a million years. That was the single biggest thing the LibDems had to bargain with, what their team settled for was the palest of facsimilies that very few people would have backed, it was a complete betrayal of their membership and showed that Clegg and pals would turn their back on their members in an instant for a go on the levers of power. That go on the levers, which cost the goodwill of the membership and the floating voters, has lasted not even a year from the announcement of coalition.
It is a collapse of stunning proportions.
So who are the winners here? Obviously in Scotland it is the SNP, although if they hold a referendum on independence, which they might, at that referendum is defeated, which it will be, one can only ask what the SNP are for, other than not being Labour?
South of the border Labour have made gains, but to be fair they couldn't have lost any more. The votes and seats they've picked up are the least Miliband could have wanted, and the collapse in Scotland shows in England that it is a parade of people from red to blue, blue to red, and so forth. People are voting against what they don't want, rather than what they do, ironically PR could go some way to solving this, but the LibDems caved in. Cheers, Nick.
No, Labour are no winners here.
A couple of months ago I commented that the LibDems were done, and also pointed out that the BBC were at pains not to tell us who the winners were in that by-election. Over the last couple of days we've heard nothing from them at all. They certainly weren't standing in my ward, I don't think they put many candidates up at the local level, although they did have candidates on the regional lists in Jockland.
Who? UKIP, that's who.
This a party that declares itself to be libertarian. Not libertarian enough to satisfy me, but a damn sight more libertarian than any of the other established parties. They are very attractive to frustrated EUro-sceptic Tories, desptie their proclaimed libertariansim, and I'm wondering if the libby tag might prove appealing to the liberal side of the LibDems, despite the obvious anti-EU bias contrasting with the slavish pro-EU stance of the LibDems. But that's just the members.
The public, the floating voters, those who have been using the LibDems as an effective 'none of the above' or 'screw the reds and the blues' vote will now put the LibDems squarely on the same ground as the other two. So when election time comes around again, whether it is the Euros or an early general, who will the floaters be looking at thinking 'I don't want to vote for those three, but who have I heard of?'
I know as the days tick by since the Anna Raccoon - Andrew Withers affair, it's now been almost a month without any word from the investigation, that I find myself looking at UKIP with increased warmth, better to be a libertarian component of a functioning party than an exclusively libertarian party which does not function.
UKIP, (and probably the Greens who I can see harvesting a good portion of the Social Democrat side of the LibDems) are probably sitting down feeling quite pleased this evening.
Clegg is done, of that there can be no doubt, he had his five minutes in the sun during the TV debates, but it soon clouded over. Chris Huhne has run the most appalling campaign for the yes vote, more of which in a moment, Vince Cable shot his bolt with his quite remarkable declaration of war on Murdoch. Who on earth is capable of stepping up to replace Clegg when the inevitable happens?
The LibDems have conjured up a perfect storm and make no mistake, it is all their own fault, no-one has stabbed themselves in the back here, they've committed ritual suicide infront of an entire nation. They've pulled off a master stroke by being able to alienate their own core support and the support of the non-member voters - they have utterly destroyed their powerbase which was always at the grass roots level.
I think most people who voted LibDem did so because of what they were not, rather than what they were. The most important thing they were not was either of the other two. Then the coalition came and the terrible truth dawned on the public; the LibDems were as grasping, power hungry, unprincipled and opportunistic as Labour and the Conservatives ever were. I said it at the time, the moment they entered into that coalition they had loaded the gun and pressed it to their own temple.
Now they are stuck. They daren't pull out as the Tories would most likely go to the polls, and their destruction would be complete. They have no cards to play, they are completely reliant on their Tory masters for their oxygen, from where I'm sitting it isn't the LibDem MPs keeping a coalition government breathing, it is a Tory party with the power of life and death over their junior, subordinate partners keeping the party breathing. I wonder how long it will be before the Tories start kidding on that they'll pull the plug?
Most of the non-members who voted LibDem did so because they couldn't stomach the other two, and they've now found that they've got exactly what they didn't want.
As for the members, the crushing defeat for the yes campaign is a slap in the face which must sting as much as the results in the locals, Scottish and Welsh polls. The LibDems have been banging on forever about PR, it is the thing their members seemed to desire most, once you factor in the understanding that they'd never get a majority under FPTP in a million years. That was the single biggest thing the LibDems had to bargain with, what their team settled for was the palest of facsimilies that very few people would have backed, it was a complete betrayal of their membership and showed that Clegg and pals would turn their back on their members in an instant for a go on the levers of power. That go on the levers, which cost the goodwill of the membership and the floating voters, has lasted not even a year from the announcement of coalition.
It is a collapse of stunning proportions.
So who are the winners here? Obviously in Scotland it is the SNP, although if they hold a referendum on independence, which they might, at that referendum is defeated, which it will be, one can only ask what the SNP are for, other than not being Labour?
South of the border Labour have made gains, but to be fair they couldn't have lost any more. The votes and seats they've picked up are the least Miliband could have wanted, and the collapse in Scotland shows in England that it is a parade of people from red to blue, blue to red, and so forth. People are voting against what they don't want, rather than what they do, ironically PR could go some way to solving this, but the LibDems caved in. Cheers, Nick.
No, Labour are no winners here.
A couple of months ago I commented that the LibDems were done, and also pointed out that the BBC were at pains not to tell us who the winners were in that by-election. Over the last couple of days we've heard nothing from them at all. They certainly weren't standing in my ward, I don't think they put many candidates up at the local level, although they did have candidates on the regional lists in Jockland.
Who? UKIP, that's who.
This a party that declares itself to be libertarian. Not libertarian enough to satisfy me, but a damn sight more libertarian than any of the other established parties. They are very attractive to frustrated EUro-sceptic Tories, desptie their proclaimed libertariansim, and I'm wondering if the libby tag might prove appealing to the liberal side of the LibDems, despite the obvious anti-EU bias contrasting with the slavish pro-EU stance of the LibDems. But that's just the members.
The public, the floating voters, those who have been using the LibDems as an effective 'none of the above' or 'screw the reds and the blues' vote will now put the LibDems squarely on the same ground as the other two. So when election time comes around again, whether it is the Euros or an early general, who will the floaters be looking at thinking 'I don't want to vote for those three, but who have I heard of?'
I know as the days tick by since the Anna Raccoon - Andrew Withers affair, it's now been almost a month without any word from the investigation, that I find myself looking at UKIP with increased warmth, better to be a libertarian component of a functioning party than an exclusively libertarian party which does not function.
UKIP, (and probably the Greens who I can see harvesting a good portion of the Social Democrat side of the LibDems) are probably sitting down feeling quite pleased this evening.
Wednesday, 9 March 2011
It's about courage.
An interesting little article over at Direct Democracy today about how the question of an in/out referendum regarding the EU won't go away, how many Tories are turning to UKIP and the phenomenon of cross bench agreement between Labour and Conservative MPs in their support for such a referendum. It's a rum old do, and I do think the debate about the votes for prisoners was the moment a very large penny dropped.
I remember the days when Labour were EUro-sceptic, well in part at least, there was a very real danger that Labour in opposition in '93 could have wrecked the ratification of the Maastricht treaty. Of course they didn't because even then, their top table was completely in hock to the EUro project. I remember being raging at the time as a very naive teenager who was foresquare behind the EU, I've worken up since then. But the world has changed since the early nineties, not least because Labour are starting to lose votes to the BNP. I don't think this is because Labour are propped up by a bunch of horrible racists, Socialists have many ugly facets, but casual racism isn't one of them, it is because so many people are utterly fed up with the EU. Those Labour voters who are fed up with it aren't likely to vote UKIP, because they are at heart Tories. Despite their discomfort about the BNP's agenda, they are the only party offering what they want in a left centric fashion (pay no heed to the hype, there is nothing right wing about the BNP, they are as red as red can be, just as Mussolini was), so they will go there.
For the Tories the argument is simpler, they understand markets and are not burdened by a sense of loyalty - my party right or wrong - as it were. If the party they follow stops offering what they want, they will take their vote elsewhere. Unfortunately for the Tories their top table is also hopelessly, helplessly wedded to le projet. The backbenchers will stamp their feet, and can do it all they like, it will make no difference, the only thing cast iron about Dave and his chums is that he will do everything he can to ensure that the UK remains in the EU. Just like Mubarak in Egypt, Cameron will defy the wishes of the majority to the bitter end, right up until the moment a man with a (metaphorical in i-Dave's case) gun taps him on the shoulder. It is no coincedence that one of Cameron's first gambits was to neuter the 1922 Committee.
Even so, it is easier for the Tories to unseat their leader than it is for Labour. Lest we forget, Labour have never chucked a leader out on his ear, it just doesn't work that way, and the current leader was elected by the internationalist trade unions, not the party membership.
The Labour back benchers could find themselves slapped down in short order.
The Tory backbenchers will be studiously ignored.
The LibDems, well, just look at Nick's history, they talk a brave fight, calling for a full referendum when everyone else was calling for one over Lisbon was one of the more transparent bluffs I've ever seen. They'd run a mile if they thought one was ever on the horizon. They're a blusted flush, anyway. When Farrage talks about UKIP being the proper voice of the opposition right now, I don't think he's too far from the truth.
I've always maintained that Labour sold their heritage down the river when they plumped for Blair and Brown, they abandoned their core constituency because they wanted power. That damage will take years to repair, if it ever is.
The Tories did the same thing when they elected Cameron, they'd rather be in power than have a leader who represented their views. Well, it was your party, your choice.
So, it is all about courage.
Will the MP's have the courage to jeopardise their hands being on the levers of power? Will those who vote for the big two have the courage to vote in a way which means their tribe may not have power?
Do the Labour backbench MPs have the courage to go against their newly imposed leader? Doubt it.
Do the Tory backbench MPs (who at least have two options) have the courage to either defy their leader and try to bring about a leadership challenge, or even more radically try hold him to ransom by threatening to bring the government down by taking the UKIP whip if he doesn't submit to their demands, and do they have the courage to actually do it if he calls their bluff? Doubt that too.
No, the real courage must come from the voters. Do the electorate have the courage to realise that our continued membership of the EU is the biggest issue out there? Make no mistake about it, if you want to be a resident in a territory that is a constituent part of a Federal single European state, then you want to stay in. If you don't then you want to get out. There are, and can be, no half measures here, the stated aim of the EU is clear, if you think it won't end in one bloody great big country stretching from the Bosphorus to the Atlantic, then you're kidding yourself.
Do the electorate have the courage to end their own abusive relationship with their tribal party and vote elsewhere? Is there really a desire to get out of the EU? Do people really care?
Unfortunately I fear not, and this is what the EU, the European Commission and the leaderships of the big three bank on. I'm confident that if a referendum came to pass, that an out vote would win the day, but I don't think the electorate have the gumption to force the issue through the lobby or the ballot box. I think that those who do care can make life uncomfortable for their natural parties, but I don't think they can bring the house down.
So that means it is down to our MPs to do the right thing and give us the chance to have our say, once and for all, whichever way it goes. The prospect of relying on them chills me to the bone.
I remember the days when Labour were EUro-sceptic, well in part at least, there was a very real danger that Labour in opposition in '93 could have wrecked the ratification of the Maastricht treaty. Of course they didn't because even then, their top table was completely in hock to the EUro project. I remember being raging at the time as a very naive teenager who was foresquare behind the EU, I've worken up since then. But the world has changed since the early nineties, not least because Labour are starting to lose votes to the BNP. I don't think this is because Labour are propped up by a bunch of horrible racists, Socialists have many ugly facets, but casual racism isn't one of them, it is because so many people are utterly fed up with the EU. Those Labour voters who are fed up with it aren't likely to vote UKIP, because they are at heart Tories. Despite their discomfort about the BNP's agenda, they are the only party offering what they want in a left centric fashion (pay no heed to the hype, there is nothing right wing about the BNP, they are as red as red can be, just as Mussolini was), so they will go there.
For the Tories the argument is simpler, they understand markets and are not burdened by a sense of loyalty - my party right or wrong - as it were. If the party they follow stops offering what they want, they will take their vote elsewhere. Unfortunately for the Tories their top table is also hopelessly, helplessly wedded to le projet. The backbenchers will stamp their feet, and can do it all they like, it will make no difference, the only thing cast iron about Dave and his chums is that he will do everything he can to ensure that the UK remains in the EU. Just like Mubarak in Egypt, Cameron will defy the wishes of the majority to the bitter end, right up until the moment a man with a (metaphorical in i-Dave's case) gun taps him on the shoulder. It is no coincedence that one of Cameron's first gambits was to neuter the 1922 Committee.
Even so, it is easier for the Tories to unseat their leader than it is for Labour. Lest we forget, Labour have never chucked a leader out on his ear, it just doesn't work that way, and the current leader was elected by the internationalist trade unions, not the party membership.
The Labour back benchers could find themselves slapped down in short order.
The Tory backbenchers will be studiously ignored.
The LibDems, well, just look at Nick's history, they talk a brave fight, calling for a full referendum when everyone else was calling for one over Lisbon was one of the more transparent bluffs I've ever seen. They'd run a mile if they thought one was ever on the horizon. They're a blusted flush, anyway. When Farrage talks about UKIP being the proper voice of the opposition right now, I don't think he's too far from the truth.
I've always maintained that Labour sold their heritage down the river when they plumped for Blair and Brown, they abandoned their core constituency because they wanted power. That damage will take years to repair, if it ever is.
The Tories did the same thing when they elected Cameron, they'd rather be in power than have a leader who represented their views. Well, it was your party, your choice.
So, it is all about courage.
Will the MP's have the courage to jeopardise their hands being on the levers of power? Will those who vote for the big two have the courage to vote in a way which means their tribe may not have power?
Do the Labour backbench MPs have the courage to go against their newly imposed leader? Doubt it.
Do the Tory backbench MPs (who at least have two options) have the courage to either defy their leader and try to bring about a leadership challenge, or even more radically try hold him to ransom by threatening to bring the government down by taking the UKIP whip if he doesn't submit to their demands, and do they have the courage to actually do it if he calls their bluff? Doubt that too.
No, the real courage must come from the voters. Do the electorate have the courage to realise that our continued membership of the EU is the biggest issue out there? Make no mistake about it, if you want to be a resident in a territory that is a constituent part of a Federal single European state, then you want to stay in. If you don't then you want to get out. There are, and can be, no half measures here, the stated aim of the EU is clear, if you think it won't end in one bloody great big country stretching from the Bosphorus to the Atlantic, then you're kidding yourself.
Do the electorate have the courage to end their own abusive relationship with their tribal party and vote elsewhere? Is there really a desire to get out of the EU? Do people really care?
Unfortunately I fear not, and this is what the EU, the European Commission and the leaderships of the big three bank on. I'm confident that if a referendum came to pass, that an out vote would win the day, but I don't think the electorate have the gumption to force the issue through the lobby or the ballot box. I think that those who do care can make life uncomfortable for their natural parties, but I don't think they can bring the house down.
So that means it is down to our MPs to do the right thing and give us the chance to have our say, once and for all, whichever way it goes. The prospect of relying on them chills me to the bone.
Friday, 4 March 2011
Stick a fork in them, they're done.
An excellent example of the BBC reporting some of the news this morning. I'll show you what I mean:
Labour have won the Barnsley Central by-election, while the Lib Dems slipped to sixth in the South Yorkshire seat.
Who finished second, then?
UKIP, the Conservatives, the BNP and an independent all finished ahead of the Lib Dems, who had finished second in the seat in 2010's general election.
Blimey, but who finished second?
Lib Dem candidate Dominic Carman said his party had been given "a kicking", while Labour's victorious Dan Jarvis said it was a message to the coalition.
I think it will be the first of a number of protracted and very painful kickings that the LimpDims will get over the next few years, it will culminate in an almighty tonking at the next GE which will probably see them in ICU on life support. Errrrm, who came second?
The contest followed the former Labour MP's resignation over his expenses.
Second place though? Who was it?
At the general election Eric Illsley had held Barnsley Central with a majority of just over 11,000 and 47% of the vote, with the Liberal Democrats in second place.
OK, so who finished second this time?
But the MP resigned his seat after pleading guilty to falsely claiming £14,000 in parliamentary expenses. He was later jailed for a year.
Yes, yes, we know that, but let's get back to last night, you know, the new bit of the news? Who ended up in that position between first and third place?
Labour got 14,724 votes in the by-election, extending their majority slightly to 11,771, but the turnout fell to 36.5%, compared with 56.4% at the last general election.
Yes, come on, come on!
Labour took 60.8% of the vote, UKIP's Jane Collins 12.19%, the Conservatives' James Hockney 8.25%, the BNP's Enis Dalton 6.04%, Independent Tony Devoy 5.23% and the Liberal Democrats' Dominic Carman 4.18%.
Boom! There it is, even if they don't actually say UKIP came second, there it is, in plain sight, UKIP came second. Why did it take them eight paragraphs to actually give us the news?
More to the point, and at the risk of being accused of accusing the BBC of pro-Tory bias, why is there no mention of UKIP seeing off the Tories, their closest (in terms of policy) rivals?
Yes, Labour won and increased their majority, but this is Barnsley, hardly a shock that. The fact that UKIP beat the Tories, by taking getting on to half again what the Tories managed to poll is big, big news. The LibDems? Meh, their goose was cooked the moment they entered into a coalition, because there's a big difference between the voters and the top table; the voters wanted LibDem policy, the top table wanted a go at pressing the buttons, and now Clegg and chums look like the little kids who press the buttons and waggle the joystick on an arcade machine even though no-one has put any money it. They're playing at being in government, bless.
The media, and the BBC particularly, are banging on about a disaster for Clegg, which it is, but it is oh so predictable. The real sit up and take notice headline is UKIP. They were never going to win this seat, not in a million years, but I would expect them to coming in behind the big three by some distance, perhaps even behind the BNP in a Labour seat as well, the question is, how many Tory voters abandoned the ship and plumped for a seat in the anti-EU lifeboat? Their share of the vote went up from 4.7% in May to to 12.1% yesterday, they've almost trebled their share of the take. The Tories have gone from 17.3% to 8.2%, so is it fair to assume that the 8% extra UKIP gained came from the 9% loss suffered by the Tories? I doubt many of them came from the 13% that deserted the LimpDims, who probably account for the biggest portion of voters who stayed at home in a turn out that was significantly less than was seen in May.
It is always difficult to tell in a by-election, but if we see the same in a general election, where the traditional Lib Dem voters decide that they don't want anything to do with the party, (or probably more likely, Clegg, anyone notice how quiet Vince Cable has been recently?), but have no intention of turning out for the other big two, then the next general election, especially if AV is carried in May, could be very interesting indeed.
What I'd really like to see is a by-election in a 'safe' Tory seat, it would be interesting to see how UKIP perform there, and also to see how much the BNP would take from a no-hope Labour candidate.
The coverage, such as it was, of the campaign in Barnsley was dominated with people bemoaning the general crapness of the big three. Change is on the wind, it is only a little breeze at the moment, but it could turn into a gale, given the right conditions, and they are conditions the big three are unwittingly bringing about.
As for the BBC? Of course they're not biased towards the Tories, that is a ridiculous notion. The only thing that trumps their hatred of the Tories is their love of the Euro-project, and so UKIP will get no recognition at all. Indeed even if the totals for Labour and UKIP in this by-election were transposed, the news would still be about the collapse of the LibDems. Yes, it was predictable, but that's news, isn't it? As far as they are concerned we want dog bites man, what happened was man bites dog, and the EU is a big, ugly, mangy dog.
No, we don't need to know about that at all.
Wednesday, 24 February 2010
The One That Is Chuckling. . .
Just a quickie this evening.
I've grown to mis-trust UKIP recently, I don't think the election of Lord Pearson as leader has been good for anyone, with the possible exception of the Tories, and they don't count.
Farage shows again why he was by far the best public face of the party.
Sit back and enjoy.
I've grown to mis-trust UKIP recently, I don't think the election of Lord Pearson as leader has been good for anyone, with the possible exception of the Tories, and they don't count.
Farage shows again why he was by far the best public face of the party.
Sit back and enjoy.
Wednesday, 20 January 2010
The One That Is Saying 'Burqa, burqa, burqa' . . .
Yes, I’m still banging on about this burqa thing.
I don’t want to start a flame war over at Trixie’s place, but as you’ll see from the comments I’ve attempted to explain why I think the UKIP policy is wrong.
Her response to my comment is succinct to say the least: ‘You know what? When one of your mates is blown to shit by a group of fanatical muslims you just hate them.’
I really don’t see the connection between suicide bombers and the burqa. It’s like trying to connect fanatical Christians killing abortion doctors and a nun’s habit. The logic is flawed, the London bombers claimed to be devout Muslims, some women who claim to be devout Muslims wear the burqa, therefore the burqa is representative of suicide bombers.
If what Trixy is really trying to say is that ‘the burqa should be banned because I hate fundamentalist Islam’ then that is what she should say. I don’t much care for fundamentalist Islam either. Granted none of my friends have been blown up by them, but that doesn’t alter my dislike. I’d say the same for fundamentalist Christians, Jews and anyone else who seeks to destroy and kill in the name of their beliefs. It seems obvious that Trixy lost someone she cares about in an attack, and for that she has my sympathy, but it doesn’t alter the fact that banning an item of clothing is just plain wrong and unproductive.
What would the ramifications be of banning the burqa? Would it send all the Muslims ‘home?’ No. Would it serve to send the nutters over the edge into real fruit loop territory and the pissed off into the nutter camp? Probably. What is certain is that you’d see fewer Muslim women on the streets. These women would not just sigh and discard their burqa in favour of a permitted item of clothing? No. They’d be even more isolated and alienated because they’d never leave the house. This isn’t going to help assimilation, it’s going to set it back. It would imprison some Muslim women, not liberate them.
An easy response is to say, ‘well, they chose to wear it, they can just as easily choose not to if they want to leave the house.’ But why the hell should they? What business is it of anyone’s what someone else chooses to wear?
As I said in the comments over at Trixy’s; I was considering voting for UKIP at the next election, but things like this which demonstrate a mania for control in line with Labour, Tories and the LimpDims gives me real cause for concern. If they want to regulate what people are allowed to wear then what else is going to be regulated before and after it?
Trixy herself says that women wearing the burqa ‘make themselves unapproachable and many people find them intimidating.’ Well, suppose they don’t want to be approached? I would maintain that being left alone if you want to be is fine and dandy. As for people finding them intimidating, so what? Why do they find them intimidating? Is it down a specific incident they have encountered personally, or is it down to the fear of ignorance? Would they feel intimidated by a bishop in full garb? A skinhead in braces, tight jeans and cherry reds? A cyclist wearing a face-mask? A man wearing a football shirt? A woman in full punk regalia? An officer in police uniform? Should all these be banned because many people could find them intimidating? Is the problem with the image you are projecting or with your perception of the person you are looking at?
Trixy continues; ‘I don't agree with the excessive amount of CCTV cameras. . .’, I am imagining because she feels it is wrong to watch and track people when they are going about their lawful business. ‘. . . but I also don't agree with fundamentalist muslims dressing up in Burkhas and veils knowing that they can't be recognised’ Does this mean that Old Holborn should be banned from wearing his V mask on Novermber 5th? Or is it OK as he’s not a suicide bomber or a Muslim? (I’ve met OH on a few occasions, I don’t know if he is Muslim or not, I’m guessing not, but I’ve never asked, it’s none of my business and I couldn’t care less anyway)
Again, if Trixy is saying ‘the burqa should be banned because I hate fundamentalist Islam’, then where do we draw the line? Do we also ban men wearing traditional Muslim garb? Will that make terrorism more difficult? Or did the 7/7 bombers dress in a Western fashion to avoid drawing attention to themselves? How about banning Mosques? Banning the practice of Islam in the home? The deportation of Muslims from the UK? How about the Jews, should we do that too? Are people intimidated by Hassidic Jews and their dress? What about Blacks? Many people get very nervy when they see a black person, just look at the gun crime stats, should we be afraid of them? Catholics as well, the Irish have been blowing things up for years.
Or is this just lashing out at something because it has harmed you? Is it acceptable then to punish one whole section of society for an injury caused by a very small part of that section? I would suggest that in any other discussion, Trixy would say that it is not acceptable.
I’m not accusing Trixy of being a racist, that’s a ridiculous argument, and it’s a lazy one as well, it’s just one step from Godwin’s Law. I’m just trying to illustrate a point that once this particular box is opened, you can justify the control and restraint of any group in society with great ease.
Banning things which cause no injury or harm to anyone or their property is a bad thing, it restricts liberty, it does not extend it. Banning things because they are a symbol of something you don’t like or that is different from you is very bad and will more often than not end in tears.
I don’t want to start a flame war over at Trixie’s place, but as you’ll see from the comments I’ve attempted to explain why I think the UKIP policy is wrong.
Her response to my comment is succinct to say the least: ‘You know what? When one of your mates is blown to shit by a group of fanatical muslims you just hate them.’
I really don’t see the connection between suicide bombers and the burqa. It’s like trying to connect fanatical Christians killing abortion doctors and a nun’s habit. The logic is flawed, the London bombers claimed to be devout Muslims, some women who claim to be devout Muslims wear the burqa, therefore the burqa is representative of suicide bombers.
If what Trixy is really trying to say is that ‘the burqa should be banned because I hate fundamentalist Islam’ then that is what she should say. I don’t much care for fundamentalist Islam either. Granted none of my friends have been blown up by them, but that doesn’t alter my dislike. I’d say the same for fundamentalist Christians, Jews and anyone else who seeks to destroy and kill in the name of their beliefs. It seems obvious that Trixy lost someone she cares about in an attack, and for that she has my sympathy, but it doesn’t alter the fact that banning an item of clothing is just plain wrong and unproductive.
What would the ramifications be of banning the burqa? Would it send all the Muslims ‘home?’ No. Would it serve to send the nutters over the edge into real fruit loop territory and the pissed off into the nutter camp? Probably. What is certain is that you’d see fewer Muslim women on the streets. These women would not just sigh and discard their burqa in favour of a permitted item of clothing? No. They’d be even more isolated and alienated because they’d never leave the house. This isn’t going to help assimilation, it’s going to set it back. It would imprison some Muslim women, not liberate them.
An easy response is to say, ‘well, they chose to wear it, they can just as easily choose not to if they want to leave the house.’ But why the hell should they? What business is it of anyone’s what someone else chooses to wear?
As I said in the comments over at Trixy’s; I was considering voting for UKIP at the next election, but things like this which demonstrate a mania for control in line with Labour, Tories and the LimpDims gives me real cause for concern. If they want to regulate what people are allowed to wear then what else is going to be regulated before and after it?
Trixy herself says that women wearing the burqa ‘make themselves unapproachable and many people find them intimidating.’ Well, suppose they don’t want to be approached? I would maintain that being left alone if you want to be is fine and dandy. As for people finding them intimidating, so what? Why do they find them intimidating? Is it down a specific incident they have encountered personally, or is it down to the fear of ignorance? Would they feel intimidated by a bishop in full garb? A skinhead in braces, tight jeans and cherry reds? A cyclist wearing a face-mask? A man wearing a football shirt? A woman in full punk regalia? An officer in police uniform? Should all these be banned because many people could find them intimidating? Is the problem with the image you are projecting or with your perception of the person you are looking at?
Trixy continues; ‘I don't agree with the excessive amount of CCTV cameras. . .’, I am imagining because she feels it is wrong to watch and track people when they are going about their lawful business. ‘. . . but I also don't agree with fundamentalist muslims dressing up in Burkhas and veils knowing that they can't be recognised’ Does this mean that Old Holborn should be banned from wearing his V mask on Novermber 5th? Or is it OK as he’s not a suicide bomber or a Muslim? (I’ve met OH on a few occasions, I don’t know if he is Muslim or not, I’m guessing not, but I’ve never asked, it’s none of my business and I couldn’t care less anyway)
Again, if Trixy is saying ‘the burqa should be banned because I hate fundamentalist Islam’, then where do we draw the line? Do we also ban men wearing traditional Muslim garb? Will that make terrorism more difficult? Or did the 7/7 bombers dress in a Western fashion to avoid drawing attention to themselves? How about banning Mosques? Banning the practice of Islam in the home? The deportation of Muslims from the UK? How about the Jews, should we do that too? Are people intimidated by Hassidic Jews and their dress? What about Blacks? Many people get very nervy when they see a black person, just look at the gun crime stats, should we be afraid of them? Catholics as well, the Irish have been blowing things up for years.
Or is this just lashing out at something because it has harmed you? Is it acceptable then to punish one whole section of society for an injury caused by a very small part of that section? I would suggest that in any other discussion, Trixy would say that it is not acceptable.
I’m not accusing Trixy of being a racist, that’s a ridiculous argument, and it’s a lazy one as well, it’s just one step from Godwin’s Law. I’m just trying to illustrate a point that once this particular box is opened, you can justify the control and restraint of any group in society with great ease.
Banning things which cause no injury or harm to anyone or their property is a bad thing, it restricts liberty, it does not extend it. Banning things because they are a symbol of something you don’t like or that is different from you is very bad and will more often than not end in tears.
Sunday, 17 January 2010
The One That Is Saying 'Oh Great, What Do I Do Now?'. . .
So UKIP are considering calling for the banning of the burqa.
Classy.
I don't particularly care for the burqa, I think it alienates the wearer from the rest of the world, but hey, if people want to wear one, then that's their choice. This is the whole point of Libertarianism, isn't it? Do as you will, save harming others? Well people wearing burqas do me no harm at all, so go for it.
This intended ban is lazy, achieves nothing and just demonstrates that UKIP are just like the Tories, LimpDims, Labour, Greens and the BNP. It's not about reflecting peoples' views, it's about changing peoples' views and behaviour to suit their ideals. It is still 'Vote for us and do as you're told.'
Well, fuck that for a game of soldiers, not with my consent, you won't.
I'm not anticipating an LPUK candidate in my constituency for the next GE, indeed my feelings are that until we build some sort of foundation at the town/city/borough and county council level, we're in danger of building castles on sand. We have to play a very long game indeed. Even so, UKIP were amongst the front runners for my vote, just because the EU question is one that I believe is central to our future as a country. Well, not after that little stunt, fuck you, UKIP. I'll vote for the indie or spoil my paper. Again.
I would hope that if we do get into a position where our press releases and policies are given mainstream media coverage, that we as a party would refrain from this sort of rubbish, that we would stick to our principles rather than rubbing our hands with glee at the prospect of pushing the buttons.
Bang goes the argument that UKIP aren't some swivel eyed racist party. From where I'm sitting we have the collectivist racists of the BNP and the capitalist racists of UKIP. I'll back capitalist over collectivist any day of the week, but factor in racism, and you can fuck right off.
What a bunch of knob-jockeys.
Classy.
I don't particularly care for the burqa, I think it alienates the wearer from the rest of the world, but hey, if people want to wear one, then that's their choice. This is the whole point of Libertarianism, isn't it? Do as you will, save harming others? Well people wearing burqas do me no harm at all, so go for it.
This intended ban is lazy, achieves nothing and just demonstrates that UKIP are just like the Tories, LimpDims, Labour, Greens and the BNP. It's not about reflecting peoples' views, it's about changing peoples' views and behaviour to suit their ideals. It is still 'Vote for us and do as you're told.'
Well, fuck that for a game of soldiers, not with my consent, you won't.
I'm not anticipating an LPUK candidate in my constituency for the next GE, indeed my feelings are that until we build some sort of foundation at the town/city/borough and county council level, we're in danger of building castles on sand. We have to play a very long game indeed. Even so, UKIP were amongst the front runners for my vote, just because the EU question is one that I believe is central to our future as a country. Well, not after that little stunt, fuck you, UKIP. I'll vote for the indie or spoil my paper. Again.
I would hope that if we do get into a position where our press releases and policies are given mainstream media coverage, that we as a party would refrain from this sort of rubbish, that we would stick to our principles rather than rubbing our hands with glee at the prospect of pushing the buttons.
Bang goes the argument that UKIP aren't some swivel eyed racist party. From where I'm sitting we have the collectivist racists of the BNP and the capitalist racists of UKIP. I'll back capitalist over collectivist any day of the week, but factor in racism, and you can fuck right off.
What a bunch of knob-jockeys.
Wednesday, 20 May 2009
The One That Hopes It Is A Typo . . .
Or does it really reveal some good old BBC bias?
In this article from Pravda which casts an eye over the chances of the English Democrats in the forthcoming European elections, it reads in part:
The UK Independence Party (UKIP) appears to be the main beneficiary of public anger over the MPs' expenses scandal, while the British National Party (UKIP) believes it is on the verge of gaining its first seats in the European Parliament.
Hmmm, is that people really feel in White City, or is it just a typo? Let's see how they take to change it. . .
Saturday, 16 May 2009
The One That Is All Of A Quandry. . .
My poll card for the forthcoming elections dropped onto my doormat this morning, and it has distracted me from the circus side show of the expenses for a moment.
My vote is something I take very seriously. Despite all that Labour have done since they took power to marginalise our liberties, we are fortunate to live in a country where we have the opportunity to kick out and/or vote in the people of our choice. I may support someone who is ultimately unsuccesful, but at least I have the opportunity to support them. There are millions of people living around the world who would view this power with a sense of wonder. A vote is not something to be treated lightly, or ignored.
I've pretty much made my mind up in the Council elections, so that really isn't an issue. The big question is; who the hell do I support in the Europeans? Firstly, the Libertarians are not standing in the Europeans, a decision I understand and give qualified to support to, so that's them out. I can also discount the following:
Labour - Not even the hard of thinking will need an explanation as to why it will be a cold day in hell before I support that shower. I've never voted for them, and I'm not about to start now.
LibDem - I had a brief dalliance with them when I was teenager (well, who hasn't?) before realising that, well, they're just a bit shit, really.
Greens - What was it that Caroline Lucas said? Something about flying away on holiday is like stabbing someone in the street? No point in them going to Brussels then, OK they can take the Eurostar, but how do they attend seminars, conferences and the like? Do they swim? Bollocks to them.
BNP - The devilish bit of me quite likes the idea of one or two BNP seats. I can't stand the arseholes, but the political class need a good hefty smack in the mouth, a couple of BNP Euro seats would do just that. But, no, I cannot in all good conscience vote for them. As I said, my vote is important to me, and I've also said in the past that it is important to vote for something, rather than against it. It wouldn't be a vote for the BNP, it would be a vote against the big three.
Nearly, but not quite:
Jury Team - Nice idea, but it all seems to have been thrown together at the last minute. Perhaps next time when I'm surer of their mechanics.
English Democrats - I quite like their basic policies - anti-EU, pro-English parliament, but I'm still a little hazy of what they want beyond that.
Libertas - Fair play to Declan Ganley and his scuppering of the Lisbon referendum in Ireland, but I'm afraid that the whole 'in Europe, not run by Europe' rings a little hollow. Sorry, lads, not for me.
No2EU - Except for the obvious, I know nothing about them.
So that really leaves me with two choices, and one of them many of you would have expected to see in the instantly discounted list:
Conservatives - I'm not a Tory supporter, and I'm well aware that in the Europeans you vote for a party rather than a candidate. However, I am a fan of Dan Hannan, he is very much on the Libertarian wing of the party, is not afraid to raise his head above the parapet and I like what he says. He is number 1 on the Tory list (I live in the South-East England constituency), so I suppose it is a given he'll be returned to Brussels. But does that mean I should not vote for him? I support him, but not his party, so it would be a vote for something, but I'd rather he was doing it wearing a UKIP rosette, given that we (The Libertarians) won't be standing.
UKIP - Single issue party they may be, but bloody hell, what an important issue. Their policy is one that I support wholeheartedly. I honestly believe that if we are to take control of our country then leaving the EU is the only really effective step we can take to start the process. I also think it is important that (as far as I am aware) the UKIP policy if they were to get elected to Westminster, is that a referendum would be held on the issue. Whilst it is unlikely that UKIP would be elected to power in Westminster on a protest vote, I think it is vital that the national debate on continuted EU membership is held. I hate the big three refusing to discuss our withdrawal, and would not want to put those in favour of our membership in the same position as I find myself now. There must be a proper, temperate debate and a simple question put to the electorate.
So, do I vote for a party that has a policy close to my heart, or do I vote for the individual I have a great deal of respect for, but who just happens to sit at the top of the list for a party I do not support? A difficult decision, and one that I'm going to have to give some very serious thought to.
My vote is something I take very seriously. Despite all that Labour have done since they took power to marginalise our liberties, we are fortunate to live in a country where we have the opportunity to kick out and/or vote in the people of our choice. I may support someone who is ultimately unsuccesful, but at least I have the opportunity to support them. There are millions of people living around the world who would view this power with a sense of wonder. A vote is not something to be treated lightly, or ignored.
I've pretty much made my mind up in the Council elections, so that really isn't an issue. The big question is; who the hell do I support in the Europeans? Firstly, the Libertarians are not standing in the Europeans, a decision I understand and give qualified to support to, so that's them out. I can also discount the following:
Labour - Not even the hard of thinking will need an explanation as to why it will be a cold day in hell before I support that shower. I've never voted for them, and I'm not about to start now.
LibDem - I had a brief dalliance with them when I was teenager (well, who hasn't?) before realising that, well, they're just a bit shit, really.
Greens - What was it that Caroline Lucas said? Something about flying away on holiday is like stabbing someone in the street? No point in them going to Brussels then, OK they can take the Eurostar, but how do they attend seminars, conferences and the like? Do they swim? Bollocks to them.
BNP - The devilish bit of me quite likes the idea of one or two BNP seats. I can't stand the arseholes, but the political class need a good hefty smack in the mouth, a couple of BNP Euro seats would do just that. But, no, I cannot in all good conscience vote for them. As I said, my vote is important to me, and I've also said in the past that it is important to vote for something, rather than against it. It wouldn't be a vote for the BNP, it would be a vote against the big three.
Nearly, but not quite:
Jury Team - Nice idea, but it all seems to have been thrown together at the last minute. Perhaps next time when I'm surer of their mechanics.
English Democrats - I quite like their basic policies - anti-EU, pro-English parliament, but I'm still a little hazy of what they want beyond that.
Libertas - Fair play to Declan Ganley and his scuppering of the Lisbon referendum in Ireland, but I'm afraid that the whole 'in Europe, not run by Europe' rings a little hollow. Sorry, lads, not for me.
No2EU - Except for the obvious, I know nothing about them.
So that really leaves me with two choices, and one of them many of you would have expected to see in the instantly discounted list:
Conservatives - I'm not a Tory supporter, and I'm well aware that in the Europeans you vote for a party rather than a candidate. However, I am a fan of Dan Hannan, he is very much on the Libertarian wing of the party, is not afraid to raise his head above the parapet and I like what he says. He is number 1 on the Tory list (I live in the South-East England constituency), so I suppose it is a given he'll be returned to Brussels. But does that mean I should not vote for him? I support him, but not his party, so it would be a vote for something, but I'd rather he was doing it wearing a UKIP rosette, given that we (The Libertarians) won't be standing.
UKIP - Single issue party they may be, but bloody hell, what an important issue. Their policy is one that I support wholeheartedly. I honestly believe that if we are to take control of our country then leaving the EU is the only really effective step we can take to start the process. I also think it is important that (as far as I am aware) the UKIP policy if they were to get elected to Westminster, is that a referendum would be held on the issue. Whilst it is unlikely that UKIP would be elected to power in Westminster on a protest vote, I think it is vital that the national debate on continuted EU membership is held. I hate the big three refusing to discuss our withdrawal, and would not want to put those in favour of our membership in the same position as I find myself now. There must be a proper, temperate debate and a simple question put to the electorate.
So, do I vote for a party that has a policy close to my heart, or do I vote for the individual I have a great deal of respect for, but who just happens to sit at the top of the list for a party I do not support? A difficult decision, and one that I'm going to have to give some very serious thought to.
Tuesday, 12 May 2009
The One That May Pay A Visit To The Bookies. . .
Interesting to note that on an opinion poll used by Sky News this morning, given the +/- 2% margin of error, Labour could even be in third place as things stand (Con 39, Lab 26, LD 22, Others 13), this equates to around a 100 seat majority for Blue Labour if there were an election tomorrow. Except it wouldn't. With news this morning coming out about Tories claiming for moats, swimming pools, helipads and the like, one can only assume that any polls taken over the next day or two will result in a significant bounce for the Social Democrats who have been untouched as yet. That'll change though, because they are all at it. Even if they're not, that will be the public's view. Look for the 'others' column to increase over the next couple of weeks.
Make no mistake, the Telegraph are saving the best (worst?) for last, and any significant revelations about Labour MP's coming just as we go to the real polls for what promises to be a catastrophic display in the Europeans and locals for Labour could well bring Brown, if not the Government, down. I can't see the Labour membership wearing a third Prime Minister in one Parliamentary term, any such leader would be as effective as a window box on a submarine.
It has been clear for some time that Labour's chances of winning the next General Election are rated between slim and none, but that doesn't mean that Labour will sit back and wait for the welcoming embrace of death, they will do everything they can to make life for a new Tory administration as uncomfortable as possible. Brown isn't so deluded that he thinks he can win, but he can't very well come out and say 'well folks, we're fucked'.
This expenses carry on could actually be quite useful for Labour. Their stock is so damaged that really it can't get any worse, look at those figures again, they are within a whisker of being in third place, factor in votes for the SNP and Plaid Cymru and it is not impossible to imagine them being returned to the House in third place.
Calling an October election would mean that the damage to the Tories over this affair could be maximised. They'd still win, but it would have to have a fairly significant effect on their share of the vote and seats. If the news really got that bad, people would get very angry and make that known at the ballot box.
Here is the bit where Labour could be deluded though, they know that they will lose ground to the BNP and a few to the LibDems, but they don't make the connection. The Tories know that they would lose ground to UKIP, and a few to the LibDems, they too don't make the connection.
The problem with this expenses story is that the main parties will seize upon this as the reason for the expansion of those on the margins, but they'd be wrong. It is certainly a contributory factor, perhaps even the straw that broke the camel's back, but if they think that after one turbulent parliamentary term, that people will just shuffle back to their default positions, they could be in for a shock.
Expect big changes, expect sack cloth and ashes from the MPs representing the established parties, whilst those elected from BNP and UKIP (and I would be astounded if there aren't any) hit them with expenses, expenses, expenses time and time again. Expenses will be the only show in town for some considerable time.
But it isn't the only show, there will be remorse shown and claims of leopards changing their spots, but it won't matter. The established parties will still have this idea that they are the natural party of government, they still won't listen to what the electorate want, they will carry on ruling by dictat, spin and deception. After an October election, called to limit the majority of the incoming government, all three parties will be damaged and the electorate may finally realise the power that little ballot paper holds.
Summer of rage? Forget it. Let's have an Autumn of Revenge instead.
Make no mistake, the Telegraph are saving the best (worst?) for last, and any significant revelations about Labour MP's coming just as we go to the real polls for what promises to be a catastrophic display in the Europeans and locals for Labour could well bring Brown, if not the Government, down. I can't see the Labour membership wearing a third Prime Minister in one Parliamentary term, any such leader would be as effective as a window box on a submarine.
It has been clear for some time that Labour's chances of winning the next General Election are rated between slim and none, but that doesn't mean that Labour will sit back and wait for the welcoming embrace of death, they will do everything they can to make life for a new Tory administration as uncomfortable as possible. Brown isn't so deluded that he thinks he can win, but he can't very well come out and say 'well folks, we're fucked'.
This expenses carry on could actually be quite useful for Labour. Their stock is so damaged that really it can't get any worse, look at those figures again, they are within a whisker of being in third place, factor in votes for the SNP and Plaid Cymru and it is not impossible to imagine them being returned to the House in third place.
Calling an October election would mean that the damage to the Tories over this affair could be maximised. They'd still win, but it would have to have a fairly significant effect on their share of the vote and seats. If the news really got that bad, people would get very angry and make that known at the ballot box.
Here is the bit where Labour could be deluded though, they know that they will lose ground to the BNP and a few to the LibDems, but they don't make the connection. The Tories know that they would lose ground to UKIP, and a few to the LibDems, they too don't make the connection.
The problem with this expenses story is that the main parties will seize upon this as the reason for the expansion of those on the margins, but they'd be wrong. It is certainly a contributory factor, perhaps even the straw that broke the camel's back, but if they think that after one turbulent parliamentary term, that people will just shuffle back to their default positions, they could be in for a shock.
Expect big changes, expect sack cloth and ashes from the MPs representing the established parties, whilst those elected from BNP and UKIP (and I would be astounded if there aren't any) hit them with expenses, expenses, expenses time and time again. Expenses will be the only show in town for some considerable time.
But it isn't the only show, there will be remorse shown and claims of leopards changing their spots, but it won't matter. The established parties will still have this idea that they are the natural party of government, they still won't listen to what the electorate want, they will carry on ruling by dictat, spin and deception. After an October election, called to limit the majority of the incoming government, all three parties will be damaged and the electorate may finally realise the power that little ballot paper holds.
Summer of rage? Forget it. Let's have an Autumn of Revenge instead.
Monday, 19 May 2008
The one that isn't sure what it would do with it's vote on Thursday, if it had one.
So let's get something straight, there's more chance of me commanding the first manned mission to Mars than voting Labour, so if I had a vote in Crewe and Nantwich, I certainly wouldn't be voting for them. I could write a huge missive on why I'd prefer to repeatedly slam my testicles in a heavy drawer in an antique oak dresser than vote for that bunch of bastards, but it makes veins stand out in my neck and makes me all cross, so I'll save that for later.
LibDems? A party with no spine, no leader (yes I know Clegg is the leader, but come on, be sensible), and a manic desire to hand over the rest of what little remains of our autonomy and sovereignty to that cesspit of corruption, the EU.
Tories? Don't you just get the feeling that something isn't right there? It is like when x-ray specs were advertised in comics, you'd send off your postal order and become almost breathless with anticipation, until you realised that you'd been sold a pup. It is all very well saying that there can be no policies until they've had the chance to look over the books and what have you, but I'm afraid it just doesn't wash. Apparently, Gordie says they are all style and no substance. Now, I'm not about to take style tips from Gordie, he's wrong, there's neither style nor substance. They will of course win the next election by default. Well they won't win, ZaNuLabour will lose it, at the moment, and as will be demonstrated on Thursday, they could line up against an under 7's amputee football team and still lose.
So that leaves us with the fringe parties:
Greens? The 'Watermelon' party, green on the outside, red in the middle. You think that Labour lot are preachy. Can you imagine? I suspect that a reprise of Pol Pot's agrarian communism would be on the cards.
UKIP? I used to be quite well disposed to UKIP, but two things changed my mind, firstly the embracing, however fleeting, of permatanned arse-clown Robert Kilroy Silk (and whatever happened to Veritarse?) and secondly, whilst I support their plans to withdraw from the EU, I can't help the feeling that there's a little bit of the Johnny Foreigner about it.
It is a sad state of affairs isn't it? The same old brigade, representing the same old (self) interests, you can be assured that any of them would continue to tax us until we puke, and then continually nag us whilst expecting us to be really most 'umble and thankful to them for it.
Bunch of bastards, the lot of them.
I see the Flying Brick is standing for the The Official Monster Raving Loony Party, (Official? WTF?) I think I'd vote for him, I could do with a flying brick.
Of course then the problem is not agonising about who not to vote for, but who to lob the flying brick at, ah decisions decisions. Hopefully I may one day be able to vote for the UK Libertarian Party, you can find them in the little button on the top right hand of the page.
LibDems? A party with no spine, no leader (yes I know Clegg is the leader, but come on, be sensible), and a manic desire to hand over the rest of what little remains of our autonomy and sovereignty to that cesspit of corruption, the EU.
Tories? Don't you just get the feeling that something isn't right there? It is like when x-ray specs were advertised in comics, you'd send off your postal order and become almost breathless with anticipation, until you realised that you'd been sold a pup. It is all very well saying that there can be no policies until they've had the chance to look over the books and what have you, but I'm afraid it just doesn't wash. Apparently, Gordie says they are all style and no substance. Now, I'm not about to take style tips from Gordie, he's wrong, there's neither style nor substance. They will of course win the next election by default. Well they won't win, ZaNuLabour will lose it, at the moment, and as will be demonstrated on Thursday, they could line up against an under 7's amputee football team and still lose.
So that leaves us with the fringe parties:
Greens? The 'Watermelon' party, green on the outside, red in the middle. You think that Labour lot are preachy. Can you imagine? I suspect that a reprise of Pol Pot's agrarian communism would be on the cards.
UKIP? I used to be quite well disposed to UKIP, but two things changed my mind, firstly the embracing, however fleeting, of permatanned arse-clown Robert Kilroy Silk (and whatever happened to Veritarse?) and secondly, whilst I support their plans to withdraw from the EU, I can't help the feeling that there's a little bit of the Johnny Foreigner about it.
It is a sad state of affairs isn't it? The same old brigade, representing the same old (self) interests, you can be assured that any of them would continue to tax us until we puke, and then continually nag us whilst expecting us to be really most 'umble and thankful to them for it.
Bunch of bastards, the lot of them.
I see the Flying Brick is standing for the The Official Monster Raving Loony Party, (Official? WTF?) I think I'd vote for him, I could do with a flying brick.
Of course then the problem is not agonising about who not to vote for, but who to lob the flying brick at, ah decisions decisions. Hopefully I may one day be able to vote for the UK Libertarian Party, you can find them in the little button on the top right hand of the page.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)