Tag Archive: Nigel Farage

An offer – or challenge?

Following my earlier post, I have just put out on twitter the following:

@Nigel_Farage Well?
What better venue then the Seat of Cameron? Or, in the words of the Maggietollah, are you ‘frit’?

Let us see whether he, who considers himself the voice of the people, is prepared to publicly debate with one dissenting voice of the people.

Such a challenge has been issued previously to David Cameron without acceptance, so lets see whether Nigel Farage has that which he accuses Cameron of being without.

Oh, come on Ukip – and Farage!

Following the Barroso ‘interview’ with the Telegraph and others, a ‘comment’ from Nigel Farage appears on the Ukip website:

Nigel Farage today applauded José Manuel Barroso, the European Commission President’s frank honesty when referring to David Cameron’s plans to fundamentally revise the UK’s relationship with the European Union.

“Yet again”, he said, “We see European politicians telling the truth about the realities of the EU. Barroso describes Cameron’s plans as “doomed to failure”. So they are.

“It is about time that the pro European establishment of this country was honest with us. There will be no change in our relationship with the EU, before during or after Cameron’s futile renegotiations. The EU knows this, Cameron knows his and the people of this country need to know this too.

“It is no use being promised a referendum on the never never. This country needs honesty and a choice now.

If the pro European establishment of this country should be honest with us, if a referendum on the never never is of no use; and if honesty and a choice is now needed, is it not time that Ukip met those three criticisms made by Farage?

All we have heard from Farage is: referendum now – not one word on what, if Ukip were a party to any renegotiation of our membership of the EU, would be their position; not one word about how they would resolve the resultant legal mess of our being signatories to treaties of which we are only a signatory by our being members of the EU; not one word of how we could continue trading with the EU – in a nutshell, nothing, zilch, nada.

Before those Ukippers pile in and harangue me for my criticism – and boy, have they been ‘kipping’ while blindly repeating their leader’s ‘referendum now’ mantra – should not Ukip who should be at the forefront of promoting ‘life after the EU’ and how that may be accomplished, should they not have been doing that; should not the leader of that party have been traversing the land expounding his ideas for that ‘afterlife’? In summary, just where have Farage and Ukip offered the electorate that ‘detailed’ choice that they now demand of other political parties?

That Ukip are facing an ‘open goal’ is not in doubt, but are they not missing an even bigger ‘open-goal’; and one that they could widen? For a party that believes it is fundamental for the country to decide its own laws and thus rule itself; that has the word ‘Independence’ in its party name, then one has to ask the question about the independence of its people. Should not the people be the final arbiter of that which happens not to just their country, but to themselves? Should not Ukip be embracing the principles of the 6 Demands – or is Ukip the same as every other political party, one that believes only in the importance of their party and its ability to decide/dictate everything for/to us?

It gives me no pleasure in my continuous criticism of Ukip, or its leader, but bearing in mind they appear no better than the ducks in a fairground shooting gallery it is hoped that, with thought, readers will agree my taking pot-shots is not to be condemned when presented with such an easy target. I would dearly love to support and vote for Ukip – if only they would make my electoral choice that much easier!

If we are to have the blessings of true democracy then the 6 Demands needs wider coverage – and what better coverage would it have were a political party that believes in independence to adopt and promote those principles? Nigel Farage has (somewhere) both my email address and my mobile number – so come on, Nigel, how about a chat? Not necessarily in private – I’m quite happy for it to be ‘public’………

I won’t hold my breath waiting for either form of contact, needless to say………

Leadership – Farage style

Regarding the “debate” about Nigel Farage’s “iron-grip” on Ukip, the following two emails have come into my possession. Neither has been forwarded to me with any “embargo” or request that they are “for my eyes only”, consequently I feel able to reproduce same.

The sender of the first shall remain nameless and the content contained therein I have not verified; the originator of the second will become known from the first. It would appear that some in Ukip have questions to answer?

Email 1:

I am still carrying out my own analysis, but as the information from Michael Nattrass (see below) demonstrates that for all the discussion of ‘freedom’ which emanates from Farage during his grandstanding in the Parliament, the situation in Ukip is that there is very little freedom.  Farage runs UKIP with the intrigue of a Joseph Stalin and the heavy hand of a ’30s despot.

In Farage’s own constituency, the MEP selection process was determined by two close friends and sycophants of Farage, who held 66.6% of the vote with the members merely 33.3%.  One of them, Harry Aldridge, is in his 20s.

In Michael Nattrass’s W.Mids. constituency, the process of selection was overseen by Farage appointee and Party Chairman, Steve Crowther, a young ukip employee, Chris Cassidy (aged 22yrs), and a third person who only recently joined UKIP’s National Executive Committee, also in Farage’s pocket.

Clearly Mike Nattrass had fallen foul of Farage by leaving his EFD Group (to which he recently returned) because he did not care for the  associations of some of its members.

If any recipient has any thoughts on the info given below please pass it onwards. Note also that the West Midlands is not alone when it comes to experiencing a dubious selection process!“7

Email 2 (from Mike Nattrass) :

Sorry to bother you but I am under attack from people, who are unwilling to state their case.

The message below has been sent out by Carl Humphries of his own initiative and I have not been involved in writing it.

I will be taking legal action against the UKIP NEC, as I can see that the UKIP MEP selection process rules have not been followed. This will be my last resort having tried to extract the reasons on a friendly basis.  Many on the NEC can see what is happening and agree with me.

There has been no reason given for my exclusion from the MEP selection process, nor for other candidates who deserve to be listed and put before the UKIP membership for a democratic result.

In my case the hustings and an interview were the total process and no other tests. Existing MEPs being excluded from the other two aspects. The interview was a panel of three, of whom two have not been in UKIP long and were lacking in experience and had no understanding of the West Midlands at all nor the history of UKIP and the third was Steve Crowther UKIP Party Chairman. No “problems” were mentioned at that interview!

One of the three is an employee of a fellow candidate and another an employee of the party. Much to the surprise of certain NEC members who thought the NEC would choose!

When I asked why I was excluded Steve Crowther said it was “consultants” but in my case I met not a single consultant and the Daily Mail says I failed a head shrinking test which I never took……….. and the shrinks that missed me were the lucky ones!

If you wish to reply to Carl on ukip21st@hotmail.co.uk please do. If you have questions please ask. This is a party believing in a local referendum, with some of us saying “Let the people decide” So why are people in our party worried about a free choice of candidates?



From the lyrics of an old Country & Western song entitled: Life gets tedious, don’t it, there’s something cockeyed somewhere”. In the words of that most transparent of politicians, David Cameron, do we not deserve a little sunshine shining in where matters Ukip are concerned?

Just suggesting………….

Update: just come across this from Guido Fawkes.It seems to me that the iron-grip of Farage has just become “galvanized”? I will now be once again taking back some direct managerial control of the party – I’m going to have to take a much more direct, managerial role. It would seem that where Stalin is concerned, compared to Farage Stalin was in the kindergarten class! (H/T IanPJ for the Guido link)

Obfuscation, par exellence, by Carswell and Farage

As Richard North notes, the Telegraph and Mail have  “gone big” on the story that the EU is advertising vacancies in the UK and that UK firms can receive payments for each such worker from the EU that they hire. What is not surprising is that, as Richard North notes, this is not news as it has been on-going for some time.

What should be cause for concern is not that the Press has just picked-up on this matter, nor that they have not done their research – but that those who wish to govern us either do not know the facts themselves or, maybe more likely, do know but don’t wish us to know.

Instead we have a Government Minister, Nigel Farage and even Douglas Carswell, all ignoring the EU legislation involved – but then what would one expect from any member of the Rent-A-Quote-Mob whose only interest, it would seem, is to get their name in print.

It is extremely sad, perplexing, while being extremely discourteous to those whose votes he seeks, that the the Leader of the only party promising to cease this country’s membership of the EU does not – or cannot – be open and honest. One has to ask if that Leader cannot be open and honest about this matter, what else has he not been open and honest about. He is quoted on his party’s website saying:

“The UK Government keep passing the buck, making false promises and essentially lying to the British people. They should hang their heads in shame. I am utterly astonished and above all utterly disgusted.”

Mr. Farage; you too should hang your head in shame and we too are utterly astonished and above all utterly disgusted with your response.

If making false promises and lying to the British people is an inherent characteristic of a politician, one also has to ask how then can we trust Farage’s promises? As far as I am concerned Farage has lost all credibility – if he had any in the first place. The people I truly feel sorry for are those who have placed their trust in Nigel Farage and who hang on his every word.

Perhaps, like Hannan and Carsell, Nigel Farage is a Judas Goat?

Tweaking what democracy we have left?

Surely not? But it would seem Bernard Jenkin would like to.

Benedict Brogan reports on his Telegraph Blog that Bernard Jenkin believes Cameron should refuse a four-way televised leadership debate were Nigel Farage to be included; maintaining that if Farage were scheduled to appear on them that would be the best excuse for not having them.

So Jenkin believes that the leader of a party who has on recent average polling data beaten one of the parties – whose leader he would agree to appearing – purely because the party he wishes to exclude may hurt his own party’s electoral chances of achieving a majority?

Jenkin also believes that, should the events of 2010 re-occur in 2015, that the parliamentary party should be consulted prior to any coalition being formed. And what about the people? Why should the people be subjected to a manifesto, cobbled together after a general election, on which they have not had a voice? And we do not live in a democratised dictatorship?

Were the events of 2010 to be replicated in 2015, with similar percentages, on what basis could Cameron form a government? Bear in mind that in 2010 Jenkin’s party commanded just 10,703,654 votes from an electorate of 45,844,691 (23%) gaining just 36% of the votes cast. In his own constituency of Witney Cameron gained just 33,973 (43.4%) of a constituency that boasts an electorate of 78,220 – so even in his own constituency he did not achieve a majority. And we do not live in a democratised dictatorship?

Mind you, where the participation of Farage and Ukip in the televised leader debates is concerned Bernard Jenkin may have a point if Iain Martin is right. However, both should remember that no-one knows what the future “May” hold and come the results of May 2014 both may have to eat humble pie, even if those they represent – and who they have misinformed – consequently know not on what they have cast their votes.



What’s that, NIgel?

Nigel Farage comments on the Daily Telegraph website about the BBC:

“It is hard to conceive of such a self-satisfied, self-deceiving response……..”

Oh I don’t know, that of his and his party’s response to the House of Commons Library Research Paper (13/42) on EU Exit must run that of the BBC a close second, surely? What’s that, Nigel? You haven’t made a response? Exactly!

For a party and politician who call for a referendum now, with no mention, discourse or policy paper on the hereafter, were such a referendum to result in the cessation of our membership of the EU, is unacceptable. That, at the time of writing, there is even no mention of this research paper on their website, even to the extent that its publication has been noted and will be commented on in due course, is also unacceptable.

For any political party to ask voters to take “a leap in the dark” – which is what Ukip are, in effect, doing – is irresponsible and does not auger well for the country, were Ukip to gain even one hand on the levers of power. Not that Ukip are that different to the Lib/Lab/Con conglomerate – just look at any one of the latter’s manifestos and the subsequent results.

Ukip maintain that they are not like the Lib/Lab/Con, that they are “different”. Really? When the sheep are crying out for leadership because they know not that there is a another way by which their lives would be bettered, for Ukip to act the part of a Judas Goat – which leads its followers to the “killing grounds” – can be summed up in one word: despicable.

Just saying………..


Ukip do appear to be having a “kip”

Over the last few weeks two bloggers in particular have been “having a go” at the United Kingdom Independence Party – and in particular that party’s public voice; Nigel Farage – a “campaign” to which I have, on occasions, inserted my own small input.

Nigel Farage has, for some time now, been calling for a referendum on this nation’s membership of the European Union with a view to ceasing said membership – yet has never, to my knowledge, addressed the matter of how this could be accomplished nor discussed the ramifications of said cessation.

The House of Commons Library has, today, published a “Research Paper” on “matters EU exit”, one which is quite comprehensive in its content if, albeit as I maintained, it initially appears a tad biased.

Are not the subjects – and questions – raised in the HoC Research Paper not those that Ukip and Farage should have been addressing some time ago? If a political party – and one that maintains it is now the fourth main political party – wishes to suggest a course of action which affects the future of our nation; should it not be more forthcoming, ie presenting its arguments in greater detail?

It is all very well for Ukip and Farage to prattle on about self-government, independence and democracy but one has to ask how any alternative government that believes in democracy still wishes to adhere to the existing system of representative democracy. Do they understand the meaning of the word “democracy”? Obviously not – otherwise they would have addressed that particular point, and all the related points raised in the HoC Research Paper, dealt with them; and presented their conclusions to the public to whom they are appealing.

While the same accusation can be laid at the Lib/Lab/Con, this begs the question to Ukip that, behaving in the same way as the others and thus ducking the detail while relying on generalities and “spin”, on what basis do they present themselves as a different political party?

On the point about “generalities” and “spin”, while this practice is continued by the big three main parties – plus a “pretender” of that group – how are the public to make an informed decision, come the opportunity of a referendum on EU membership?

As and when any referendum is put the the British electorate, both sides of the argument will undoubtedly put before the electorate their own “version” of the pros and cons. Is it not time that agreement was reached by all political parties and those of the “In” and “Out” sides, that a “fair” and “reasoned” document was produced which would allow the electorate to be informed and educated – and thus allowing them the opportunity to decide their political and democratic future? In Switzerland, when a referendum ballot paper is issued, it is accompanied by a “resume” of the arguments both for and against. Why doesn’t/cannot that happen here?

Do not those who consider themselves “Honourable” – and I was going to add the word “principled”, but I digress again – have an obligation to present just the facts to those they are supposed to represent, so that that section of our society can make an “informed” choice.?




A question – if I may…….

There would appear to be a vendetta within sections of the blogosphere against Nigel Farage, in particular over his “tax-avoidance” difficulties.

If it is accepted that we have no control over our politicians and that therefore there must be something wrong with our political system, then why this apparent “vendetta” directed at one individual when there are other “open goals” such as Tim Yeo, Lord Deben and others?

It is well known that some in the blogosphere have the “ear” of certain politicians – and some political parties are more than desperate to “kill” Ukip – so the question arises whether some in the blogosphere are “being used”, in return for “inside information”, to further the aims of some political parties?

Should we not be playing the ball, rather than the man?

Just asking…………..?

Unwarranted vilification?

Regular readers will know that I do not hesitate to “take a pop” at Nigel Farage and Ukip where policy is concerned.  Ukip policies seem to lack “detail”; in that respect they appear no different really to any of the other three main parties in that they appear to be based on the present system of representative democracy. Nigel Farage appears to lack the ability to “do” detail and the ability to be “serious” when an element of “seriousness” is required; however, that is the man – what you see  is what you get; you either love him or hate him.

It appears Farage is in “trouble” for having, some time in the past, once set up an offshore trust in the Isle of Man with a view to paying his children’s or grandchildren’s school fees. As James Delingpole writes, if Farage has not done anything illegal, what exactly is wrong?

Admittedly I am not completely “au fait” with all the details but it does seem that political mischief is being made by his opponents on what at present would seem to be scant information. Two bloggers have “piled in” – working in tandem, it would seem – with one implying that Farage has more skeletons in his cupboard than the average graveyard.

What is rather puzzling is if Farage has done nothing illegal then why the furore and, more importantly, if Farage has done nothing illegal then why the hell is he apologising? Has he misappropriated public funds?

This may be a simplistic view of this news item but at the moment; and based on what information is currently available – bemusedfromwitneyRus……………



James Forsyth of the Speccie was out on the campaign trail yesterday with Nigel Farage, the leader of Ukip, spending the day with him in South Shields. South Shields constituency, it will be remembered, was the old sinecure of MilibandD – before he decided to seek pastures new and re-enact the journey undertaken by the Pilgrim Fathers. As an aside, I am totally confujsed why an article about events yesterday is headed by a picture of today – but, as ever, I digress.

While Forsyth is correct that in negotiations Cameron will not get any movement on the four freedoms – namely the free movement of goods, services, people and capital – acceptance of which are conditional on full EU memebership, it is disappointing to see yet another journalist apparently believing, or accepting the premise, that renegotiation of full membership status is possible. That is the first “And”.

A country is either a full member of the EU, or it is not – and if not, then there are only two alternatives available in order to trade with the EU; membership of EFTA or Bi-Lateral Agreements on separate subjects, as has Switzerland. This then brings us to Farage’s position with his call for Britain to leave the European Union. He is on record as stating that this can only be done by using Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty, but other than that there is silence.

To enable trade to continue without horrendous interruption and consequences, on invoking Article 50 it would be necessary to simultaneously re-apply for membership of EFTA, of which we were a founding member – yet I have not heard, or read, about Farage mentioning this. Assuming this could be accomplished, we would still be liable to accept the four freedoms – so that leaves Farage in the same position as he now is in respect of controlling the immigration issue which he considers to be so important.

What surely needs to happen is that on resuming our membership of EFTA, we then need to negotiate bi-lateral agreements with the EU – but should that work not be being done now? Is it by Ukip? I think we should be told. Likewise David Cameron talks about renegotiation – but what happens if renegotiation fails; what are his back-up plans? We know he would then present an “Yes/No” referendum to the people (or so he says) – and if the answer is “No”, what then? All of these questions comprise the second “And”.

Farage is, presently, “riding the wave” and does not seem to recognise that, eventually, all waves break and crash on the shore of mis-conceived dreams. In other words people, we are, in true “political-form”, being “palmed-off” with sound bytes with the one purpose all politicians have –  trying to keep us quiet for their own personal reasons in order to continue their careers.

They care not for us – only themselves!




Hosted By PDPS Internet Hosting

© Witterings from Witney 2012