Tag Archive: Ukip

Political Merry-go-round

Having spent 4 days enjoying the best that the County of Durham can offer (company, food and leisure activities) I note that not much has changed during my absence from the blogosphere where our politics is concerned.

With all the problems we in the UK face it would seem that, according to Benedict Brogran’s ‘Morning Briefing’ George Osborne has achieved some flattering coverage in today’s papers due to the fact that having been on the  5:2 diet (which means restricting himself to 600 calories a day for two days a week), the mockery of his weight has come to an end. According to the Mail, Brogan reports, the whole Cabinet seems to be “a model of lean government”, with Cameron reportedly cutting back on his dairy intake (though Downing Street doesn’t like to comment on such matters); Nick Clegg starting kickboxing; and Michael Gove recently losing 2st on an “fat farm” in Austria. Ones initial reaction is that politicians of all hues have been milking it for some time now; that Clegg is always kicking against something or other; and that Gove is no doubt doing ‘Vine’ where losing weight is concerned – but I digress………. 

I note that Richard North has justifiably written about the shortcomings of Ukip and Farage, especially viz-a-viz Cameron’s seven ‘target’ areas for reform; that some MPs have been claiming expenses for riding their bikes even though one has ceased claiming as he realises it costs him nothing while another has claimed just over £400 for maintenance of his two bikes; that Farage has announced he would step-down within 12 hours of Miliband gaining a majority at the general election while Ukip went ‘seatless’ (the  Daily Politics interview  while it remains available, can be viewed here – starts at 12.12). Interestingly during this interview, Farage was questioned by Andrew Neil in regard to what preparations he was making for his debates with Nick Clegg, to which the response was that he had been ‘boning-up’ on his facts – specifically mentioning Clegg’s oft-claimed comment about 3 million jobs depending on the UK’s membership. Hmm, for a man not renowned for ‘doing detail’ the outcome will sure be interesting.

In other news today we have seen Viviane Reding launch her 2014 EU Justice Scoreboard, her accompanying statement ending with the words: Every national court is a Union court and thus justice policies are no longer simply ‘national business’. It is all very well Grayling being reported as stating: We have no intention of the UK becoming part of a one-size-fits-all EU justice system, and it is just this kind of meddling that really irks the public. The Commission claims the Scoreboard is a tool for promoting effective justice and growth. I do not believe that the Commission has any role in the detailed monitoring or assessment of the justice systems of Member States to secure this goal - he needs to go read Article 4(j) of the TFEU where he will find that the area of freedom, security and justice is a shared competence. In any event it is worth recalling that this document by the Spinelli Group is lurking in the background and if any new treaty is forthcoming and is based on that document, it won’t matter what opt-outs one has on this, that or the other – they will be worth squat-diddly, especially where our politicians wish to remain a full member of the European Union.

With the launch of the Tory Pro-EU EUMainstream event today (‘manifesto’ here) we are also treated with an article on Conservative Home by Jeremy Lefroy suggesting that Westminster, not the EU, controls our spending in the UK. It would seem that a concerted attempt is being made to further sway public opinion. Surely any political party worth its salt would be hitting the airwaves (eg: twitter?), especially one so opposed to the views of such a pro-europe group. If Labour can respond, should we not have seen something from Ukip? Er, don’t they have a Director of Communications, someone who moonlights as a chief reporter for a national newspaper? Just asking………….

Richard North is, again, quite right to infer that while we have politicians of all parties obfuscating; while we have a media who do not do the job that they should; and while we have a public so totally – and one might say, deliberately – uninformed, just why do we bother with all this talk about holding a referendum on our membership of the EU? The result will be, after all, a well-engineered given.

 

 


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

‘Flooding’ us with false information

 

During ‘the floods’ the public has been fed a ‘load of tosh’ by our political class (all of them!) which has been dutifully parroted by that section of our society known as the media. For sure our political class have, unknowingly to the public, ensured that parts of Somerset have been ‘levelled’ with up to 10 feet of water in places, but the one thing they have not done is ‘levelled’ with the public where the cause of flooding is concerned.

 

While understandably Somerset has dominated the news, other areas are still experiencing high levels in their rivers. Driving back from Camberley this afternoon, I crossed the river Windrush at Newbridge and witnessed the fact that river is still considerably higher than is normal. Further downstream from Newbridge is Northmoor Lock and its associated weir – just past which the Windrush feeds into the Thames. In view of the higher than normal levels at Newbridge, one can but wonder whether the sluices at Northmoor have been ‘regulated’ to spare areas further down the Thames – but again, I digress.

 

Not once, listening to Parliamentary debates, or reading/listening to our media, have I heard one politician mention ‘Sites of Special Scientific Interest’; the Birds Directive; the Habitats Directive, or the Conservation (Natural Habitats Etc.) Regulations 1994 by which the latter is better known in the UK. When I write ‘one politician’ I can hear the groans from some readers of WfW; accompanied by their thoughts that I am about to ‘have a go’ at Ukip and Nigel Farage – and how right they are!

 

Ukip employ ‘researchers’ – at least that is what they are called – so why did they not produce a report such as this? That would have enabled Ukip and Farage to ‘grab’ the news agenda; have thus enabled Ukip to ‘drive’ the debate; educated the public; and, more importantly, have provided Ukip and their spokesman untold publicity. Instead we were treated to Farage publicly stating that he knew not how the European Union ‘influenced’ the actions of the Environment Agency; and purely for that reason calling for a public inquiry. The man is an MEP of 15 years standing – should he not know about that which he complains? Of course, had he not thrown one researcher, worth his weight in gold, out of his pram in a fit of pique, perhaps he and his party would be better informed and thereby be more of a political force than they are? But again, abject apologies, I digress.

 

Digressing once again, I note that Ukip spokesman appear to possess good ‘heads of hair’ – why? Should they not all be bald, having torn their hair out at the roots in frustration of their leader being unable to hit the nail on its head?

 

(At this point it becomes necessary for the insertion of what might be termed a ‘declaration of interest’. I have always publicly acknowledged the expertise of the author of this linked report where his ability as a researcher is concerned. Before any accusations are levelled at me as one who is a sycophant of the author I should make known that I am no longer an active member of The Harrogate Agenda ‘hierarchy’, having resigned nearly a year ago due to a serious – and, on my part, deeply felt – disagreement over the methods of furthering that movement.)

 

The British public lack information about the European Union, its effect on their lives and that of the governance of this country – and they do not receive that knowledge from any of the Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat parties because all three of them, in one way or another, wish the UK to remain a full member. One has to ask why does the one party, whose basic raison-d’être is to make known that information, continue to exist while it does not fulfill the objective it should – unless of course it is but to further that which some of us believe: namely to keep its leader in the limelight, while keeping him in a lifestyle we would all like to enjoy.

 

Much is made in the media by political commentators that Ukip’s ‘support’ will disappear come May 2015 and the general election. That it undoubtedly will can only be laid at the door of Ukip and their penchant for missing the open goals that are presented to them on a plate.

 

Where our politicians, be they MPs or MEPs, are concerned, when cashing their payslips and submitting their expenses; why is it we metaphorically hear the accompanying words: More please, sir. It is not about time that we made a ‘Dickens’ of a row about this waste of our money vis-a-viz democracy?

 


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

There’s sovereignty – and there’s sovereignty (and Ukip)

There is an element of irony in the British government’s reaction to the dire situation in Ukraine with the Foreign Secretary, William Hague, complaining bitterly about the fact that Ukraine’s sovereignty has been violated and David Cameron viewing the Ukraine situation as ‘grave’.

It never ceases to both amuse and amaze me that our politicians expend so much energy defending the need for sovereignty, democracy and the independence of other countries while being complicit in the fact that that is exactly what they deny their own people.

If there does indeed exist an element of irony in this sad affair, unfortunately it also includes Ukip and their response to it. If one consults Google and inputs the words: ‘Nigel Farage’ and ‘Ukraine’, all that appears which is relevant to that query is a press release by the Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group of the European Parliament, a statement quoting the leader of Ukip.

Some readers may well wish to castigate me yet again for ‘having a pop’ at Ukip, but for a political party that wishes to restore the UK’s sovereignty, democracy and independence their silence is puzzling to say the least. Is there not an element of hypocrisy in the pronouncements of those in the political class where sovereignty, democracy and independence is concerned? Should not Ukip be making more of this?

Now that Ofcom has upgraded Ukip to a ‘major’ party, is it not time that they began earning their promotion?

 


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

2014
03/01

Category:
David's Musings

TAG:

COMMENTS:
22 Comments »

Its ‘Ukip time’ again!

I see that both Richard North and Autonomous Mind have indulged in further – what some might call ‘Ukip Bashing’ – but which I prefer to call ‘Forensic Dissection’. At the outset, let me make clear that I fully endorse the criticisms that are made by both of them. Like both I wish Ukip well – and like both I hold out little hope that they will do well.

Ukip is the only political party wholeheartedly campaigning for the cessation of the UK’s membership of the European Union – do note that I did not use the phrase ‘full membership’ as I doubt anyone in Ukip is even aware that an ‘arms-length’ form of membership even exists.

Ukip stand in elections, both national and European, asking the electorate to vote for them – but based on what? Why would the electorate trust a political party headed by someone who has been an MEP since 1999 but who has no idea how much the EU affects the actions of the Environment Agency? Why would the electorate trust said politician who calls for a proportion of Overseas Aid to be diverted to home use when it is patently obvious that this cannot be done? Why would the electorate trust a party when a Director of that party publicly states that flooding is not the fault of Brussels?

Nigel Farage, during his Spring Conference speech (which some have exalted as brilliant, but which actually did not rank as high as a damp squib) mentioned that there were just 84 days until the European elections. What better opportunity then for Ukip to discuss ‘matters EU’; to discuss exactly how the UK could cease its membership; the problems entailed therein – and the benefits; to enlighten the electorate about just how much the European Union affects and intrudes into their daily lives; to discuss democracy per se (especially relevant for a party with the word ‘Independence’ in its name) and the fact that it is not to political parties that the UK belongs, but to the people of the UK – but on that latter point, I digress.

Autonomous Mind writes about open goals that have been missed – well here’s another that Farage and Ukip have missed. Nick Clegg has challenged Nigel Farage to a public debate about the UK’s membership of the European Union – some may say Clegg’s motive is a last throw of the dice to bolster his vote come the EU elections. It is well known that both Cameron and MilibandE will go to any lengths to avoid discussing this subject. It is also well known that the European elections are used by the electorate to thumb their noses at whatever political party is in government – in other words the European elections are not about the European Union, but merely used to express their dissatisfaction with the ‘government du jour’. Were I Farage I would have issued long ago a public challenge to both Cameron and Miliband for a similar public debate as that with Clegg – and I would keep issuing that challenge every day and every hour – assuming of course that Farage learns to do ‘detail’. Should Ukip not be using every means at their disposal to make other political leaders talk about a subject they would rather not; should not Ukip be using every opportunity to ‘educate’ the electorate about the European Union and how it impacts on this country’s sovereignty and independence?

Having said that, debate is not a subject on which Ukip seems very keen – for example, on Twitter I have confronted prospective Ukip MEP candidates about things they have said, pointing out that as Twitter is not the forum for debate – limited as it is by character content – and providing them with my email address and telephone number to allow such a debate to be had. The response? Zilch, da nada, nothing! In the comments section on this blog I am asked to ‘lay off’ Ukip because they are the only hope we, the electorate, have. Hope for what exactly?

Vanessa, commenting on Autonomous Mind’s blog writes that she too agrees with his comments; that she has written to the ‘top table’ within Ukup but to no avail. Speaking from personal experience when a member of Ukip and branch chairman of Witney, Vanessa: save your time and effort, I’ve got the ‘T’ shirt! Having become disillusioned with Ukip and those in ‘Witney Ukip’ I resigned as branch chairman, but whilst my membership was still active offered my services to Aylesbury for leaflet distribution, their campaign involving litter picking, etc – response from Aylesbury? Once again Zilch, da nada, nothing. Having been an active member of the Conservative Party and seen their ‘organisation’ in operation (campaigning with the MP, door knocking) I offered, at my expense, to visit every branch in Oxfordshire to talk about Electoral Law (again of which I have experience, having acted as Election Agent on more than one occasion) and campaigning per se. This offer was made, in person, to Steve Harris, then South East Regional Organiser (he may well still be, I know not) and, yet again, the response was Zilch, da nada, nothing.

Readers should realise that why I relate matters ‘internal’ it is done for a very basic – and important – reason. Ukip are asking the electorate to trust them with matters national and international. If they are unable to deal with – and understand – what might be termed mundane matters (which they are not, by any stretch of the imagination) what hope is there for their future as a coherent, competent and trustworthy political party?

Ukip wishes to save the United Kingdom – methinks the United Kingdom needs saving from Ukip!

 


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

Are Ukip finally ‘waking up’?

Following my posts in which I have criticised Ukip for its ‘amateurish’ and ‘directionless’ public attitude, the last of which was yesterday evening, in fairness it is only right that when someone in Ukip starts being objective that credit should be given.

I refer to an article in the Guardian yesterday featuring remarks by Janice Atkinson made last week at a public meeting held in Brighton – an article sub-headlined: Remarks by candidate for May’s European elections underline extent to which party’s policies have yet to be developed. Immediately one has to point out to the author of this article that Ukip is not the only party whose policies still have to be developed – the Conservative Party on the question of ‘renegotiation’ and the Labour Party on the question of ‘One Nationism’? I will also set to one side the use of the words ‘Article 51′ and presume this is a typographical error rather than accuse Janice Atkinson of having made a slip of the tongue.

The important point that needs to be acknowledged is her admission that one cannot just walk away from membership of the European Union; that the negotiations will take time; and that finally the admission is made that there are many trade agreements to which the United Kingdom is a party purely through our present membership of the European Union and which will require renegotiating directly with the countries involved.

There are other matters that need to be taken into consideration where any attempt is made to cease our membership of the European Union – matters which I am not at liberty to discuss until such time as the result of the IEA Brexit competition is announced. One can be forgiven for wondering just to what extent Ukip, in their internal discussions, will be considering those.

Having acknowledged that Ukip are finally starting to think logically, criticism still remains, unfortunately. It is obvious that if the party has finally admitted that they have yet to evolve a policy for withdrawal, their previous call for a ‘referendum now’ is immediately shown to have been a pointless and ill-thought through ‘rallying call’.

Likewise Janice Atkinson’s statement that 70% of our law originates from the European Union and that we have to ‘unbind’ those laws would appear to still not recognise that a vast majority of law that originates from the European Union is but law that is being implemented as a result of quasi-legislation that is handed down from United Nations bodies, such as UNECE, for governments to implement through their own legislation.

One cannot but resist commenting on the remarks made by Tim Fallon, the Liberal Democrat President; remarks that are totally fatuous and disingenuous – and thus totally ignores the fact that it is not necessary to be a full member of the European Union in order to trade with it.

While acknowledging that the foregoing is offered for consideration purely on the basis of a newspaper report – and we all know how unreliable they are – it is only right that some credit should be given where it is possible so to do. No doubt the announcement that Ukip hope to make ‘pretty soon’ is one that will be eagerly awaited by those of us who have been hoping for something sensible and thus worthwhile from this party.

 

 


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

Even Ukip supporters don’t really understand

Peter Kellner has an article, which ppears in the March edition of Prospect, about where Ukip gets its support, maintaining that it is plain UKIP is mining a rich vein of unhappy voters who feel out of sorts in today’s Britain. While listing the groups to which Ukip appeals, Kellner notes that they have had far less success appealing to better-off voters, graduates and those under 40.

The most striking finding of this article is that when Ukip supporters are asked: Which three of the following do you think are the the most important facing our country today, Europe is placed third. When asked: Which three of the following do you think are the most important facing you and your family, Europe is placed sixth. When you consider the European Union has a finger in each of the subjects placed above ‘Europe’ – and that even their own supporters do not understand this then is it any wonder Ukip’s poll rating continues to bump along at around 12% among the electorate?

One has to wonder what the level of support Ukip might garner were they to set out their stall in a logical and informative manner instead of addressing the public with sound-bites. But then that is probably hoping too much for a party whose leader really doesn’t know to what extent the Environment Agency is bound by EU rules and law; or the Director of Ukip seems to believe the flooding was not Brussels fault.

Before readers berate me for one again complaining about Ukip and having a ‘down on them’, surely they must acknowledge that such an all-round level of ineptitude just is not good enough, especially from the one party that wishes to withdraw this country from the European Union.


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

Never mind the EU, Janet; lets consider ‘chez nous’

Writing in the Telegraph, Janet Daley considers democracy poses a threat to Europe  citing the remarks by the German Foreign Minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, that political parties within European countries which hamper the cooperation between EU member states are a threat to peace. She continues in her article by writing about the motor-mouths of Europe causing much anger and resentment with their refusal to address the doubts and anxieties of the populations of their member countries.

Daley cites Ukip, a relatively new political party, and considers the remarks by Steinmeier as addressed to them. Unfortunately Ukip is no different to any other political party, it being controlled from the top and, as with its ‘competitors’, still intent on telling the people what it will and will not allow them to do. When Ukip Farage eventually decides on Ukip’s manifesto – and hopefully this time he will have read it – it will be no different to any other party’s manifesto.

Do we in the UK not have motor-mouths that threaten democracy? Do not those motor-mouths cause just as much anger and resentment here with their refusal to address the doubts and anxieties of our own population? 

When considering that our own politicians are also ‘motor-mouths’, a prime example comes with this politician who, given the opportunity to question the current Secretary of State about flooding, obviously either does not understand the subject matter in question or is deliberately playing ‘party politics’. (Incidentally, that last article was ‘picked-up via twitter yet, at the time of writing, does not appear on his blog – why? Might that be because, having been shown to not understand that which he wrote in this post and this, he is a tad ashamed of what can only be considered a paltry question?). It becomes more and more apparent that the EU and the UK have much in common – a surfeit of ‘motor-mouths’.

Neither does it help democracy when a member of the Monarchy also adopts what might be termed a ‘motor-mouth’ attitude while also appearing a tad clueless about flooding – but I digress.

It has come to light that the call  for the introduction of direct democracy is not confined to just the United Kingdom. It will be interesting to see how this latest idea ‘progresses’ as it is obvious that it is in its ‘infancy’ and could possibly do with a little help. In that context I have this evening emailed them, making them aware of the 6 Demands – and await a reply.

Afterthought: And what might this have to do with the problem in Somerset? DECC though, apparently, has nothing to do with it – but if they don’t, who does? It would appear that weather manipulation is ‘fully operational‘.

 


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

Ukip – the debate (2)

After all the comments received as a result of my previous article about Ukip, as a result of this article I think I can safely rest my case!

And it is the intention of Farage that his party’s manifesto will be published after the European elections? Er……….WT?!

On second thoughts is what we have just seen a case of Déjà vu

 


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

Ukip – the debate

Over at The Boiling Frog a debate is taking place in the comments section countering the assertion TBF makes in the particular post to which I link. At this point I should perhaps mention is is important that that post and all the links that follow that which I now write require reading, prior to comments being posted here.

TBF’s post centres on the reaction generated when other bloggers, such as Richard North, Autonomous Mind, TBF and myself offer criticism of Ukip and the party’s modus operandi. As I have attempted to point out in the comments section of TBF’s post I genuinely wish Ukip well, but at the same time I am of the opinion that they do themselves – and those to whom they are appealing for support – an injustice by behaving as any other political party you care to mention; the accusation basically being they generalise and in so doing, do so utilising myth and avoiding facts, to the extent they are just as guilty of misrepresentation as any other political party.

A prime example of utilising myths and avoiding facts is exemplified by an article, currently on the Ukip website, entitled: Blown apart: the Top 10 myths about Britain’s membership of the EU. Of all the myths Ukip list, number 10 is blatantly incorrect:

MYTH 10. Legally, we can’t leave the EU.

FACT: Britain could leave the EU in a single day by repealing the European Communities Act 1972 and its attendant Amendment Acts through a single clause Bill passing through Westminster. A replacement UK/EU Free Trade Agreement would not need time-consuming negotiation on tariff reductions if it merely replicated existing EU trade arrangements.

While currently I may have disagreement on one or two matter with Richard North, like many I am in awe of his knowledge, his research ability and the extent of his data base – and lose no opportunity of linking to that which he writes when it is necessary so to do for the purposes of quoting ‘provenance’. In regard to Ukip’s Myth #10 readers would be well advised to read this post, this post and this post.

As the only political party campaigning for the cessation of the UK’s membership of the European Union I contend that they have a duty to educate the electorate about matters EU, especially if they are appealing for said electorate’s support come any referendum on that subject. Not one other political party wishes to present the British electorate with an objective debate on the subject – and if Ukip appear unwilling so to do then just what opportunity will the British electorate have to make an informed decision?

Returning to the matter of the three posts by Richard North, what about our obligations to a legal treaty that the UK has signed; what about the treaties to which we are a signatory purely as a result of our EU membership? Yes, repeal of ECA 1972 could well be done in a day; but what of the ‘hereafter’? For Ukip to posit that repeal of ECA 1972 is ‘job done’; plus that a new trade agreement could in effect be conjured out of thin air, does lend them, in my opinion, to the charge of misrepresenting the actualité, if not a charge of deceit, purely for political gain.

Comment has been made on TBF’s post that Nigel Farage and Ukip have raised the subject of matters EU to an unprecedented level, a level not achieved by bloggers who, it is contended, were their message of any quality, would be mentioned in the MSM with as much regularity as Farage. It is comment such as this that TBF decries – and understandably so. Just why would the MSM, so wedded to – and dependent upon – the political class as they are, attempt to undermine those that feed them?

The mindset of not only Nigel Farage, but that of his party, its members and the website requires change, especially bearing in mind that it is less than four months until the European Elections, during the campaign period of which Ukip will no doubt be repeating their ‘Referendum Now’ demand. Yet what of their policy for the hereafter? When one looks for manifestos on their website, there is nothing, at the time of writing, about the European Election, nothing about the hereafter.

There is of course another aspect to this entire debate about cessation of Britain’s membership of the EU, although I fear it will never be raised by Ukip. That other aspect involves the word ‘Independence’ and a question I have asked of Ukip previously. Is it the independence of the people for which they stand – or the independence of any government of which they may be part? One can only assume it is for the latter as they so obviously wish to continue the practice of representative democracy and thus continue to hold the British people under dictatorial rule.

Which begs the question just why should I, or anyone else, give them my/our vote?

Afterthought: Do note that, as Autonomous Mind wrote, this is not a rant against Farage and Ukip – it is a plea that they change their strategy and do the job that so many would like them to do.

 


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

Why Ukip?

Two interesting articles have appeared about Ukip, one on PoliticalBetting and the other in the Guardian. The first queries what is it that Ukip want and the second reports the views of Godfrey Bloom about Nigel Farage.

To answer the first question it is necessary to define what is Ukip, or rather, who is Ukip. If considering Ukip as a political party one can be forgiven for being of the opinion that they appear as an amateur, rag-tag, collection of individuals, some of whom appear very ill-informed due to a conveyed impression that they seem unable to look beyond the end of the nose.

An example of this lack of forethought can be illustrated with today’s featured quote by David Samuel-Camps, Eastleigh. Before it disappears, let me repeat it:

There is an alternative scenario to the one espoused in your leading article. Ukip does not just take votes from the Conservatives; it takes votes from across the political spectrum from people who are disillusioned with the three main parties. A situation could arise at the next election where votes for Ukip do not necessarily mean a Labour government but a coalition of Conservatives and Ukip, however unpalatable that may be to the upper echelons of Conservative Central Office. This would mean, of course, that the electorate would get a referendum on EU membership sooner rather than later.

The ‘referendum now’ meme that is being pushed by Ukip, echoed by Samuel-Camps, illustrates a policy which is ill-thought through and shows a complete lack of understanding where the actualité of the subject is concerned. Just who are the Ukip spokespeople and why is it that, other than Conference time, we never seem to hear of, or from, them? When one considers the twitter output of Ukip ppcs one is forced to consider the point that were Ukip to form a government and that they would immediately need circa 120 people to form an Executive – just what the hell would they get them from. Trawl through Ukip’s list of ppcs and one is pushed to find more than a dozen who might just qualify for ‘high office’.

To turn to the Guardian article, this is a damning view of Nigel Farage, albeit one that is undoubtedly a dish of revenge served cold. If Farage is someone who does not do policy and is not interested in running his party, why on earth would any sane person elect him to run the country? With regard to Bloom’s assertion that the party is without brains, that has become apparent when one considers the number of open goals that have been missed.

I am often taken to task by commenters on this blog for my condemnation of Ukip – aka Farage – and admonished for criticising the ‘only alternative’, come the next General Election. To which I can only reply with one question:

Just why would anyone vote for another political party headed by yet another politician who, it seems, does not do detail or policy; who would appear to care not one jot for his country or those to whom he appeals for support, but would appear to be interested in only one thing, namely – and would seem not to care by which avenue that he achieves it – power?

Until the people of this country come to the realisation that it is they who hold the power, it is they that should rule – then we will continue to be governed by self-centered, self-interested individuals with not one brain between them.


Share
facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmailfacebooktwittergoogle_plusredditpinterestlinkedinmail
Follow
twitterrsstwitterrss

Hosted By PDPS Internet Hosting

© Witterings from Witney 2012