I understand that UKIP does not have a wealth of polished media-trained advocates, people who come across well on programmes such as #BBCQT for example. And that elected MEPs have every right to represent the party. But tonight's shouty, aggressive woman on Question Time was the wrong choice I'm afraid.
You've made your points, well and successfully. The posters were a bit 'frying pan to the back of the head' but they worked. It's now time to transition from protest party to credible party. From shouting to calm reflection, facts and statistics. Clarification and if possible amid the onslaught from the MSM, starting to set a rational, considered agenda instead of reacting to hostility.
UKIP has been setting the agenda for weeks now, but it has been an agenda of controversy, of immigration and of accusations of racism - none of which actually stands up to considered, factual evaluation, but by continuing to react to it, you're in danger of being swept away by the tide of establishment hostility.
You don't have to prove yourselves anymore. You have significant support. You now need to be more friendly, less aggressive, more considered. There are a great many arguments in your favour, not least of which is the establishment hostility. They're running scared. They have been found out by a great many voters who simply do not believe that the current establishment stands up for them.
The task now is to establish credibility, to build on the populism that you have achieved and to make voting UKIP more acceptible - not racist, not anti-gay - to more people.
Above all it is to raise the issue of the EU even higher on the agenda - it affects everyone, they just don't seem to understand that yet. Shouting won't deliver this. Rational argument can, and I hope will.
Thanks for reading.
Friday 30 May 2014
Tuesday 27 May 2014
Golf, strangling animals and masturbation..
As the old Monty Python sketch goes:
'His hobbies are golf, strangling animals and masturbation..'
'Oh dear, he's let himself down a bit there, golf's not too popular round here'
And for 'golf' in that context, read 'UKIP':
It seems to me that significant numbers of people have started to see through the lies put about by the political establishment, the BBC and many other main stream media (MSM) vehicles about UKIP being racists, little Englanders, swivel-eyed-loons etc etc. But it is also true to say that many haven't, to the point where, in polite company, one might be forgiven for avoiding the subject rather than be looked at as if you were something nasty that someone in the group had just trodden in and walked all over the new Axminster.
It tells you something about the power that these people wield when this is the case, and also, I would suggest, something about the size of the achievement of UKIP over the last week in the face of it.
When one's own wife and family start making some worried remarks about one's political views it is, I think, time to at least try to set the record straight in terms of one's motivations and beliefs. So here goes:
I've been strongly anti the EU since the mid-late 1980s and have followed the subject fairly closely since then. My major issue is that of (lack of) transparency and the salami-slice tactics of moving inexorably towards a single European state that none of us voted for or has had explained to us.
The EU started out with the 'Common Market' which was about free trade across the continent and was arguably a good thing, so long as it also allowed free trade with the rest of the word on a national basis (which it did). The starting point was also about a utopian goal that by bringing countries closer together through trade, the Common Market would also make European wars far less likely. Again I tend to agree with that as a goal, so long as the vehicle was free trade and, therefore increasing prosperity across the continent.
But there was a more sinister side to the machinery in Brussels: the ultimate goal of establishing a single European place, a 'United States' of Europe and that is not something that the people have either been consulted on nor expressed their desire to achieve.
So we went from the 'Common Market' to the 'European Economic Community' (retaining the 'trade' link but watering it down and bringing in the idea of 'community'). Salami slice one.
Then we (they) dropped 'Economic' and it became the 'European Community' - so not just about trade anymore but much more besides. And then, latterly it has become the 'European Union' the 'Eurozone' and it now has its own currency. Salami slices two, three and four - and all without our having much if any say in the process. Yes there we some referendums in Denmark and Eire where a 'no' vote was ignored and the issue put back to the people until they came up with the 'right' answer.
As I say, I follow this stuff quite closely but I have never seen any kind of public explanation for this creeping control mechanism being enacted. If it is so good for us 'ordinary' people, why aren't we being told about it in simple terms? Why is it being achieved slice by slice and in a manner of keeping us in the dark about it?
Is it because there is a sinister ulterior motive at work here? You have to wonder since the direction is away from nation states having control over their own destinies and towards a centralised system of government for the whole continent which massively reduces the democratic influence of the 'ordinary' voter and hands power to people we didn't elect and who, therefore, have very little understanding of our individual circumstances wherever you live in Europe.
If one didn't know better, one might conclude that this creeping takeover of Europe by the EU in terms of political control, law-making, financial control, a (proposed) single defense force etc., was an attempt to take-over all aspects of our lives in much the same way Mr Hitler envisaged before the last unpleasantness, but using banks instead of tanks.
Thing is, one doesn't know better. It seems to me that this is exactly what's been happening and that the consequences are diametrically opposed to the founding principles of the Common Market:
Far from promoting prosperity across the continent, the single currency effectively straps everyone to Germany's highly efficient economic machine. So Germany enjoys a 30% (at least) exchange rate advantage because its currency is measured in terms of international value with the likes of France, Italy, Spain, Portugal and many less productive economies in the mix. And the economies of Southern Europe, tied in to the Euro, cannot devalue their currencies in order to rebalance their economies and compete on a world stage, they're tied in. All they can do is contract and suffer mass unemployment, particularly amongst the young whilst strong German companies buy-up previously successful southern European companies at an alarming rate.
And this economic disaster (not too strong a term) far from making conflict less likely, is now delivering a growth in far right and far left extremist parties whose members have very little hope of achieving prosperity. How did that go last time it happened Mr Barroso?
Anyway I don't want to bang on about the nitty gritty of EU all night - there are many more blogs on details if you're interested:
Here - economic blitzkrieg
Here - Single currency
Here - Will Brexit cost UK jobs?
Here - importance of an EU referendum
I think I've established my opposition to the EU?
So who then does one vote for in the EU elections? You could argue that voting at all confers legitimacy on the EU 'project'. But by keeping the salami slices as quiet as possible in terms of public understanding, that lack of interest is exactly what the EU wants. It doesn't want mass engagement; it wants to be left alone to get on with this take-over so that by the time we realise it's happening (and it is happening right now) it will be too late for us to do anything about it.
I am convinced, by the way, that the straight bananas and other joke EU rules were part of a carefully considered programme to make voters switch off so that we would also ignore the big decisions when they arose.
In continental Europe the far right (FN in France, Golden Dawn in Greece, Danish People's Party etc) and far left Syrza (Greece) won a major share of the EU MEP vote. In my view this is an additional reason for us to leave the EU - it's becoming an extreme, ungovernable, dangerous mess.
In the UK if you're anti EU but not of an extreme political persuasion the choice is limited to say the least. The Lib Dems would sell the shirt off your back to help the EU. Labour does not want a referendum and wants the EU to continue rumbling on towards total control of our lives. Dave wants reform and has pledged to deliver a referendum - hurrah! But he'll be campaigning for an 'in' vote whatever the result of his renegotiations and the chances of him securing anything meaningful when 28 other countries' would have to unanimously agree, are vanishingly small despite the kicking the EU has received this week.
So UKIP then. The only party (I nearly said 'mainstream' not sure it's there yet) with a clear anti EU stance. If, like me, you see the EU as the biggest single issue we face (given that it either does or will control almost every aspect of our lives if it continues on its publicly-stated path unchecked) then there's not much of a choice really is there?
Some of its policies and in particular its campaign posters made me wince and many people 'took' from them, with the unabashed help of the BBC and other MSM titles, that this equaled a racist party.
I think the term 'racist' may have been banded about too much in recent years, mainly as a lazy but effective means of shutting up people with whom you disagreed, but it still ranks with me as a very strong term of insult and attack. So before you use it, you ought to be very sure of your facts.
Is UKIP racist? Is it, therefore an 'extreme' party? Is it anti-Gay?
UKIP's stated aim is to regain control of our borders - something which has been lost to us because of EU rules on the free movement of people across the Eurozone. Labour has admitted and apologised for the open door policy which saw 3million people come into the UK between 2004 and 2010. But it wasn't just an open door, it was a 'please come in' policy motivated for political (voter) reasons. Labour now wants to restrict immigration. Is that racist?
The Tories want to reduce net immigration drastically. Are they therefore racist?
The EU strongly restricts entrants from outside of the Eurozone and its trade tariffs are effectively stopping African farmers from trading their way into the first world. Is that racist?
Under EU law Britain cannot stop the ingression of known criminal gangs from Romania and other parts of former Eastern Europe, but it also cannot allow skilled people from India, Asia and other Commonwealth countries from coming to the UK. How's your 'racist UKIP' jibe going now?
Is UKIP 'extreme'? It's stance is effectively Thatcherite Tory - low tax, strong law, strong defense of the realm but also pro UK business and manufacturing, pro British jobs. It wants the ability for the UK - the 6th largest economy in the world - to make it's own global trade deals instead of being hamstrung by EU rules which stop us from doing this and instead force us to make deals collectively with 28 other countries including Romania, Bulgaria, Spain and Greece. Extreme? Thatcher would have voted UKIP and so would Tony Benn.
Anti gay? UKIP opposed Gay marriage as did a lot of Tory and Labour MPs. It's stance was not anti gay per sé but anti the marriage thing on religious grounds. It has never been anti civil partnerships, it just took an approach on the marriage issue as did so many others. It accepts the law as it now is and would not repeal said law.
In conclusion, I am not a UKIP member - by instinct I am a Tory, albeit one who laments the centre ground, 'common purpose' (google it) stance that Dave et al are currently taking. I hope Dave will see sense. I hope that we not only get a referendum but that we vote for 'out' and that somehow Dave might be forced down such a route by the EU's intransigence. I'm not holding my breath, but the EU truly is the biggest issue we face as a nation and I am grateful to Mr Farage for taking a stance that I can support and for UKIP not being the extreme or racist party that so many ill-informed people still believe it to be. Because then I would not be able to support it. If it was racist I would not support it in any way.
If you think it is racist or extreme to want voters to have some influence over how we are governed; to be able to kick out people who do not deliver what we as a nation wants; if you think handing over power and control over everything we do, read, think to unelected Eurocrats is a good thing.. given what our recent ancestors fought and shed blood to oppose quite recently, then, with respect, I think you're quite mad.
But, and let's be crystal clear on this, if I tell you I advocated voting UKIP last week, make sure you are in posession of incontrovertible facts before you even consider calling me a racist. And let me help you, in advance, on this. There aren't any.
Thanks for reading.
'His hobbies are golf, strangling animals and masturbation..'
'Oh dear, he's let himself down a bit there, golf's not too popular round here'
And for 'golf' in that context, read 'UKIP':
It seems to me that significant numbers of people have started to see through the lies put about by the political establishment, the BBC and many other main stream media (MSM) vehicles about UKIP being racists, little Englanders, swivel-eyed-loons etc etc. But it is also true to say that many haven't, to the point where, in polite company, one might be forgiven for avoiding the subject rather than be looked at as if you were something nasty that someone in the group had just trodden in and walked all over the new Axminster.
It tells you something about the power that these people wield when this is the case, and also, I would suggest, something about the size of the achievement of UKIP over the last week in the face of it.
When one's own wife and family start making some worried remarks about one's political views it is, I think, time to at least try to set the record straight in terms of one's motivations and beliefs. So here goes:
I've been strongly anti the EU since the mid-late 1980s and have followed the subject fairly closely since then. My major issue is that of (lack of) transparency and the salami-slice tactics of moving inexorably towards a single European state that none of us voted for or has had explained to us.
The EU started out with the 'Common Market' which was about free trade across the continent and was arguably a good thing, so long as it also allowed free trade with the rest of the word on a national basis (which it did). The starting point was also about a utopian goal that by bringing countries closer together through trade, the Common Market would also make European wars far less likely. Again I tend to agree with that as a goal, so long as the vehicle was free trade and, therefore increasing prosperity across the continent.
But there was a more sinister side to the machinery in Brussels: the ultimate goal of establishing a single European place, a 'United States' of Europe and that is not something that the people have either been consulted on nor expressed their desire to achieve.
So we went from the 'Common Market' to the 'European Economic Community' (retaining the 'trade' link but watering it down and bringing in the idea of 'community'). Salami slice one.
Then we (they) dropped 'Economic' and it became the 'European Community' - so not just about trade anymore but much more besides. And then, latterly it has become the 'European Union' the 'Eurozone' and it now has its own currency. Salami slices two, three and four - and all without our having much if any say in the process. Yes there we some referendums in Denmark and Eire where a 'no' vote was ignored and the issue put back to the people until they came up with the 'right' answer.
As I say, I follow this stuff quite closely but I have never seen any kind of public explanation for this creeping control mechanism being enacted. If it is so good for us 'ordinary' people, why aren't we being told about it in simple terms? Why is it being achieved slice by slice and in a manner of keeping us in the dark about it?
Is it because there is a sinister ulterior motive at work here? You have to wonder since the direction is away from nation states having control over their own destinies and towards a centralised system of government for the whole continent which massively reduces the democratic influence of the 'ordinary' voter and hands power to people we didn't elect and who, therefore, have very little understanding of our individual circumstances wherever you live in Europe.
If one didn't know better, one might conclude that this creeping takeover of Europe by the EU in terms of political control, law-making, financial control, a (proposed) single defense force etc., was an attempt to take-over all aspects of our lives in much the same way Mr Hitler envisaged before the last unpleasantness, but using banks instead of tanks.
Thing is, one doesn't know better. It seems to me that this is exactly what's been happening and that the consequences are diametrically opposed to the founding principles of the Common Market:
Far from promoting prosperity across the continent, the single currency effectively straps everyone to Germany's highly efficient economic machine. So Germany enjoys a 30% (at least) exchange rate advantage because its currency is measured in terms of international value with the likes of France, Italy, Spain, Portugal and many less productive economies in the mix. And the economies of Southern Europe, tied in to the Euro, cannot devalue their currencies in order to rebalance their economies and compete on a world stage, they're tied in. All they can do is contract and suffer mass unemployment, particularly amongst the young whilst strong German companies buy-up previously successful southern European companies at an alarming rate.
And this economic disaster (not too strong a term) far from making conflict less likely, is now delivering a growth in far right and far left extremist parties whose members have very little hope of achieving prosperity. How did that go last time it happened Mr Barroso?
Anyway I don't want to bang on about the nitty gritty of EU all night - there are many more blogs on details if you're interested:
Here - economic blitzkrieg
Here - Single currency
Here - Will Brexit cost UK jobs?
Here - importance of an EU referendum
I think I've established my opposition to the EU?
So who then does one vote for in the EU elections? You could argue that voting at all confers legitimacy on the EU 'project'. But by keeping the salami slices as quiet as possible in terms of public understanding, that lack of interest is exactly what the EU wants. It doesn't want mass engagement; it wants to be left alone to get on with this take-over so that by the time we realise it's happening (and it is happening right now) it will be too late for us to do anything about it.
I am convinced, by the way, that the straight bananas and other joke EU rules were part of a carefully considered programme to make voters switch off so that we would also ignore the big decisions when they arose.
In continental Europe the far right (FN in France, Golden Dawn in Greece, Danish People's Party etc) and far left Syrza (Greece) won a major share of the EU MEP vote. In my view this is an additional reason for us to leave the EU - it's becoming an extreme, ungovernable, dangerous mess.
In the UK if you're anti EU but not of an extreme political persuasion the choice is limited to say the least. The Lib Dems would sell the shirt off your back to help the EU. Labour does not want a referendum and wants the EU to continue rumbling on towards total control of our lives. Dave wants reform and has pledged to deliver a referendum - hurrah! But he'll be campaigning for an 'in' vote whatever the result of his renegotiations and the chances of him securing anything meaningful when 28 other countries' would have to unanimously agree, are vanishingly small despite the kicking the EU has received this week.
So UKIP then. The only party (I nearly said 'mainstream' not sure it's there yet) with a clear anti EU stance. If, like me, you see the EU as the biggest single issue we face (given that it either does or will control almost every aspect of our lives if it continues on its publicly-stated path unchecked) then there's not much of a choice really is there?
Some of its policies and in particular its campaign posters made me wince and many people 'took' from them, with the unabashed help of the BBC and other MSM titles, that this equaled a racist party.
I think the term 'racist' may have been banded about too much in recent years, mainly as a lazy but effective means of shutting up people with whom you disagreed, but it still ranks with me as a very strong term of insult and attack. So before you use it, you ought to be very sure of your facts.
Is UKIP racist? Is it, therefore an 'extreme' party? Is it anti-Gay?
UKIP's stated aim is to regain control of our borders - something which has been lost to us because of EU rules on the free movement of people across the Eurozone. Labour has admitted and apologised for the open door policy which saw 3million people come into the UK between 2004 and 2010. But it wasn't just an open door, it was a 'please come in' policy motivated for political (voter) reasons. Labour now wants to restrict immigration. Is that racist?
The Tories want to reduce net immigration drastically. Are they therefore racist?
The EU strongly restricts entrants from outside of the Eurozone and its trade tariffs are effectively stopping African farmers from trading their way into the first world. Is that racist?
Under EU law Britain cannot stop the ingression of known criminal gangs from Romania and other parts of former Eastern Europe, but it also cannot allow skilled people from India, Asia and other Commonwealth countries from coming to the UK. How's your 'racist UKIP' jibe going now?
Is UKIP 'extreme'? It's stance is effectively Thatcherite Tory - low tax, strong law, strong defense of the realm but also pro UK business and manufacturing, pro British jobs. It wants the ability for the UK - the 6th largest economy in the world - to make it's own global trade deals instead of being hamstrung by EU rules which stop us from doing this and instead force us to make deals collectively with 28 other countries including Romania, Bulgaria, Spain and Greece. Extreme? Thatcher would have voted UKIP and so would Tony Benn.
Anti gay? UKIP opposed Gay marriage as did a lot of Tory and Labour MPs. It's stance was not anti gay per sé but anti the marriage thing on religious grounds. It has never been anti civil partnerships, it just took an approach on the marriage issue as did so many others. It accepts the law as it now is and would not repeal said law.
In conclusion, I am not a UKIP member - by instinct I am a Tory, albeit one who laments the centre ground, 'common purpose' (google it) stance that Dave et al are currently taking. I hope Dave will see sense. I hope that we not only get a referendum but that we vote for 'out' and that somehow Dave might be forced down such a route by the EU's intransigence. I'm not holding my breath, but the EU truly is the biggest issue we face as a nation and I am grateful to Mr Farage for taking a stance that I can support and for UKIP not being the extreme or racist party that so many ill-informed people still believe it to be. Because then I would not be able to support it. If it was racist I would not support it in any way.
If you think it is racist or extreme to want voters to have some influence over how we are governed; to be able to kick out people who do not deliver what we as a nation wants; if you think handing over power and control over everything we do, read, think to unelected Eurocrats is a good thing.. given what our recent ancestors fought and shed blood to oppose quite recently, then, with respect, I think you're quite mad.
But, and let's be crystal clear on this, if I tell you I advocated voting UKIP last week, make sure you are in posession of incontrovertible facts before you even consider calling me a racist. And let me help you, in advance, on this. There aren't any.
Thanks for reading.
Sunday 25 May 2014
So what next for UKIP?
There isn't exactly a clear, well-defined, road map to indicate how UKIP should now proceed having given the establishment one hell of a fright and at least begun the process of establishing itself as a credible political party in the UK.
Yeah yeah one set of votes, no councils controlled, no Westminster MPs blah-di-blah. But they have been setting the agenda for the whole of this campaign. They have clearly unearthed a feeling amongst many sections of the population - from all sides of the political divide - that the elite, 'careerist politician' model of UK government is simply not fit for purpose any more.
The disconnect between the governed and those who govern has been exposed in its true light and people are beginning to reach the (correct) conclusion that their views, beliefs and concerns are simply being ignored by parliament. More, from some time ago, here
UKIP has also been given a great deal of momentum by the campaign in the media - and it has been a campaign - to discredit the party. The media, thinking itself all-powerful, set out to give UKIP maximum publicity; to shine the spotlight as glaringly as possible in the confident belief that this would expose UKIP, undermine it, flag up the nasty side of the party that the media was certain was there.
The trouble is that it simply isn't there as far as the growing number of UKIP supporters is concerned. So whilst the media including especially the BBC sees UKIP's policy of controlling our borders and reducing immigration; having a system based on making proper checks on who's coming in, like they do in the US, Canada, Australia; as being 'nasty' and 'racist', many people see it simply as common sense. The disconnect is not just between politicians and voter, but also between journalist and viewer/reader. More here.
I have to confess that some of the posters made me wince but this was a 'down and dirty' election campaign with limited time in which to get the message across. I don't, therefore criticise UKIP for going big on immigration because it was (is) a major issue, is slightly controversial (and therefore likely to have the biggest impact) and it has clearly had massive resonance amongst the voting public.
And if it's OK for the media to pillory UKIP as 'racist' (even though none of the other party leaders would agree) how is it unacceptable for UKIP to be equally strident in its communication? The EU blocks immigration of people from outside of the Eurozone - from Africa, Asia, the Commonwealth etc. - its trade tariffs are essentially stopping African farmers from trading their way into the first world. But that's not racist. Whereas wanting to establish our own border controls - one of the first duties of any sovereign national government is racist? Off you jolly well fuck with that idea.
To an extent the next steps for UKIP will be dictated by the fall-out from tonight's Euro-election results. I've read many anti-UKIP commentators belittling the so-called 'earthquake' promised by Mr Farage, but even before the results have been announced, the leaders of two-out-of-three main parties are under threat: There must be a growing pressure on Mr Miliband to offer a referendum on our EU membership. In addition, Ed faces the terrifying prospect that UKIP is being increasingly seen as representing the working man and woman, who have simply been ignored and neglected by Labour whose front bench includes as many smug careerist toffs as the Tories'.
And while Dave's stance will probably remain unchanged - a referendum but campaighning for an 'in' vote whatever the results of renegotiations - he too is under pressure to go early on the poll and he now faces the clear dilemma that UKIP could split the Tory vote in 2015.
As far as Clegg is concerned - a man who described being anti-EU as unpatriotic: yes so wanting the UK to make its own laws, control its own destiny and have UK voters deciding on the direction of the UK is 'unpatriotic' - he's toast. He was probably toast before UKIP came along, such is the paucity of principles in his party, but UKIP is probably - and gleefully - banging in the few last nails in the Lib Dem party's coffin as we speak.
What has happened, in my view unarguably, is that the issue of the EU and our membership of it, is now firmly on the agenda and is very unlikely to go away. The establishment has, for years, tried to play down anything to do with the EU - to keep it as quiet as possible so that it could continue the process of taking over our lives. Even the joke issues like straight bananas were carefiully calculated to make voters switch off so that we would then not notice when the big issues were passed through without our having a say on them. More here.
Dave will no longer be able to go to Brussels with his list of renegotiations and then come back (when they have not been achieved) saying 'well we got this, this and this, that's great for the UK, and now we'll campaign for an 'in' vote'. Because people will know what he hasn't achieved and will see through the fudge that this process will inevitably be. More here.
In my view the next steps for UKIP, apart from the initial responding-to-fall-out stuff, are about establishing credibility. Not losing the 'man of the people' stuff that Mr Farage has so brilliantly used in his favour, but to bring in more good and credible people. To discuss the wider issues of the EU and their other policies, to seek acceptance, approval, advocacy even, from respected economists, academics and commentators; in short to position themselves as mature, considered and credible.
That is a big ask but it is not impossible. I think the media will tend to back off in terms of it's hostility - some individual journalists wont, but then they've burned their bridges already during this campaign and have no-where left to go (eh Dan?) - and that, without the immdiately looming deadline of an election, will tend to take a more considered look at what UKIP is really about. That may be a danger to the party, but it is also, undoubtedly an opportunity to get a more considered, less frantic message across.
So that, in my opinion is the next challenge facing UKIP - to go from protest party, to calm, considered credibility. If that is beyond them, then they deserve to fail. If not they could well usurp the Lib Dems as one of the three main parties in the UK which would, in my opinion, deliver a welcome shift to the right in UK politics - where, let's face it, there is a yawning gap at the moment what with Dave and Ed treading on each others' toes in the centre ground.
Finally I have to mention another major organisation that will be feeling the heat of UKIPs strong performance when the results come in later tonight. The BBC. It's left bias has been clear to me for some time but by covering the news it has just about managed to be in a position to refute those allegations in the past. It often sails close to the wind but usually stops just short of being a propaganda vehicle for the left, for the EU, for 'Common Purpose' et al. But by actively campaigning against UKIP during this election the mask has slipped. For me, irretrievably.
It now has some serious explaining to do I think.
Thanks for reading.
Yeah yeah one set of votes, no councils controlled, no Westminster MPs blah-di-blah. But they have been setting the agenda for the whole of this campaign. They have clearly unearthed a feeling amongst many sections of the population - from all sides of the political divide - that the elite, 'careerist politician' model of UK government is simply not fit for purpose any more.
The disconnect between the governed and those who govern has been exposed in its true light and people are beginning to reach the (correct) conclusion that their views, beliefs and concerns are simply being ignored by parliament. More, from some time ago, here
UKIP has also been given a great deal of momentum by the campaign in the media - and it has been a campaign - to discredit the party. The media, thinking itself all-powerful, set out to give UKIP maximum publicity; to shine the spotlight as glaringly as possible in the confident belief that this would expose UKIP, undermine it, flag up the nasty side of the party that the media was certain was there.
The trouble is that it simply isn't there as far as the growing number of UKIP supporters is concerned. So whilst the media including especially the BBC sees UKIP's policy of controlling our borders and reducing immigration; having a system based on making proper checks on who's coming in, like they do in the US, Canada, Australia; as being 'nasty' and 'racist', many people see it simply as common sense. The disconnect is not just between politicians and voter, but also between journalist and viewer/reader. More here.
I have to confess that some of the posters made me wince but this was a 'down and dirty' election campaign with limited time in which to get the message across. I don't, therefore criticise UKIP for going big on immigration because it was (is) a major issue, is slightly controversial (and therefore likely to have the biggest impact) and it has clearly had massive resonance amongst the voting public.
And if it's OK for the media to pillory UKIP as 'racist' (even though none of the other party leaders would agree) how is it unacceptable for UKIP to be equally strident in its communication? The EU blocks immigration of people from outside of the Eurozone - from Africa, Asia, the Commonwealth etc. - its trade tariffs are essentially stopping African farmers from trading their way into the first world. But that's not racist. Whereas wanting to establish our own border controls - one of the first duties of any sovereign national government is racist? Off you jolly well fuck with that idea.
To an extent the next steps for UKIP will be dictated by the fall-out from tonight's Euro-election results. I've read many anti-UKIP commentators belittling the so-called 'earthquake' promised by Mr Farage, but even before the results have been announced, the leaders of two-out-of-three main parties are under threat: There must be a growing pressure on Mr Miliband to offer a referendum on our EU membership. In addition, Ed faces the terrifying prospect that UKIP is being increasingly seen as representing the working man and woman, who have simply been ignored and neglected by Labour whose front bench includes as many smug careerist toffs as the Tories'.
And while Dave's stance will probably remain unchanged - a referendum but campaighning for an 'in' vote whatever the results of renegotiations - he too is under pressure to go early on the poll and he now faces the clear dilemma that UKIP could split the Tory vote in 2015.
As far as Clegg is concerned - a man who described being anti-EU as unpatriotic: yes so wanting the UK to make its own laws, control its own destiny and have UK voters deciding on the direction of the UK is 'unpatriotic' - he's toast. He was probably toast before UKIP came along, such is the paucity of principles in his party, but UKIP is probably - and gleefully - banging in the few last nails in the Lib Dem party's coffin as we speak.
What has happened, in my view unarguably, is that the issue of the EU and our membership of it, is now firmly on the agenda and is very unlikely to go away. The establishment has, for years, tried to play down anything to do with the EU - to keep it as quiet as possible so that it could continue the process of taking over our lives. Even the joke issues like straight bananas were carefiully calculated to make voters switch off so that we would then not notice when the big issues were passed through without our having a say on them. More here.
Dave will no longer be able to go to Brussels with his list of renegotiations and then come back (when they have not been achieved) saying 'well we got this, this and this, that's great for the UK, and now we'll campaign for an 'in' vote'. Because people will know what he hasn't achieved and will see through the fudge that this process will inevitably be. More here.
In my view the next steps for UKIP, apart from the initial responding-to-fall-out stuff, are about establishing credibility. Not losing the 'man of the people' stuff that Mr Farage has so brilliantly used in his favour, but to bring in more good and credible people. To discuss the wider issues of the EU and their other policies, to seek acceptance, approval, advocacy even, from respected economists, academics and commentators; in short to position themselves as mature, considered and credible.
That is a big ask but it is not impossible. I think the media will tend to back off in terms of it's hostility - some individual journalists wont, but then they've burned their bridges already during this campaign and have no-where left to go (eh Dan?) - and that, without the immdiately looming deadline of an election, will tend to take a more considered look at what UKIP is really about. That may be a danger to the party, but it is also, undoubtedly an opportunity to get a more considered, less frantic message across.
So that, in my opinion is the next challenge facing UKIP - to go from protest party, to calm, considered credibility. If that is beyond them, then they deserve to fail. If not they could well usurp the Lib Dems as one of the three main parties in the UK which would, in my opinion, deliver a welcome shift to the right in UK politics - where, let's face it, there is a yawning gap at the moment what with Dave and Ed treading on each others' toes in the centre ground.
Finally I have to mention another major organisation that will be feeling the heat of UKIPs strong performance when the results come in later tonight. The BBC. It's left bias has been clear to me for some time but by covering the news it has just about managed to be in a position to refute those allegations in the past. It often sails close to the wind but usually stops just short of being a propaganda vehicle for the left, for the EU, for 'Common Purpose' et al. But by actively campaigning against UKIP during this election the mask has slipped. For me, irretrievably.
It now has some serious explaining to do I think.
Thanks for reading.
Friday 23 May 2014
You do of course realise that the local elections were the Hors d'oeuvre?
UKIP did well in the local elections yesterday; the Tories did badly, but not that badly given where we are on the electoral cycle; Labour did well in terms of number of seats, but no-where near as well as they should be doing less than a year out from a general election. And, for Labour, the realisation seems to be hitting that UKIP is as much of a threat to them as it is to the Tories. Oh and that Ed is a liability. The Lib Dems are, quite simply, toast.
So not an earthquake then.
And yet political commentators are suggesting it is. And the main parties are all thinking that things have changed, immeasurably for the worse, for them.
Many people on my timeline who are anti UKIP are pointing to seat numbers, councils controlled, MPs in parliament. The same old smug stuff that has been at the heart of UKIP's rise to popularity.
But today's results were the Hors d'oeuvre; the main course, which has already been chosen and cooked (voted upon) will be served on Sunday. It was the focus of the entire campaign for all of the parties and it is a national vote.
And in that national vote it is conceivable that UKIP will come first. No local issues, no 'incumbents' with local popularity and track record (good for them) but a truly national vote.
And one with the issue of our membership of the EU front and centre in people's minds.
So don't bother looking for the 'earthquake' in today's results. They were just tremors. The aftershocks of what will, I think, be an earthquake, will start on Monday.
Thanks for reading.
So not an earthquake then.
And yet political commentators are suggesting it is. And the main parties are all thinking that things have changed, immeasurably for the worse, for them.
Many people on my timeline who are anti UKIP are pointing to seat numbers, councils controlled, MPs in parliament. The same old smug stuff that has been at the heart of UKIP's rise to popularity.
But today's results were the Hors d'oeuvre; the main course, which has already been chosen and cooked (voted upon) will be served on Sunday. It was the focus of the entire campaign for all of the parties and it is a national vote.
And in that national vote it is conceivable that UKIP will come first. No local issues, no 'incumbents' with local popularity and track record (good for them) but a truly national vote.
And one with the issue of our membership of the EU front and centre in people's minds.
So don't bother looking for the 'earthquake' in today's results. They were just tremors. The aftershocks of what will, I think, be an earthquake, will start on Monday.
Thanks for reading.
Protest votes dwindle as the platform diasppears. But that was before 24 hour media and twitter
Politicians and parties who have been given a bit of a kicking by a 'protest vote' in the past, would have to 'front up' the next morning, suggest that 'lessons will be learnt', be a bit humble and then move on confident that the whole furore would soon die down and they could then get back on with treating the electorate with smug, arrogant disdain as usual.
The comments coming out of the political parties this morning following the local election results, suggest that some - most even - think that this is still the case.
However, I have news for them: The landscape has changed. This so-called 'protest vote' or perhaps 'protest movement' as it should probably be called, is likely to be sustained by our modern 24-hour media, weekly if not daily rolling polls and. above all, by social media and twitter in particular.
Whereas most past protest votes have dwindled as the platform to be heard was effectively removed until the next election opportunity, that is simply not the case today and this 're-allignment' in terms of two-way communications, the formation of informal but like-minded groups on twitter and the ability for comments and promises to be re-broadcast and remembered, is actually likely to increase momentum rather than dwindle away into nothingness. Particularly so since the initial local election results out this morning show that that it is working - nothing breeds success like success.
By definition 'protest votes' tend to be single issue votes that subsequently disappear. But our membership of the EU is not going away as an issue. And nor are the growing numbers of people who recognise the dangers that the EU poses to our very existence as a nation state. I think, therefore that the term 'protest vote' is inaccurate in the current context. It has certainly been a protest against our corrupt, disconnected establishment, but it is not something about which people just want to 'register' their displeasure and then move on. It is something about which they believe passionately and about which they want to campaign for the longer term.
So I think this 'backlash' will be sustained - partly because of the nature of the communications platform that so many 'ordinary' voters now have but also, in my opinion, because the 'battle' that has been joined by so many people is not just against three political parties who are out of touch with what voters care about: It is also a back-lash against the biased main stream media (MSM) and in particular the BBC.
The media thought it could use its power and influence to kill off UKIP's popularity. It threw down the challenge, flexed its muscles, called UKIP 'racist' called those who support it 'loons' and guess what? They were ignored.
Actually more than just ignored; they were called out about it. Hauled over the coals as all of our suspicions about media bias that have been bubbling under the surface for years, were actually brought out into the open and exposed for the reality that they are.
The mask has slipped and we have all seen what lies beneath. The battle between the people and the establishment has effectively just begun and the provision of a major additional target (a largely biased media) that many people feel (quite rightly in my opinion) must also be addressed, will prove to be an additional and important element of the whole argument and ongoing campaign.
By trying to kill-off the UKIP stance on the taking back of popular control over those who supposedly work for us, the media has (largely) shown itself to be firmly in the enemy camp. Far from holding our establishment to account, it has shown itself to be a cheer-leader for the smug oppression that we have been subjected to for decades.
I think we've had enough and that we now have a rare opportunity to build momentum.
I hope UKIP will be rational and relatively humble when the results come in on Sunday; the party's next step is to ditch the highly effective but close-to-the-wind campaigning stuff (which made me wince but I fully understand why that approach was used), and start to prove to people that it has sensible, proper policies to promote: It also needs to start bringing the many issues surrounding the EU to the fore now that it has a platform of credibility and support upon which to do so.
In short, UKIP needs to take some high moral ground, show itself to be a serious, intelligent party (without discarding its 'man in the street' connection with real people) and it needs to get to the point where far from being embarrassed to say 'I voted UKIP', more people can say 'Yes I voted UKIP because it is right for the future of our country, you should too.'
If it can achieve this, it can not only become the third party in the UK ahead of the woeful Lib Dems, but it can have real influence over both of the other parties as it takes votes from both. Ultimately this could lead to our campaigning for an 'out' vote at a future referendum - which is my overriding concern. But along the way, it could also mean that we have a new, dynamic, well-connected third party which changes both the political landscape and the connectivity between voter and representative and which means that the media has to raise its game and re-read its charter on impartiality.
Thanks for reading.
The comments coming out of the political parties this morning following the local election results, suggest that some - most even - think that this is still the case.
However, I have news for them: The landscape has changed. This so-called 'protest vote' or perhaps 'protest movement' as it should probably be called, is likely to be sustained by our modern 24-hour media, weekly if not daily rolling polls and. above all, by social media and twitter in particular.
Whereas most past protest votes have dwindled as the platform to be heard was effectively removed until the next election opportunity, that is simply not the case today and this 're-allignment' in terms of two-way communications, the formation of informal but like-minded groups on twitter and the ability for comments and promises to be re-broadcast and remembered, is actually likely to increase momentum rather than dwindle away into nothingness. Particularly so since the initial local election results out this morning show that that it is working - nothing breeds success like success.
By definition 'protest votes' tend to be single issue votes that subsequently disappear. But our membership of the EU is not going away as an issue. And nor are the growing numbers of people who recognise the dangers that the EU poses to our very existence as a nation state. I think, therefore that the term 'protest vote' is inaccurate in the current context. It has certainly been a protest against our corrupt, disconnected establishment, but it is not something about which people just want to 'register' their displeasure and then move on. It is something about which they believe passionately and about which they want to campaign for the longer term.
So I think this 'backlash' will be sustained - partly because of the nature of the communications platform that so many 'ordinary' voters now have but also, in my opinion, because the 'battle' that has been joined by so many people is not just against three political parties who are out of touch with what voters care about: It is also a back-lash against the biased main stream media (MSM) and in particular the BBC.
The media thought it could use its power and influence to kill off UKIP's popularity. It threw down the challenge, flexed its muscles, called UKIP 'racist' called those who support it 'loons' and guess what? They were ignored.
Actually more than just ignored; they were called out about it. Hauled over the coals as all of our suspicions about media bias that have been bubbling under the surface for years, were actually brought out into the open and exposed for the reality that they are.
The mask has slipped and we have all seen what lies beneath. The battle between the people and the establishment has effectively just begun and the provision of a major additional target (a largely biased media) that many people feel (quite rightly in my opinion) must also be addressed, will prove to be an additional and important element of the whole argument and ongoing campaign.
By trying to kill-off the UKIP stance on the taking back of popular control over those who supposedly work for us, the media has (largely) shown itself to be firmly in the enemy camp. Far from holding our establishment to account, it has shown itself to be a cheer-leader for the smug oppression that we have been subjected to for decades.
I think we've had enough and that we now have a rare opportunity to build momentum.
I hope UKIP will be rational and relatively humble when the results come in on Sunday; the party's next step is to ditch the highly effective but close-to-the-wind campaigning stuff (which made me wince but I fully understand why that approach was used), and start to prove to people that it has sensible, proper policies to promote: It also needs to start bringing the many issues surrounding the EU to the fore now that it has a platform of credibility and support upon which to do so.
In short, UKIP needs to take some high moral ground, show itself to be a serious, intelligent party (without discarding its 'man in the street' connection with real people) and it needs to get to the point where far from being embarrassed to say 'I voted UKIP', more people can say 'Yes I voted UKIP because it is right for the future of our country, you should too.'
If it can achieve this, it can not only become the third party in the UK ahead of the woeful Lib Dems, but it can have real influence over both of the other parties as it takes votes from both. Ultimately this could lead to our campaigning for an 'out' vote at a future referendum - which is my overriding concern. But along the way, it could also mean that we have a new, dynamic, well-connected third party which changes both the political landscape and the connectivity between voter and representative and which means that the media has to raise its game and re-read its charter on impartiality.
Thanks for reading.
Tuesday 20 May 2014
Racism? The EU? Nah this election has become more about the credibility & bias of the British media
Amidst all the discussion of the real issues, like our very continued existence as a nation state, in this European election campaign - yeah like there's been any at all - what has really shocked me (genuinely) has been the extent of the anti UKIP vitriol that has come out of our so-called quality media.
Yes UKIP has used some pretty hard-hitting messages and posters, some of which have made me wince, but they have a short period of time and a limited (though thankfully decent) budget with which to get their messages across, so I don't necessarily blame them for the approach. Inevitably their campaign has divided opinion and brought out some of the usual nutters on both sides - and the usual anti BNP and EDL protesters, shorn of having those targets to aim at, have turned their frankly nasty attention to UKIP vesting it, by association, with the same 'qualities' as the BNP, EDL, National Front etc.
The reality is that UKIP is not anti immigration but anti uncontrolled immigration; anti our EU-driven open door policy which means we have absolutely no control over our borders - which is, incidentally one of the first functions and duties of a sovereign government.
Mr Farage talks about quality not quantity - which makes me slightly uneasy, but is essentially the same approach as is taken by Australia, the USA and Canada. I don't think anyone is accusing those countries of 'racism'?
Indeed by being anti the EU, the UKIP stance is not only not racist, but anti racist since it is the tariffs and trade barriers put up by the EU that is preventing African farmers from trading their way into the first world. That is truly a racist position. The EU is also preventing people from other parts of the world - India, Canada, other Commonwealth countries - from coming to Europe and in particular the UK at all.
UKIP chose to 'go big' on the immigration issue - obviously they took a calculated risk that the level of coverage and popularity of that stance would outweigh the equally inevitable backlash we have seen. Clearly it is a subject that has 'resonance' amongst the public but I have been disappointed that the many other issues surrounding the EU have been neglected because of that overriding stance.
None of the other party leaders thinks that UKIP is a racist party. They have each said so publicly several times during the past couple of weeks.
So I can understand all of the above in terms of what has been going on on the hustings: protesters, emotive language etc - it's all part of the political game and it is a 'red meat' business.
What I cannot understand - or I think forgive - is the stance being employed by the majority of our main stream media (MSM).
When formerly credible political commentators such as the Daily Telegraph's Dan Hodges tweets this:
And when the Spectator's Hugo Rifkind writes this:
And when the BBC - our supposedly balanced and fair national broadcaster - continually refuses to cover the story and the issues but instead to put forward its opinions on how UKIP is a racist party, then the alarm bells start to chime.
Update from today on BBC 'impartiality':
I personally don't think the above can be easily forgiven or overlooked in light of the BBC Charter to be impartial.
As former Sunday Tiimes Political Editor Isabel Oakshott tweeted last night:
She has not been part of this 'racist UKIP' campaign but I suspect that she too has been let's just say 'concerned' about its anger and vitriol.
As indeed, I would suggest, has Jeremy Paxman who interviewed Nigel Farage on Newsnight last night and whilst he (Paxo) certainly did not give him (Farage) an easy ride, it was clear that both enjoyed the interview and it was clear that Paxman quite liked Farage and respected him by the end of it. But then he and Isabel Oakshott are proper journalists who would I'm sure never criticize their fellows openly but who, it seems to me are not entirely content with what has been going on during this campaign.
As Hodges et al become increasingly unhinged and descend into ever more childish and unsubstantiated attacks, one has to conclude that there is an agenda at work here. They portray themselves as 'the voice of the people'; 'holding our politicians to account'. What they are actually doing is fighting tooth and nail to discredit UKIP which seems to be posing the biggest threat to the establishment for years.
For that reason, when all of the dust settles, I think Hodges, Rifkind and the BBC in particular (but there are many, many orthers) will have lost all semblance of credibility. Because, thanks to the power of social media, people will not forget how they have behaved and as I tweeted to Mr Hodges a couple of weeks ago: - Actually 20 days ago:
This campaign has broken many formerly unbreachable links between the general public and the media. The problem for the media is that people are now seeing through this nonsense. They don't believe a word you are saying about UKIP because they can see that it's an MSM campaign designed to protect your 'masters' in the establishment. And that is exactly the opposite of what you purport to do for the rest of the time. And if they are your 'masters', how can we believe anything you say about them in the future?
Journalism and commentary/punditry is all about credibility. Yes readers will agree or not, like what you write or not depending upon your stance and take on a particular issue, but if you ignore the facts, if you comment on the basis of a pre-held agenda which is completely unsupported by reality, if you are seen to be using your status and communications vehicle to try to tell people what to believe and what to think, then I think you have lost the plot.
That's a very dangerous place to be for a journalist. But the good news is that people are seeing through it, and ignoring it, and it is in fact having the exact opposite effect to that which these people want to achieve.
It is increasing momentum for UKIP, increasing the feeling of disenfranchisement amongst the population and increasing our desire to be heard and to have our say. And which party is - entirely single-handedly - in support of this as an outcome?
UKIP. Hold your nerve on Thursday and vote UKIP.
Thanks for reading
Yes UKIP has used some pretty hard-hitting messages and posters, some of which have made me wince, but they have a short period of time and a limited (though thankfully decent) budget with which to get their messages across, so I don't necessarily blame them for the approach. Inevitably their campaign has divided opinion and brought out some of the usual nutters on both sides - and the usual anti BNP and EDL protesters, shorn of having those targets to aim at, have turned their frankly nasty attention to UKIP vesting it, by association, with the same 'qualities' as the BNP, EDL, National Front etc.
The reality is that UKIP is not anti immigration but anti uncontrolled immigration; anti our EU-driven open door policy which means we have absolutely no control over our borders - which is, incidentally one of the first functions and duties of a sovereign government.
Mr Farage talks about quality not quantity - which makes me slightly uneasy, but is essentially the same approach as is taken by Australia, the USA and Canada. I don't think anyone is accusing those countries of 'racism'?
Indeed by being anti the EU, the UKIP stance is not only not racist, but anti racist since it is the tariffs and trade barriers put up by the EU that is preventing African farmers from trading their way into the first world. That is truly a racist position. The EU is also preventing people from other parts of the world - India, Canada, other Commonwealth countries - from coming to Europe and in particular the UK at all.
UKIP chose to 'go big' on the immigration issue - obviously they took a calculated risk that the level of coverage and popularity of that stance would outweigh the equally inevitable backlash we have seen. Clearly it is a subject that has 'resonance' amongst the public but I have been disappointed that the many other issues surrounding the EU have been neglected because of that overriding stance.
None of the other party leaders thinks that UKIP is a racist party. They have each said so publicly several times during the past couple of weeks.
So I can understand all of the above in terms of what has been going on on the hustings: protesters, emotive language etc - it's all part of the political game and it is a 'red meat' business.
What I cannot understand - or I think forgive - is the stance being employed by the majority of our main stream media (MSM).
When formerly credible political commentators such as the Daily Telegraph's Dan Hodges tweets this:
And when the Spectator's Hugo Rifkind writes this:
And when the BBC - our supposedly balanced and fair national broadcaster - continually refuses to cover the story and the issues but instead to put forward its opinions on how UKIP is a racist party, then the alarm bells start to chime.
Update from today on BBC 'impartiality':
I personally don't think the above can be easily forgiven or overlooked in light of the BBC Charter to be impartial.
As former Sunday Tiimes Political Editor Isabel Oakshott tweeted last night:
She has not been part of this 'racist UKIP' campaign but I suspect that she too has been let's just say 'concerned' about its anger and vitriol.
As indeed, I would suggest, has Jeremy Paxman who interviewed Nigel Farage on Newsnight last night and whilst he (Paxo) certainly did not give him (Farage) an easy ride, it was clear that both enjoyed the interview and it was clear that Paxman quite liked Farage and respected him by the end of it. But then he and Isabel Oakshott are proper journalists who would I'm sure never criticize their fellows openly but who, it seems to me are not entirely content with what has been going on during this campaign.
As Hodges et al become increasingly unhinged and descend into ever more childish and unsubstantiated attacks, one has to conclude that there is an agenda at work here. They portray themselves as 'the voice of the people'; 'holding our politicians to account'. What they are actually doing is fighting tooth and nail to discredit UKIP which seems to be posing the biggest threat to the establishment for years.
For that reason, when all of the dust settles, I think Hodges, Rifkind and the BBC in particular (but there are many, many orthers) will have lost all semblance of credibility. Because, thanks to the power of social media, people will not forget how they have behaved and as I tweeted to Mr Hodges a couple of weeks ago: - Actually 20 days ago:
This campaign has broken many formerly unbreachable links between the general public and the media. The problem for the media is that people are now seeing through this nonsense. They don't believe a word you are saying about UKIP because they can see that it's an MSM campaign designed to protect your 'masters' in the establishment. And that is exactly the opposite of what you purport to do for the rest of the time. And if they are your 'masters', how can we believe anything you say about them in the future?
Journalism and commentary/punditry is all about credibility. Yes readers will agree or not, like what you write or not depending upon your stance and take on a particular issue, but if you ignore the facts, if you comment on the basis of a pre-held agenda which is completely unsupported by reality, if you are seen to be using your status and communications vehicle to try to tell people what to believe and what to think, then I think you have lost the plot.
That's a very dangerous place to be for a journalist. But the good news is that people are seeing through it, and ignoring it, and it is in fact having the exact opposite effect to that which these people want to achieve.
It is increasing momentum for UKIP, increasing the feeling of disenfranchisement amongst the population and increasing our desire to be heard and to have our say. And which party is - entirely single-handedly - in support of this as an outcome?
UKIP. Hold your nerve on Thursday and vote UKIP.
Thanks for reading
Sunday 18 May 2014
If you're pro democracy whatever your views on how it should be delivered & its priorities, vote UKIP this week
You'll have heard that old chestnut that 'if it ain't broke don't fix it'?
And maybe the alternative one that 'if it ain't broke, break it and make it better'.
It's all a bit 'cowboy' logic and language for me. But it's quite clear in its meaning.
The thing is we do seem to be living in a system that is 'broken'. Not just financially (although I could argue that point) but in terms of the connection between voters' aspirations and the people who govern us, supposedly in our interests.
Do you believe that any of the mainstream parties really have your interests at heart? Do you really believe that your MP and the government actually cares about your interests, values, personal prosperity? It seems to me that most UK politicians are in it for themselves and all three main parties seem hell-bent on handing control over us to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels.
Because unless we exit the EU that is what will happen. Yes Dave talks about renegotiation but some German eurocrats are already publicly stating that they will veto any proposed changes that disrupt the ongoing closer union, towards a federal united states of Europe. And that's the Germans who seem increasingly wary about the progress of the EU - because ultimately they will have to pay for it not to sink. The French and Belgians in particular are much more vitriolic in their condemnation of any UK-driven changes.
So, as a Tory (ish - increasingly 'ish') I hope Dave gets some meaningful renegotiations through and can maybe take back some of the sovereign controls over our own destiny that so many of our predecessors fought and died to achieve very recently. He should have a chance really. As the second or third (depending upon when you measure it) net contributor, and the Eurozone's biggest customer (market for exports), we are in a position of power. If we leave they will almost certainly fail. If they put up any trade sanctions on the UK following a Brexit, they will not only fail but there will be mass-unemployment in Europe the like of which we haven't seen since the 1930s.
So Dave has every right and the power required to face down these sneering Eurocrats if he chooses so to do. But will he? I think it's vanishingly unlikely. Dave is 'common purpose' to his core - a strong supporter of the EU project, even though it is essentially a socialist (communist even) body. I have tried but simply cannot figure that out in terms of ideology - it's as if they've all signed up for this project and are deliberately not telling us why.
If the EU is so Utopian, I wonder why they won't tell us the reasoning behind it? Or why they try to keep it off the agenda with deliberate joke stories like straight bananas etc., which cause us to switch off when the serious stuff comes through?
What will happen - if Dave actually gets to that point by being returned to office next year - is that he will go off with his little satchel, to Brussels with a list of demands. He'll be wanting some big fish to bring back with him in terms of concessions and guarantees of British sovereignty. They might chuck him a few sprats in areas that don't really matter to the EU and which will certainly not derail the federal Europe project and he'll come back in a spun blaze of glory telling us 'peace in our time' or some such guff.
Then (if he is in that position) he'll campaign for an 'in' vote at a referendum in 2017.
And that will be it, probably. The power of the EU funding what will effectively be an existential campaign (if we go they fail) and Dave's as PM will almost certainly win the day and we can then kiss goodbye to having any meaningful influence over how we are governed in the future.
At that point, whether you're a Tory, Labour supporter or a Lib Dem (if there are any left by then) it will be largely irrelevant what your political views are because they will be meaningless. The party for whom you vote will be largely powerless to effect any changes on your behalf because the EU will be making almost all of the meaningful decisions by which you live your life.
All the Big Brother stuff - cctv, trackers in cars, thought police, anti free speech - will be brought in and there'll be nothing you can do about it.
There is however an alternative scenario. It's less likely to occur than the one I describe above but it is not impossible and the recent rise of UKIP in the polls has served to make me a bit more hopeful.
What we need is an EU referendum - a chance to vote for Brexit. That's fundamental - without a referendum the EU machine will simply grind on and what I describe above will occur, as night follows day. Including our losing the pound by the way.
A strong showing for UKIP on Thursday will keep the pressure on and keep the EU high on the UK political agenda at the perfect time when there is less than a year to go before a General Election. A brilliant showing would heap pressure not just on Dave but also Mr Miliband, to deliver what the people want - a referendum. I neither know nor care what effect it would have on the Lib Dems - they're increasingly irrelevant.
A strong showing, followed by continued gains in the polls for UKIP on the basis of a national election could usher in a seismic shift in UK politics. Especially if UKIP continues to make gains not just amongst disaffected Tories (like me) but also from traditional Labour supporters who are beginning to wake up to the fact that Labour is not the 'worker's' party any more.
At that point all bets are off. We'll have gone beyond the 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' stage to 'it is most certainly broken, we need to fix it if we are to survive as a party' (Lab and Con).
And at that point (this could conceivably happen next weekend if UKIP does really well - and when you've been wanting this anti-EU thing to happen for 30 years or so, that's quite exciting), Dave - or Ed but that's less likely - could be forced to acknowledge that not only do we need a referendum, but that the prevailing public opinion is for 'out'. And that neither will be elected unless their 2015 manifesto stance is for a free vote on our membership - i.e. with no campaign either way.
Such a scenario would also send shock-waves through the EU, strengthening Dave's hand in any renegotiations so he'd be much more likely to get what (he says) he wants. It could also, conceivably (although I may be being a bit greedy here) mean that if (when) he doesn't get real concessions from the EU, he could be forced into campaigning for an 'out' vote.
It's sad that I have had to use the word 'forced' so often here - it means that what I said at the start, about politicians not really having your interests at heart and therefore need to be forced to do what we want them to do, is probably true. But if that's where we are - and I think it is - then so be it.
We are clinging on by our fingertips to any vestige of democratic voter influence over how we are governed. The polls suggest that increasing numbers of people are seeing through the controlling establishment bullshit and don't believe a word of what the campaigning-not-reporting mainstream media is churning out against UKIP.
So your vote on Thursday is important and might be recorded just in time for this country. You may not agree with all or any UKIP policies, you may, like me, wince at some of the posters, but if you want the ability to be properly and locally represented in the future, from a left, right or centrist viewpoint, instead of giving away any influence you have to unelected Eurocrats who will know nothing about your life, you should vote for UKIP on Thursday.
It's not a 'forever commitment' but it is vital as I have outlined above, for the future of this great country.
Thanks for reading.
And maybe the alternative one that 'if it ain't broke, break it and make it better'.
It's all a bit 'cowboy' logic and language for me. But it's quite clear in its meaning.
The thing is we do seem to be living in a system that is 'broken'. Not just financially (although I could argue that point) but in terms of the connection between voters' aspirations and the people who govern us, supposedly in our interests.
Do you believe that any of the mainstream parties really have your interests at heart? Do you really believe that your MP and the government actually cares about your interests, values, personal prosperity? It seems to me that most UK politicians are in it for themselves and all three main parties seem hell-bent on handing control over us to unelected bureaucrats in Brussels.
Because unless we exit the EU that is what will happen. Yes Dave talks about renegotiation but some German eurocrats are already publicly stating that they will veto any proposed changes that disrupt the ongoing closer union, towards a federal united states of Europe. And that's the Germans who seem increasingly wary about the progress of the EU - because ultimately they will have to pay for it not to sink. The French and Belgians in particular are much more vitriolic in their condemnation of any UK-driven changes.
So, as a Tory (ish - increasingly 'ish') I hope Dave gets some meaningful renegotiations through and can maybe take back some of the sovereign controls over our own destiny that so many of our predecessors fought and died to achieve very recently. He should have a chance really. As the second or third (depending upon when you measure it) net contributor, and the Eurozone's biggest customer (market for exports), we are in a position of power. If we leave they will almost certainly fail. If they put up any trade sanctions on the UK following a Brexit, they will not only fail but there will be mass-unemployment in Europe the like of which we haven't seen since the 1930s.
So Dave has every right and the power required to face down these sneering Eurocrats if he chooses so to do. But will he? I think it's vanishingly unlikely. Dave is 'common purpose' to his core - a strong supporter of the EU project, even though it is essentially a socialist (communist even) body. I have tried but simply cannot figure that out in terms of ideology - it's as if they've all signed up for this project and are deliberately not telling us why.
If the EU is so Utopian, I wonder why they won't tell us the reasoning behind it? Or why they try to keep it off the agenda with deliberate joke stories like straight bananas etc., which cause us to switch off when the serious stuff comes through?
What will happen - if Dave actually gets to that point by being returned to office next year - is that he will go off with his little satchel, to Brussels with a list of demands. He'll be wanting some big fish to bring back with him in terms of concessions and guarantees of British sovereignty. They might chuck him a few sprats in areas that don't really matter to the EU and which will certainly not derail the federal Europe project and he'll come back in a spun blaze of glory telling us 'peace in our time' or some such guff.
Then (if he is in that position) he'll campaign for an 'in' vote at a referendum in 2017.
And that will be it, probably. The power of the EU funding what will effectively be an existential campaign (if we go they fail) and Dave's as PM will almost certainly win the day and we can then kiss goodbye to having any meaningful influence over how we are governed in the future.
At that point, whether you're a Tory, Labour supporter or a Lib Dem (if there are any left by then) it will be largely irrelevant what your political views are because they will be meaningless. The party for whom you vote will be largely powerless to effect any changes on your behalf because the EU will be making almost all of the meaningful decisions by which you live your life.
All the Big Brother stuff - cctv, trackers in cars, thought police, anti free speech - will be brought in and there'll be nothing you can do about it.
There is however an alternative scenario. It's less likely to occur than the one I describe above but it is not impossible and the recent rise of UKIP in the polls has served to make me a bit more hopeful.
What we need is an EU referendum - a chance to vote for Brexit. That's fundamental - without a referendum the EU machine will simply grind on and what I describe above will occur, as night follows day. Including our losing the pound by the way.
A strong showing for UKIP on Thursday will keep the pressure on and keep the EU high on the UK political agenda at the perfect time when there is less than a year to go before a General Election. A brilliant showing would heap pressure not just on Dave but also Mr Miliband, to deliver what the people want - a referendum. I neither know nor care what effect it would have on the Lib Dems - they're increasingly irrelevant.
A strong showing, followed by continued gains in the polls for UKIP on the basis of a national election could usher in a seismic shift in UK politics. Especially if UKIP continues to make gains not just amongst disaffected Tories (like me) but also from traditional Labour supporters who are beginning to wake up to the fact that Labour is not the 'worker's' party any more.
At that point all bets are off. We'll have gone beyond the 'if it ain't broke don't fix it' stage to 'it is most certainly broken, we need to fix it if we are to survive as a party' (Lab and Con).
And at that point (this could conceivably happen next weekend if UKIP does really well - and when you've been wanting this anti-EU thing to happen for 30 years or so, that's quite exciting), Dave - or Ed but that's less likely - could be forced to acknowledge that not only do we need a referendum, but that the prevailing public opinion is for 'out'. And that neither will be elected unless their 2015 manifesto stance is for a free vote on our membership - i.e. with no campaign either way.
Such a scenario would also send shock-waves through the EU, strengthening Dave's hand in any renegotiations so he'd be much more likely to get what (he says) he wants. It could also, conceivably (although I may be being a bit greedy here) mean that if (when) he doesn't get real concessions from the EU, he could be forced into campaigning for an 'out' vote.
It's sad that I have had to use the word 'forced' so often here - it means that what I said at the start, about politicians not really having your interests at heart and therefore need to be forced to do what we want them to do, is probably true. But if that's where we are - and I think it is - then so be it.
We are clinging on by our fingertips to any vestige of democratic voter influence over how we are governed. The polls suggest that increasing numbers of people are seeing through the controlling establishment bullshit and don't believe a word of what the campaigning-not-reporting mainstream media is churning out against UKIP.
So your vote on Thursday is important and might be recorded just in time for this country. You may not agree with all or any UKIP policies, you may, like me, wince at some of the posters, but if you want the ability to be properly and locally represented in the future, from a left, right or centrist viewpoint, instead of giving away any influence you have to unelected Eurocrats who will know nothing about your life, you should vote for UKIP on Thursday.
It's not a 'forever commitment' but it is vital as I have outlined above, for the future of this great country.
Thanks for reading.
Saturday 17 May 2014
Should UKIP give a toss about the outlook or 'dodgy' views of potential voters? None of the other parties does
'Can I count on your vote at next week's election sir?'
'Yes you can'.
'Fantastic, thank you.'
'I should perhaps point out that I'm a serial killer, wife-beater and child molester though..'
'Oh dear. Still, I can count on your vote though right?'
'Yes'
'Great.'
Politicians don't give a toss really, about your views, just that they get your tick in the box come election day. Obviously they have a stance (nationally and locally) that's designed to appeal to the greatest numbers of voters in order to maximise their chance of being elected, but people voting for a candidate and a party and, perhaps most importantly a Prime Minister, are effectively supporting and 'following' a party, not deciding what it stands for.
So to say that UKIP attracts racist voters and therefore it is a racist party is just mad. Actually it's worse than that. It is lazy journalism and, it seems to me, a sinister approach being taken by the MSM (Main Stream Media), politicians and the rest of the 'establishment' as they fear the rise of a party that seems to connect much better than they are doing, with real people.
Yes parties try to pander to populist views. The NHS is either a great British institution, envy of the world or a mess that's killing people. Immigration is a good thing. Yes it is. No question. But are completely open borders when our welfare state pays much more than other countries' whose people can come here and claim immediately and send child benefit home a good thing? Where does this money come from if not the British taxpayer?
Dave talks about doing what's right for Britain and British people. Is that racist? Gordon Brown (texture like sun) talked about 'British jobs for British people'. Is that racist? When did patriotism become racist? You care about your family, community, town, city, nation, probably in that order of priority. Many people who have migrated here and settled here (I'm of Irish decent - first generation) are proud of their choice, proud of their country. Is supporting your national football or cricket team racist? Off you jolly well fuck with that notion.
The great thing is that real people seem to be seeing through all this guff and that the snide protestations coming out of the establishment is actually fueling the momentum that UKIP is enjoying. Think about that for a second or two. It must make the likes of Migration Matters' media advisor and 'freelance' journalist (are those two things compatible?) Dan Hodges furious. And that is just delicious.
I am not a 'Kipper but I do demand that legitimate parties are allowed to be heard and to get their views, policies and messages across, to be discussed and for the voter to decide, not to be told how to think by the media. There is far too much of that 'being told what to believe' going on these days and I sincerely hope that what is happening in the polls now, reflects the fact that many others are also coming to the same realisation and seeing through this bollocks.
We all know that politicians have their own agenda and interests and indeed that the MSM titles all come at this with their own agenda and slant too. But what they have been doing and trying to do to UKIP recently has been nothing short of scandalous.
Of course when you become a credible party, one that could wield some real power in the country you will come under greater scrutiny from the media and quite right too. And if you cannot stand up to that then maybe you're not fit for the job. But the recent media treatment of UKIP has not been objective, rational or fair. It has not considered the policies on offer but tried instead to smear the party's members and supporters at every opportunity. As Farage calls it: 'playing the man not the ball'. And he's right.
Here's Peter Oborne's piece on this very subject yesterday. It's good, worth a read. And he's a credible journalist rather than a slightly dodgy agenda-driven one like many of those who have been trying to smear UKIP in recent days and weeks.
Their campaigns will no doubt continue, indeed intensify in the next few days, but hold your ground. UKIP could well be a credible political force after next week's Euro elections: I hope it is, because that will force the establishment to re-think its stance. It might force Ed Miliband to offer a referendum too. It might signal the end of the Lib Dems as a credible force in UK politics. It might even make Dave think harder about trying to 'do a deal' with UKIP in order to unite the right.
What it will also do is shine the spotlight much more brightly on our membership of the EU - and believe me the establishment will absolutely hate that. They have been trying for years - decades - to play down the EU and its malign - and growing - unelected influence over our lives. The 'straight bananas' stuff was carefully designed to make us switch off so that they could sneak though the real issues they wanted to address.
How often do you hear the likes of Clarke, Mandelson and Clegg say, 'it's not a major issue, people don't care, it's not high on the list of people's concerns'? But in the next breath that our leaving would be 'a disaster for British jobs'? So it is important then?
If we remain within the federalist EU structure we will lose our ability to govern ourselves, to be a globally important nation state. It is as simple as that. The EU's vision is for a 'United States of Europe'. That's not speculation but it's publicly stated aim. That would mean a central defense force whose committments would be decided not in our national interests but by 27 other countries, including Spain, with whom we dispute Gibraltar. It would also, as night follows day, mean losing the pound.
It would also mean the laws that effect our daily lives, forever, would be being made by people for whom we did not vote and can't vote out if we don't like what they're doing. And who have probably never heard of the place in which you live, let alone understand your issues. That's pretty fundamental in my book.
It's time all this was discussed, in the open and that we had a say on it. Hold your ground next week. It's about our existence as a nation state.
Thanks for reading.
'Yes you can'.
'Fantastic, thank you.'
'I should perhaps point out that I'm a serial killer, wife-beater and child molester though..'
'Oh dear. Still, I can count on your vote though right?'
'Yes'
'Great.'
Politicians don't give a toss really, about your views, just that they get your tick in the box come election day. Obviously they have a stance (nationally and locally) that's designed to appeal to the greatest numbers of voters in order to maximise their chance of being elected, but people voting for a candidate and a party and, perhaps most importantly a Prime Minister, are effectively supporting and 'following' a party, not deciding what it stands for.
So to say that UKIP attracts racist voters and therefore it is a racist party is just mad. Actually it's worse than that. It is lazy journalism and, it seems to me, a sinister approach being taken by the MSM (Main Stream Media), politicians and the rest of the 'establishment' as they fear the rise of a party that seems to connect much better than they are doing, with real people.
Yes parties try to pander to populist views. The NHS is either a great British institution, envy of the world or a mess that's killing people. Immigration is a good thing. Yes it is. No question. But are completely open borders when our welfare state pays much more than other countries' whose people can come here and claim immediately and send child benefit home a good thing? Where does this money come from if not the British taxpayer?
Dave talks about doing what's right for Britain and British people. Is that racist? Gordon Brown (texture like sun) talked about 'British jobs for British people'. Is that racist? When did patriotism become racist? You care about your family, community, town, city, nation, probably in that order of priority. Many people who have migrated here and settled here (I'm of Irish decent - first generation) are proud of their choice, proud of their country. Is supporting your national football or cricket team racist? Off you jolly well fuck with that notion.
The great thing is that real people seem to be seeing through all this guff and that the snide protestations coming out of the establishment is actually fueling the momentum that UKIP is enjoying. Think about that for a second or two. It must make the likes of Migration Matters' media advisor and 'freelance' journalist (are those two things compatible?) Dan Hodges furious. And that is just delicious.
I am not a 'Kipper but I do demand that legitimate parties are allowed to be heard and to get their views, policies and messages across, to be discussed and for the voter to decide, not to be told how to think by the media. There is far too much of that 'being told what to believe' going on these days and I sincerely hope that what is happening in the polls now, reflects the fact that many others are also coming to the same realisation and seeing through this bollocks.
We all know that politicians have their own agenda and interests and indeed that the MSM titles all come at this with their own agenda and slant too. But what they have been doing and trying to do to UKIP recently has been nothing short of scandalous.
Of course when you become a credible party, one that could wield some real power in the country you will come under greater scrutiny from the media and quite right too. And if you cannot stand up to that then maybe you're not fit for the job. But the recent media treatment of UKIP has not been objective, rational or fair. It has not considered the policies on offer but tried instead to smear the party's members and supporters at every opportunity. As Farage calls it: 'playing the man not the ball'. And he's right.
Here's Peter Oborne's piece on this very subject yesterday. It's good, worth a read. And he's a credible journalist rather than a slightly dodgy agenda-driven one like many of those who have been trying to smear UKIP in recent days and weeks.
Their campaigns will no doubt continue, indeed intensify in the next few days, but hold your ground. UKIP could well be a credible political force after next week's Euro elections: I hope it is, because that will force the establishment to re-think its stance. It might force Ed Miliband to offer a referendum too. It might signal the end of the Lib Dems as a credible force in UK politics. It might even make Dave think harder about trying to 'do a deal' with UKIP in order to unite the right.
What it will also do is shine the spotlight much more brightly on our membership of the EU - and believe me the establishment will absolutely hate that. They have been trying for years - decades - to play down the EU and its malign - and growing - unelected influence over our lives. The 'straight bananas' stuff was carefully designed to make us switch off so that they could sneak though the real issues they wanted to address.
How often do you hear the likes of Clarke, Mandelson and Clegg say, 'it's not a major issue, people don't care, it's not high on the list of people's concerns'? But in the next breath that our leaving would be 'a disaster for British jobs'? So it is important then?
If we remain within the federalist EU structure we will lose our ability to govern ourselves, to be a globally important nation state. It is as simple as that. The EU's vision is for a 'United States of Europe'. That's not speculation but it's publicly stated aim. That would mean a central defense force whose committments would be decided not in our national interests but by 27 other countries, including Spain, with whom we dispute Gibraltar. It would also, as night follows day, mean losing the pound.
It would also mean the laws that effect our daily lives, forever, would be being made by people for whom we did not vote and can't vote out if we don't like what they're doing. And who have probably never heard of the place in which you live, let alone understand your issues. That's pretty fundamental in my book.
It's time all this was discussed, in the open and that we had a say on it. Hold your ground next week. It's about our existence as a nation state.
Thanks for reading.
Sunday 11 May 2014
If Dave really wants a second term that's good, but it makes him maleable
I've long thought that Mr Cameron doesn't really want a second term. That he feels that he's done his bit - and it must be arduous, it's a 24/7 job after all. I would not criticise him if he wanted to depart to spend more time with his young family etc.
History will probably judge him positively anyway. He's been on the watch when the economy has come back into growth and when many of his decisions have been proved right. He has, in my opinion, been a positive force for this country and has cleared up much of the mess that was created by the last Labour government.
Not all of it, because there was so much mess left by Messrs Blair and Brown that it will take a generation for us to get over their shambles. But nonetheless he has started the process and done a good job in many ways.
But this piece in the Telegraph today here suggests to me that he wants to carry on. And I see that as a good thing. I think he's good for the UK. But he's still pro the EU, 'Common purpose' and all that. And I see UKIP people on my time-line criticising Dave and thinking that UKIP has all the answers. And even that UKIP can do without Dave. I simply don't think that's the case. Dave and the Tories are part of the solution not the problem.
Dave wanting another term is a good thing. Because it makes him populist and malleable. It means that he will do all in his power to be re-elected. And that means understanding the threat that is UKIP; understanding that people want a referendum and understanding that many of us want out.
My advice would be don't 'diss' Dave. He's part of the team that will deliver a referendum. A key part of it. If we can use his new-found desire for a second term to get him behind an 'out' vote, that's massive.
I think we can. But not if we attack the Tories and think UKIP can do it all.
Thanks for reading.
History will probably judge him positively anyway. He's been on the watch when the economy has come back into growth and when many of his decisions have been proved right. He has, in my opinion, been a positive force for this country and has cleared up much of the mess that was created by the last Labour government.
Not all of it, because there was so much mess left by Messrs Blair and Brown that it will take a generation for us to get over their shambles. But nonetheless he has started the process and done a good job in many ways.
But this piece in the Telegraph today here suggests to me that he wants to carry on. And I see that as a good thing. I think he's good for the UK. But he's still pro the EU, 'Common purpose' and all that. And I see UKIP people on my time-line criticising Dave and thinking that UKIP has all the answers. And even that UKIP can do without Dave. I simply don't think that's the case. Dave and the Tories are part of the solution not the problem.
Dave wanting another term is a good thing. Because it makes him populist and malleable. It means that he will do all in his power to be re-elected. And that means understanding the threat that is UKIP; understanding that people want a referendum and understanding that many of us want out.
My advice would be don't 'diss' Dave. He's part of the team that will deliver a referendum. A key part of it. If we can use his new-found desire for a second term to get him behind an 'out' vote, that's massive.
I think we can. But not if we attack the Tories and think UKIP can do it all.
Thanks for reading.
Friday 9 May 2014
Is UKIP the new Punk Rock?
Sadly I'm old enough to remember when Punk Rock arrived on these shores - an anti establishment musical revolution that was 'in yer face', anarchic, rude, violent even - and which for a few years swept all before it.
It was variously a 'yoof' rebellion, a disgusting spectacle of teenage angst or (my view) a breath of fresh air and a welcome alternative to David Cassidy and the utter schmaltz that was increasingly being served up before Punk arrived.
In its early days Punk was much more about attitude and noise than musical talent; its grating loudness was more about the lack of musical talent than a deliberate miss-use of musicianship, but it worked. And how. Safety pins and bin bags became high fashion and, over time, the young talented musicians and bands of the time got on board and the likes of The Clash, Stranglers, Blondie, the Undertones, whilst using the rawness and attitude of the movement, began to bring some real quality into Punk.
Initially the musical purists hated it and tried to use their media power to do it down, but it quickly became evident that they were powerless to do anything in the face of such a wildly and widely popular 'new' form of music, fashion, lifestyle and attitude that swept the nation.
There are, in my view, some strong echoes between Punk then and UKIP now. We are in a time where the establishment is increasingly seen as self-serving, anti ordinary people, out of touch with the population. The 'they work for you' mantra is almost laughable - they work for themselves, clearly. Labour criticise the Tories for being 'Toffs' while having an equal number of 'Toffs' on their own front bench. All of the main political parties talk about 'hard-working people' in a completely patronising way. Very very few of them have ever had a real job - they are just career politicians. Have no idea about real people's lives and struggles.
And people, increasingly, seem to have had enough.
And so along comes UKIP, arguably a rebellious party, a populist party fronted by someone who appears to be much more 'real' than his rivals. It has some views which I would say are largely Thatcherite and patriotic, but after our recent immersion in the PC world (not the computer retailer you understand) are seen as 'edgy', confrontational, sometimes controversial.
How did we allow ourselves to get to the point where 'common sense' (most of what UKIP advocates is simply common sense) is viewed by the majority of commentators as radical, even 'racist'? The latter is just a lazy, uneducated way of trying to denounce UKIP and its supporters in a single word - and, like Punk, this criticism is simply not working. If anything it is pushing more and more people, who just don't buy this lazy journalism, into the arms of UKIP. More here.
And when you do bother to take a look at what UKIP stands for, you quickly see that its arguments are reasoned, thought-through, practical and have the interests of the British population at heart. I'd struggle to make the same point about what the other parties are currently all about. UKIP's 2014 EU election manifesto here.
UKIP has gone through its raw early days and now seems to me to be at the stage where some talent is getting on board. I've even seen criticism that it is in danger of turning into the kind of establishment machine that it criticises. I wonder how else it is supposed to build on its popularity and increasing credibility if not by becoming more professional and capable?
I am not a UKIP member or long-term supporter, but I welcome its growing momentum and I am quick to defend it against the lazy criticism as outlined above. People (commentators and politicians) should not be playing the man not the ball, but actually embracing and considering the issues - after all a significant and growing percentage of the population is now doing exactly that.
UKIP has single-handedly raised the issue of our membership of the EU to a much higher level on the agenda than it has ever been and that is essentially why I'm a fan if not a member. The UK establishment and the EU itself has been trying to keep the issue as low key as possible so that our effective hand-over of power to Brussels can continue unchecked. The stories about straight bananas are deliberately designed to make us see the EU as a joke, not to be taken seriously, so that when the 'biggies' happen, we'll ignore them.
The apologists for the EU - Ken Clarke, Mandelson, Clegg etc - tell us that everything's fine and it's not an important issue for the UK population. But they also say it would be a disaster if we left because of lost jobs. So it is important then? This is just sinister sleight of hand and people are starting to see through it and wonder why we aren't being told the facts about the EU.
By the way, with a £46billion trade deficit with the EU, if we do leave, there will be absolutely no detrimental effect on British jobs - the Eurozone cannot afford not to trade with its single biggest customer on the planet. More here.
A few highly paid British MEPs might find themselves out of a job but that would be about it. And that would include Mr Farage - a fact which I would argue adds credibility to his stance on the EU.
It's not all perfect. Some of the poster ads make me wince. Some of the inevitable nutters' views are unhelpful but as I said in conversation with an extremely politically savvy twitter friend last night, Farage needs ticks in the box - a hit pop record - not a widely acclaimed classical masterpiece that no-one listens to.
So I understand some of the 'frying pan' tactics (subtle as a frying pan to the back of the head) being deployed.
I hope UKIP does cause the earthquake that Nigel predicts on May 22nd. Because that will keep the EU front and centre in British politics and that can only be a good thing, especially at this time in the political cycle with less than a year to go before a General Election.
And because, ultimately for me, we need to have a referendum on our membership of the EU. If we don't leave but endure an 'ever closer' union, we'll end up losing our status as a nation and will be subsumed into the undemocratic socialist project that is the EU. Its stated aim is to establish a united states of Europe. If we're still in when that reaches its ultimate goal, we'll have no pound, no law-making powers (apart from a few meaningless local arrangements) and no way of putting power back in the hands of the voters of this country. Instead we'll be ruled by people who we didn't elect and whom we cannot vote out; people who will probably never have heard of the village, town or city where you live. More here.
That's not democracy, it's take-over. By stealth. And the values and freedoms that our ancestors fought and died for twice in recent history, will be long gone.
So UKIP might be a Punk Party, but it is leading the way in a process that could save our freedoms and democracy in this country by threatening the 'establishment'. And currently it's close to being top of the pops. Long may that continue.
Finish with a song. ;)
Thanks for reading.
It was variously a 'yoof' rebellion, a disgusting spectacle of teenage angst or (my view) a breath of fresh air and a welcome alternative to David Cassidy and the utter schmaltz that was increasingly being served up before Punk arrived.
In its early days Punk was much more about attitude and noise than musical talent; its grating loudness was more about the lack of musical talent than a deliberate miss-use of musicianship, but it worked. And how. Safety pins and bin bags became high fashion and, over time, the young talented musicians and bands of the time got on board and the likes of The Clash, Stranglers, Blondie, the Undertones, whilst using the rawness and attitude of the movement, began to bring some real quality into Punk.
Initially the musical purists hated it and tried to use their media power to do it down, but it quickly became evident that they were powerless to do anything in the face of such a wildly and widely popular 'new' form of music, fashion, lifestyle and attitude that swept the nation.
There are, in my view, some strong echoes between Punk then and UKIP now. We are in a time where the establishment is increasingly seen as self-serving, anti ordinary people, out of touch with the population. The 'they work for you' mantra is almost laughable - they work for themselves, clearly. Labour criticise the Tories for being 'Toffs' while having an equal number of 'Toffs' on their own front bench. All of the main political parties talk about 'hard-working people' in a completely patronising way. Very very few of them have ever had a real job - they are just career politicians. Have no idea about real people's lives and struggles.
And people, increasingly, seem to have had enough.
And so along comes UKIP, arguably a rebellious party, a populist party fronted by someone who appears to be much more 'real' than his rivals. It has some views which I would say are largely Thatcherite and patriotic, but after our recent immersion in the PC world (not the computer retailer you understand) are seen as 'edgy', confrontational, sometimes controversial.
How did we allow ourselves to get to the point where 'common sense' (most of what UKIP advocates is simply common sense) is viewed by the majority of commentators as radical, even 'racist'? The latter is just a lazy, uneducated way of trying to denounce UKIP and its supporters in a single word - and, like Punk, this criticism is simply not working. If anything it is pushing more and more people, who just don't buy this lazy journalism, into the arms of UKIP. More here.
And when you do bother to take a look at what UKIP stands for, you quickly see that its arguments are reasoned, thought-through, practical and have the interests of the British population at heart. I'd struggle to make the same point about what the other parties are currently all about. UKIP's 2014 EU election manifesto here.
UKIP has gone through its raw early days and now seems to me to be at the stage where some talent is getting on board. I've even seen criticism that it is in danger of turning into the kind of establishment machine that it criticises. I wonder how else it is supposed to build on its popularity and increasing credibility if not by becoming more professional and capable?
I am not a UKIP member or long-term supporter, but I welcome its growing momentum and I am quick to defend it against the lazy criticism as outlined above. People (commentators and politicians) should not be playing the man not the ball, but actually embracing and considering the issues - after all a significant and growing percentage of the population is now doing exactly that.
UKIP has single-handedly raised the issue of our membership of the EU to a much higher level on the agenda than it has ever been and that is essentially why I'm a fan if not a member. The UK establishment and the EU itself has been trying to keep the issue as low key as possible so that our effective hand-over of power to Brussels can continue unchecked. The stories about straight bananas are deliberately designed to make us see the EU as a joke, not to be taken seriously, so that when the 'biggies' happen, we'll ignore them.
The apologists for the EU - Ken Clarke, Mandelson, Clegg etc - tell us that everything's fine and it's not an important issue for the UK population. But they also say it would be a disaster if we left because of lost jobs. So it is important then? This is just sinister sleight of hand and people are starting to see through it and wonder why we aren't being told the facts about the EU.
By the way, with a £46billion trade deficit with the EU, if we do leave, there will be absolutely no detrimental effect on British jobs - the Eurozone cannot afford not to trade with its single biggest customer on the planet. More here.
A few highly paid British MEPs might find themselves out of a job but that would be about it. And that would include Mr Farage - a fact which I would argue adds credibility to his stance on the EU.
It's not all perfect. Some of the poster ads make me wince. Some of the inevitable nutters' views are unhelpful but as I said in conversation with an extremely politically savvy twitter friend last night, Farage needs ticks in the box - a hit pop record - not a widely acclaimed classical masterpiece that no-one listens to.
So I understand some of the 'frying pan' tactics (subtle as a frying pan to the back of the head) being deployed.
I hope UKIP does cause the earthquake that Nigel predicts on May 22nd. Because that will keep the EU front and centre in British politics and that can only be a good thing, especially at this time in the political cycle with less than a year to go before a General Election.
And because, ultimately for me, we need to have a referendum on our membership of the EU. If we don't leave but endure an 'ever closer' union, we'll end up losing our status as a nation and will be subsumed into the undemocratic socialist project that is the EU. Its stated aim is to establish a united states of Europe. If we're still in when that reaches its ultimate goal, we'll have no pound, no law-making powers (apart from a few meaningless local arrangements) and no way of putting power back in the hands of the voters of this country. Instead we'll be ruled by people who we didn't elect and whom we cannot vote out; people who will probably never have heard of the village, town or city where you live. More here.
That's not democracy, it's take-over. By stealth. And the values and freedoms that our ancestors fought and died for twice in recent history, will be long gone.
So UKIP might be a Punk Party, but it is leading the way in a process that could save our freedoms and democracy in this country by threatening the 'establishment'. And currently it's close to being top of the pops. Long may that continue.
Finish with a song. ;)
Thanks for reading.
Monday 5 May 2014
Is twitter facilitating a popular take-over?
Six months ago I wrote this. It's about how twitter's two-way communication format is essentially a pain in the arse for politicians, since it allows us ordinary people to talk back to those who wish we'd just shut up and listen to them. And that this is a good, possibly a great thing.
How they thought it (the internet) would be a fantastic way of communicating 'at' us but it turns out it also gives us a voice in return.
What it means is that it's a two-way street that enables us to have a say; to call our MPs to account not once every five years or so, but every hour of every day. It is (excuse my French) fucking brilliant in that regard. It changes everything.
I have blogged about the disconnect between those who supposedly work for us and their delivery of what we actually want several times - more here.
Essentially what social media does is it allows us to scrutinise our MPs on a local basis but also the government on a national basis, hourly, or even minute-by-minute on what they are doing in our name.
It can create a groundswell of opinion. It remembers promises, past misdemeanors. It is not a random interview following which one can await the passage of time to make people forget. It is a medium that remembers, reminds, examines and will not let you escape from past fuck-ups.
Past Promises Broken.
I'm hearing lots of stuff on twitter: That without a current Westminster MP UKIP is getting more media coverage than it should. I'm hearing that UKIP is a racist party as the media and the 'establishment' tries to portray it in that way in what seems to me like an increasingly desperate attempt to discredit UKIP.
I'm hearing that ordinary people (like me) are increasingly coming around to Mr Farage's viewpoint. Whether they're traditional Labour voters or disgruntled Thatcherite tories. As they begin to wake up to the fact that Labour is not about 'workers' any more; that Lib Dems want to give away our status as an independent nation and that Dave is a 'common purpose' europhile and would give away our nationhood to a flawed and communist EU.
I think and fervently hope that voters will place their 'tick' against the UKIP candidate's name on May 22nd. I think it will be an earthquake.
That is a long way from making real gains in a general election though.
But it's a start. I'm tempted to say that UKIP could be driving a real change in UK politics and that it could make a real difference in 2015. That might be going too far given the long-established machinery of the current parties, but who knows?
Thanks for reading.
How they thought it (the internet) would be a fantastic way of communicating 'at' us but it turns out it also gives us a voice in return.
What it means is that it's a two-way street that enables us to have a say; to call our MPs to account not once every five years or so, but every hour of every day. It is (excuse my French) fucking brilliant in that regard. It changes everything.
I have blogged about the disconnect between those who supposedly work for us and their delivery of what we actually want several times - more here.
Essentially what social media does is it allows us to scrutinise our MPs on a local basis but also the government on a national basis, hourly, or even minute-by-minute on what they are doing in our name.
It can create a groundswell of opinion. It remembers promises, past misdemeanors. It is not a random interview following which one can await the passage of time to make people forget. It is a medium that remembers, reminds, examines and will not let you escape from past fuck-ups.
Past Promises Broken.
I'm hearing lots of stuff on twitter: That without a current Westminster MP UKIP is getting more media coverage than it should. I'm hearing that UKIP is a racist party as the media and the 'establishment' tries to portray it in that way in what seems to me like an increasingly desperate attempt to discredit UKIP.
I'm hearing that ordinary people (like me) are increasingly coming around to Mr Farage's viewpoint. Whether they're traditional Labour voters or disgruntled Thatcherite tories. As they begin to wake up to the fact that Labour is not about 'workers' any more; that Lib Dems want to give away our status as an independent nation and that Dave is a 'common purpose' europhile and would give away our nationhood to a flawed and communist EU.
I think and fervently hope that voters will place their 'tick' against the UKIP candidate's name on May 22nd. I think it will be an earthquake.
That is a long way from making real gains in a general election though.
But it's a start. I'm tempted to say that UKIP could be driving a real change in UK politics and that it could make a real difference in 2015. That might be going too far given the long-established machinery of the current parties, but who knows?
Thanks for reading.
Saturday 3 May 2014
What's the best possible outcome from the May 22nd Elections?
Depends where you sit obviously, but from my perspective - wanting us out of the EU for a myriad of reasons which I have blogged about incessantly before - it would be this:
In my ideal world UKIP will do very, very well. They'll confirm that the UK population wants a say on the EU. A referendum with a clear question and a binding result. In my opinion, having waited for so long for it, a vote either way would be very powerful and not open to any kind of fudging by whoever's in power at the time. I just cannot see any UK administration failing to act on the result of what would be such a high profile vote.
And make no mistake it will be a very dirty fight. The EU would be fighting for its very survival and using your money to promote an 'in' vote. If we go, they fail. And quite quickly. So it's existential for them. Their inflated salaries, cushy lifestyle, solid gold pensions would all be at stake.
And these are people who don't hesitate to sell out their own countries if it's in the interests of the EU.
But I'm getting ahead of myself here a little. A good result for UKIP (which I think likely), what would that mean for politics in this country?
For the Tories not that much on an EU basis. Dave has already declared he'll have a referendum by 2017 or will resign. Tory back-benchers would simply not allow that commitment to be ignored whoever was their leader - many if not most are anti EU.
But from a 2015-election viewpoint a strong - perhaps overwhelming - UKIP vote could deliver a seismic change in the Tory outlook: 'Many of these people are Thatcherite Tories, we need to win them back if we are to have any chance of a majority in 2015'.
More on that later.
For Labour a strong UKIP vote, particularly in their heartlands, would also be seismic: People waking up to the fact that Labour is no longer a party for the workers but a careerist enclave that has just as many toffs as the Tories do, and which cares little about ordinary people, would shake Labour to its core. And their stance on the EU - which has been almost invisible recently but is essentially not to hold a referendum unless there's a major treaty change - is denying people their say. If enough people say, in the form of a UKIP vote on May 22nd, 'we want a say on the EU', they'll have to change their approach and offer a referendum.
And to me, that would be a major victory since it would almost guarantee a referendum on our membership of the EU by 2017. I think it's a possible scenario. Perhaps even likely. The establishment, including the Main Stream Media (MSM) is against that outcome but if UKIP does well on May 22nd, it's almost inevitable.
As far as the Lib Dems and the Greens are concerned what would a strong UKIP showing mean?
Who cares? They're toast. As far as the Greens are concerned, fascist toast.
Back to the Tories (keep up). Last year's local elections identified 57% of the voting public were in favour of what are broadly right wing policies. Non Labour to put it another way. But that vote was split between UKIP and the Tories which meant that Labour would be the main party in a general election even though the majority was against them. Clegg's outrageous opposition to boundary changes after he was granted a vote on AV didn't help either.
But if Dave could 'unite the right' he'd win. Comfortably.
Trouble is he's so 'common purpose', so Europhile that he can't bring himself to do it. I have blogged before that it sometimes seems he'd rather lose his job than be behind a Brexit.
And the last thing that UKIP want is for Dave to turn all Eurosceptic on them because it will pull the rug out from under them. Don't worry 'kippers' it's not gonna happen.
But if he could find a way of entering into a pre-election coalition with UKIP, not fighting seats in which the other was standing...
Effectively an anti-Labour ticket that would stop us from being governed again and so soon by the shambles that is Labour. And would deliver a referendum on the EU.
And perhaps (I'm being greedy now) would offer an open vote on the referendum (not spun, no campaign for in or out but an honest debate on the issues), that would be heaven.
So anyway vote UKIP on May 22nd. It could help to save our nation state - you know, the thing that so many of our ancestors shed blood to secure.
Recently.
Up to you now.
Thanks for reading
In my ideal world UKIP will do very, very well. They'll confirm that the UK population wants a say on the EU. A referendum with a clear question and a binding result. In my opinion, having waited for so long for it, a vote either way would be very powerful and not open to any kind of fudging by whoever's in power at the time. I just cannot see any UK administration failing to act on the result of what would be such a high profile vote.
And make no mistake it will be a very dirty fight. The EU would be fighting for its very survival and using your money to promote an 'in' vote. If we go, they fail. And quite quickly. So it's existential for them. Their inflated salaries, cushy lifestyle, solid gold pensions would all be at stake.
And these are people who don't hesitate to sell out their own countries if it's in the interests of the EU.
But I'm getting ahead of myself here a little. A good result for UKIP (which I think likely), what would that mean for politics in this country?
For the Tories not that much on an EU basis. Dave has already declared he'll have a referendum by 2017 or will resign. Tory back-benchers would simply not allow that commitment to be ignored whoever was their leader - many if not most are anti EU.
But from a 2015-election viewpoint a strong - perhaps overwhelming - UKIP vote could deliver a seismic change in the Tory outlook: 'Many of these people are Thatcherite Tories, we need to win them back if we are to have any chance of a majority in 2015'.
More on that later.
For Labour a strong UKIP vote, particularly in their heartlands, would also be seismic: People waking up to the fact that Labour is no longer a party for the workers but a careerist enclave that has just as many toffs as the Tories do, and which cares little about ordinary people, would shake Labour to its core. And their stance on the EU - which has been almost invisible recently but is essentially not to hold a referendum unless there's a major treaty change - is denying people their say. If enough people say, in the form of a UKIP vote on May 22nd, 'we want a say on the EU', they'll have to change their approach and offer a referendum.
And to me, that would be a major victory since it would almost guarantee a referendum on our membership of the EU by 2017. I think it's a possible scenario. Perhaps even likely. The establishment, including the Main Stream Media (MSM) is against that outcome but if UKIP does well on May 22nd, it's almost inevitable.
As far as the Lib Dems and the Greens are concerned what would a strong UKIP showing mean?
Who cares? They're toast. As far as the Greens are concerned, fascist toast.
Back to the Tories (keep up). Last year's local elections identified 57% of the voting public were in favour of what are broadly right wing policies. Non Labour to put it another way. But that vote was split between UKIP and the Tories which meant that Labour would be the main party in a general election even though the majority was against them. Clegg's outrageous opposition to boundary changes after he was granted a vote on AV didn't help either.
But if Dave could 'unite the right' he'd win. Comfortably.
Trouble is he's so 'common purpose', so Europhile that he can't bring himself to do it. I have blogged before that it sometimes seems he'd rather lose his job than be behind a Brexit.
And the last thing that UKIP want is for Dave to turn all Eurosceptic on them because it will pull the rug out from under them. Don't worry 'kippers' it's not gonna happen.
But if he could find a way of entering into a pre-election coalition with UKIP, not fighting seats in which the other was standing...
Effectively an anti-Labour ticket that would stop us from being governed again and so soon by the shambles that is Labour. And would deliver a referendum on the EU.
And perhaps (I'm being greedy now) would offer an open vote on the referendum (not spun, no campaign for in or out but an honest debate on the issues), that would be heaven.
So anyway vote UKIP on May 22nd. It could help to save our nation state - you know, the thing that so many of our ancestors shed blood to secure.
Recently.
Up to you now.
Thanks for reading
Friday 2 May 2014
Why are political commentators gunning for UKIP instead of considering the issues?
People whose writing and views I often admire, relate to, agree with, have started coming out with what seems to be an almost desperate 'UKIP is racist' mantra in the past few days. Why?
Why are these commentators on what's going on in our politics - Dan Hodges, Hugo Rifkind, Ben Brogan and many, many others across our main stream media (MSM) who I admire and read - trying to set the agenda instead of reporting what is going on?
These people are usually to be found sharing their (informed) thoughts about the UK political situation. The whys and wherefores, who's doing what and why. And yes they may have an agenda, a bias, behind what they are saying (we all do let's face it), but invariably they're talking about issues and how they effect the political landscape.
That is not the case currently on the issue of UKIP. They're not saying 'some people are accusing UKIP of being a racist party, let's consider the evidence and why this might be happening' as would usually be their modus operandi. They're saying 'UKIP is a racist party'. When, in my humble opinion there is no evidence to support that conclusion. See here.
So why are these reputable journalists doing this? Perhaps I should have said 'formerly reputable'. There's some kind of hidden agenda behind this. Circling the wagons as the 'establishment'.
It stinks, frankly. I'm not a UKIP member or consistent supporter, but I do want views that are not driven by such blatant bias.
British people tend to fight for the underdog. We tend to want ideas to be communicated and then we'll make up our own minds about issues. Being 'told' what to think is not what we want, but these people just don't seem to 'get' it.
Insulting UKIP and people who support it as 'racists' is a red rag to a bull. Here's Rifkind's piece today that he was lauding as a 'slam dunk' on racism. It's so not. Equating UKIP so prominently with 'Big Ron' (for no credible reason) and racism is almost laughable.
More here:
I've taken out the slanging match that occurred here. But to be fair to Hugo it was respectful. ;)
Dan Hodges seems to me to have lost the plot and forsaken astute political commentary for activism. Maybe his membership of Migration Matters Trust (here) is a factor? He blogged that Clegg won the Clegg - Farage debate. And waded in to the Clarkson issue (guess on which side) this evening.
As I said to him yesterday:
.@DPJHodges your lack of journalistic objectivity on UKIP makes it increasingly difficult 2 take anything else you say seriously. justsaying
Why are they doing this? It's not journalism. It's taking sides not commenting upon what's going on.
I can only conclude that there's some kind of agenda being played out here. My biggest detrimental comment would be that I am disappointed with their work. You may not think that's a cutting edge thing. But believe me it is.
I'm not a UKIP supporter or member but my view would be 'keep the faith' and I agree with 'kippers on some things - one fundamentally is get us out of the EU, the other is that the public is increasingly behind you, is increasingly seeing through this establishment and MSM bullshit which is actually creating momentum for UKIP. Don't stop now. It's time we took back some control over our lives and those who supposedly represent us.
Thanks for reading.
Why are these commentators on what's going on in our politics - Dan Hodges, Hugo Rifkind, Ben Brogan and many, many others across our main stream media (MSM) who I admire and read - trying to set the agenda instead of reporting what is going on?
These people are usually to be found sharing their (informed) thoughts about the UK political situation. The whys and wherefores, who's doing what and why. And yes they may have an agenda, a bias, behind what they are saying (we all do let's face it), but invariably they're talking about issues and how they effect the political landscape.
That is not the case currently on the issue of UKIP. They're not saying 'some people are accusing UKIP of being a racist party, let's consider the evidence and why this might be happening' as would usually be their modus operandi. They're saying 'UKIP is a racist party'. When, in my humble opinion there is no evidence to support that conclusion. See here.
So why are these reputable journalists doing this? Perhaps I should have said 'formerly reputable'. There's some kind of hidden agenda behind this. Circling the wagons as the 'establishment'.
It stinks, frankly. I'm not a UKIP member or consistent supporter, but I do want views that are not driven by such blatant bias.
British people tend to fight for the underdog. We tend to want ideas to be communicated and then we'll make up our own minds about issues. Being 'told' what to think is not what we want, but these people just don't seem to 'get' it.
Insulting UKIP and people who support it as 'racists' is a red rag to a bull. Here's Rifkind's piece today that he was lauding as a 'slam dunk' on racism. It's so not. Equating UKIP so prominently with 'Big Ron' (for no credible reason) and racism is almost laughable.
More here:
I've taken out the slanging match that occurred here. But to be fair to Hugo it was respectful. ;)
Dan Hodges seems to me to have lost the plot and forsaken astute political commentary for activism. Maybe his membership of Migration Matters Trust (here) is a factor? He blogged that Clegg won the Clegg - Farage debate. And waded in to the Clarkson issue (guess on which side) this evening.
As I said to him yesterday:
.@DPJHodges your lack of journalistic objectivity on UKIP makes it increasingly difficult 2 take anything else you say seriously. justsaying
Why are they doing this? It's not journalism. It's taking sides not commenting upon what's going on.
I can only conclude that there's some kind of agenda being played out here. My biggest detrimental comment would be that I am disappointed with their work. You may not think that's a cutting edge thing. But believe me it is.
I'm not a UKIP supporter or member but my view would be 'keep the faith' and I agree with 'kippers on some things - one fundamentally is get us out of the EU, the other is that the public is increasingly behind you, is increasingly seeing through this establishment and MSM bullshit which is actually creating momentum for UKIP. Don't stop now. It's time we took back some control over our lives and those who supposedly represent us.
Thanks for reading.
Thursday 1 May 2014
This 'racism' thing..
This anti UKIP racism thing: You are aware that EU tariffs are
effectively stopping African farmers trading their way into the 1st
world?
So the EU actively discriminates against African farmers & enables the continued rape of Africa, but to oppose EU is racist? Is that right?
So UKIP is anti racism then. strokes chin. And pro Europe but just anti the disastrous EU that has killed opp. in the south. hmm
Anyway all this stuff flying around as if we all know what racism is and what being a racist means? I thought some context and reasoning might be useful. It is of course a sensitive subject and I did hesitate before writing this blog; it's something of a no-win thing if you're not very careful. So, anyway, as usual I'll wade in with my hob-nailed size 11s and upset some people no doubt. Sigh, but this is important.
Here's the OED's definition:
'The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races: theories of racism'
'1.1Prejudice,
discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different
race based on the belief that one’s own race is superior:'
Pretty abhorrent stuff I think you might agree. I certainly do - for the avoidance of any doubt whatsoever.
Can you hear it?
The 'but' that's on it's way?
Ah here it is:
But whilst I agree that we should all be able to agree and accept that racism is wrong and horrible, fundamentally, it is clearly not what Mr Farage or UKIP is peddling. Is he saying that we should close our borders to immigrants because our race is superior? No he isn't. Is UKIP suggesting that people of Indian, Pakistani, Scandinavian, Eastern European, Caribbean, African or any other decent should be sent home or not allowed in because their race is inferior to ours? Get away. That would be mad in this modern world.
So his argument is not based on race. It's based on pragmatism. That one of the first duties of any government is to control the borders of the country it governs. It's based on pragmatism in terms of capacity - housing and infrastructure, jobs, healthcare, education. The ability of the government (taxpayer) to be able to afford to pay for the welfare of incomers and the indigenous population who might not have a job but need support. It's about recognising the danger that people will, with the EU's open borders, travel to the UK because it has a welfare system that is much more generous than exists in their country of origin.
And if it was you living in a corrupt, poor former eastern European country, wanting to provide for your family, you'd think about that move, and neither I nor UKIP would blame you for that.
The thing is that we already contribute £billions a year in aid to foreign countries like India and China, both of whom have a space programme. We are also the second or third biggest net contributor to the EU (us or France depending on when you measure it) which supports emerging countries within the EU. Massively. What uncontrolled borders means is that we're paying for the welfare of people in many poorer EU states and then paying again for their citizens' welfare when they come here as well.
UKIP is not anti immigration, it recognises the valuable contribution that incomers do and always have made to this country in terms of enterprise, culture, job-creation etc. Its stance is merely that we cannot be expected to feed, house, clothe, care for and educate the world. We already give more per capita than any other western country.
I'm proud of that (notwithstanding the often utter stupidity of our foreign aid budgets which include Argentina in their recipients); we are generous as a people and a society. But wanting to be able to afford to continue to be a generous but still a successful trading nation by controlling what we spend is not racism. It's pragmatic logic.
Let me ask you a couple of things to test this racism thing:
You're a parent. You naturally want the best for your child and you will do everything you can to help that child succeed in life and be happy. You'll do what you can to support their education, help them to get into the best possible school that they can. And some of the kids that can't get in to that school might be from an ethnic minority. Does that make you a racist? And please be aware that in these scenarios in which I talk about 'you', 'you' could mean someone from any ethnic or racial background. This is not being constructed from a white middle class viewpoint but is about all of us, wherever you're from whatever your background, whatever you believe in.
You'll feed your child as well and as healthily as you can. Encourage them to take part in healthy exercise, sports etc. Not everyone can do that and some of those that can't, for financial or whatever other reasons might be from an ethnic minority. Are you a racist now?
You'll give up some of your valuable time to help your local community. Fund raising for the church, picking litter up from the side of the road that utterly selfish twats (who I would lock up forever by the way) have thrown out of their souped-up Corsas. It makes your village a nicer place a better community, it makes your home a nicer environment in which to live than the place down the road where there isn't such a community spirit and in which live some people from an ethnic minority. Does that make you a racist?
I'll not labour (small 'l') the point but it seems to me that in the current, media-politically-correct environment it probably does.
You support your national football, cricket or rugby team. Against a team from India say. Or Poland or Africa or New Zealand. Does that make you a racist or a patriot?
And is a patriot, therefore, by definition a racist? And isn't patriotism a good thing and racism a bad thing? Or is the left and the establishment trying to turn patriotism - a love of the country in which you live - into a negative thing now?
I don't really think that anyone outside of some extreme groups - which includes the proverbial 'skin-heads' (do they still exist?), the BNP perhaps, but also some ethnic minority groups as well (being from a minority does not preclude you from being racist, obviously) - believe that racism is an acceptable part of our lives or of society these days.
Using the term is just lazy journalism designed to impose the worst possible insult upon people you're scared of. It doesn't stack up at all.
A couple more tweets to finish.
It's about fairness really. The archetypal Brit wants people given a chance to speak so we can make up our own minds about them.
The MSM (Main Stream Media) is not allowing this - Farage/UKIP are being targeted by them & the 'establishment' in a totally biased way.
And, bless 'em, the people are growing more & more savvy about this blatant attempt to control what we hear and think. It's backfiring.
The establishment & MSM are ironically creating a momentum for UKIP by trying to demonstrate that 'we control you'. People are waking up.
They must be terrified that what the people think & want might actually gain some sort of voice/representation in government. A bad thing?
When did Dave, Ed or Nick actually attend a public meeting that wasn't hand-picked supporters? Have they ever?
Thanks for reading.
So the EU actively discriminates against African farmers & enables the continued rape of Africa, but to oppose EU is racist? Is that right?
So UKIP is anti racism then. strokes chin. And pro Europe but just anti the disastrous EU that has killed opp. in the south. hmm
Anyway all this stuff flying around as if we all know what racism is and what being a racist means? I thought some context and reasoning might be useful. It is of course a sensitive subject and I did hesitate before writing this blog; it's something of a no-win thing if you're not very careful. So, anyway, as usual I'll wade in with my hob-nailed size 11s and upset some people no doubt. Sigh, but this is important.
Here's the OED's definition:
'The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races: theories of racism'
Pretty abhorrent stuff I think you might agree. I certainly do - for the avoidance of any doubt whatsoever.
Can you hear it?
The 'but' that's on it's way?
Ah here it is:
But whilst I agree that we should all be able to agree and accept that racism is wrong and horrible, fundamentally, it is clearly not what Mr Farage or UKIP is peddling. Is he saying that we should close our borders to immigrants because our race is superior? No he isn't. Is UKIP suggesting that people of Indian, Pakistani, Scandinavian, Eastern European, Caribbean, African or any other decent should be sent home or not allowed in because their race is inferior to ours? Get away. That would be mad in this modern world.
So his argument is not based on race. It's based on pragmatism. That one of the first duties of any government is to control the borders of the country it governs. It's based on pragmatism in terms of capacity - housing and infrastructure, jobs, healthcare, education. The ability of the government (taxpayer) to be able to afford to pay for the welfare of incomers and the indigenous population who might not have a job but need support. It's about recognising the danger that people will, with the EU's open borders, travel to the UK because it has a welfare system that is much more generous than exists in their country of origin.
And if it was you living in a corrupt, poor former eastern European country, wanting to provide for your family, you'd think about that move, and neither I nor UKIP would blame you for that.
The thing is that we already contribute £billions a year in aid to foreign countries like India and China, both of whom have a space programme. We are also the second or third biggest net contributor to the EU (us or France depending on when you measure it) which supports emerging countries within the EU. Massively. What uncontrolled borders means is that we're paying for the welfare of people in many poorer EU states and then paying again for their citizens' welfare when they come here as well.
UKIP is not anti immigration, it recognises the valuable contribution that incomers do and always have made to this country in terms of enterprise, culture, job-creation etc. Its stance is merely that we cannot be expected to feed, house, clothe, care for and educate the world. We already give more per capita than any other western country.
I'm proud of that (notwithstanding the often utter stupidity of our foreign aid budgets which include Argentina in their recipients); we are generous as a people and a society. But wanting to be able to afford to continue to be a generous but still a successful trading nation by controlling what we spend is not racism. It's pragmatic logic.
Let me ask you a couple of things to test this racism thing:
You're a parent. You naturally want the best for your child and you will do everything you can to help that child succeed in life and be happy. You'll do what you can to support their education, help them to get into the best possible school that they can. And some of the kids that can't get in to that school might be from an ethnic minority. Does that make you a racist? And please be aware that in these scenarios in which I talk about 'you', 'you' could mean someone from any ethnic or racial background. This is not being constructed from a white middle class viewpoint but is about all of us, wherever you're from whatever your background, whatever you believe in.
You'll feed your child as well and as healthily as you can. Encourage them to take part in healthy exercise, sports etc. Not everyone can do that and some of those that can't, for financial or whatever other reasons might be from an ethnic minority. Are you a racist now?
You'll give up some of your valuable time to help your local community. Fund raising for the church, picking litter up from the side of the road that utterly selfish twats (who I would lock up forever by the way) have thrown out of their souped-up Corsas. It makes your village a nicer place a better community, it makes your home a nicer environment in which to live than the place down the road where there isn't such a community spirit and in which live some people from an ethnic minority. Does that make you a racist?
I'll not labour (small 'l') the point but it seems to me that in the current, media-politically-correct environment it probably does.
You support your national football, cricket or rugby team. Against a team from India say. Or Poland or Africa or New Zealand. Does that make you a racist or a patriot?
And is a patriot, therefore, by definition a racist? And isn't patriotism a good thing and racism a bad thing? Or is the left and the establishment trying to turn patriotism - a love of the country in which you live - into a negative thing now?
I don't really think that anyone outside of some extreme groups - which includes the proverbial 'skin-heads' (do they still exist?), the BNP perhaps, but also some ethnic minority groups as well (being from a minority does not preclude you from being racist, obviously) - believe that racism is an acceptable part of our lives or of society these days.
Using the term is just lazy journalism designed to impose the worst possible insult upon people you're scared of. It doesn't stack up at all.
A couple more tweets to finish.
It's about fairness really. The archetypal Brit wants people given a chance to speak so we can make up our own minds about them.
The MSM (Main Stream Media) is not allowing this - Farage/UKIP are being targeted by them & the 'establishment' in a totally biased way.
And, bless 'em, the people are growing more & more savvy about this blatant attempt to control what we hear and think. It's backfiring.
The establishment & MSM are ironically creating a momentum for UKIP by trying to demonstrate that 'we control you'. People are waking up.
They must be terrified that what the people think & want might actually gain some sort of voice/representation in government. A bad thing?
When did Dave, Ed or Nick actually attend a public meeting that wasn't hand-picked supporters? Have they ever?
Thanks for reading.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)