ConHome goes Yes Prime Minister on Cameron

This might only be a spoof but someone at ConHome has Cowardly Cameron pretty much summed up ...

Memo

From: The Political Adviser to the Prime Minister

To: The Prime Minister

Date: 20/1/13

Confidential

EU Strategy

You asked for a brief summary of your EU strategy in advance of your speech later this week.

• The promise of an In/Out referendum under a Conservative Government late in the next Parliament will draw much of the poison that has plagued the party over the EU issue since Margaret Thatcher's Bruges speech - by making it clear to those MPs and party members opposed to EU membership that in such circumstances they will have an opportunity to campaign for a No vote.

• The pledge may not prevent UKIP from making advances in this year's County Council elections or indeed next year's European ones.  However, it will, in the different circumstances of the 2015 general election, help to squeeze UKIP's vote - since you will be able to argue that all voters will achieve by voting UKIP is to let Miliband, who is opposed to a referendum, into Downing Street.

• It may be that the next election does not return a Conservative majority in the Commons, but that you none the less continue as Prime Minister of a Coalition Government.  If this Coalition contains, as now, the Liberal Democrats, you will be in a position either to drop the referendum guarantee as part of a new Coalition Agreement if you wish, or to proceed with it if you wish and if our partners agree.

• However, it may be that the next election does indeed return a Conservative Commons majority, or you lead a Conservative minority Government - in which case a renegotiation can proceed.  We are agreed that it would be wiser to dine a la carte than table d'hote from the menu drawn up by Fresh Start and others, and that it is wise, given present uncertainties, not to be too specific about how much renegotiation you intend.

• The Cabinet has already been informed that its members will be required to support a Yes vote in the event of an In/Out referendum: I see that James Forsyth has reported this in the Mail on Sunday today.  As we correctly anticipated, Cabinet members opposed to Britain's EU membership will have calculated that the referendum is a long way away - indeed, that it may not happen - and thus will not resign, at least before the next election.

• This returns us to the subject of renegotiation.  Essentially, the main factors you will want to bear in mind in due course is a) How much our EU partners, in particular the German Government, want to be helpful; and b) How hard you wish to push in order to maximise your chances of winning the support of Euro-sceptic Cabinet members, MPs and party members.  As I say, we should wish at this stage to maintain maximum flexibility.

• It may of be that in these circumstances our EU partners do not want to be helpful, and that you will have no particular wish to push them hard.  However, it is likely that they will wish to give you some help if - as is the case - you maintain your position of support for Britain's EU membership.  You will then be able to return to Britain after the renegotiation claiming "game, set and match" (drawing on the precedent set after Maastricht).

• It may be that members of the Cabinet resign before the referendum which follows, in order to campaign for a No vote - joining many MPs and party members in so doing.  However, you will rightly be able to maintain that you have consistently supported Britain's EU membership, and we can be confident that you will be joined on the campaign trail by the leaders of Britain's other two main parties.

• As agreed, it is likely that Britain, without a strong business lobby for No, will vote to continue to maintain its EU membership: you will have seen that the polls are turning round already.  As also agreed, the depature from Cabinet of opponents of Britain's membership would leave you in a stronger position.  And as also agreed, the departure altogether of MPs and party members opposed to membership would not be without its benefits.

• After all, your mission since you first became party leader in 2005 has been to modernise the Conservative Party.  It is fair to say that there is a marked crossover between those MPs and party members who wish to see Britain leave the EU and those MPs and party members who have proved an obstacle to the modernisation project.  Their humbling would speed the emergence of the New Model Conservative Party of which we have long dreamed.

ends

Defection to UKIP in Telford & Wrekin

Another defection to UKIP ...

Press Release: TAWPA Councillor defects to UKIP

Great Dawley Parish Councillor, Mohammed “Richard” Choudhary, has switched his political affiliation from Telford & Wrekin Peoples’ Association (TAWPA) to the UK Independence Party (UKIP). Cllr Choudhary is UKIP’s fourth councillor in Telford & Wrekin.

Cllr Choudhary attended a UKIP meeting in Wellington last week and joined the party the same night. On joining he said “I have made a lot of friends in TAWPA but I believe that UKIP is the future both nationally and here in Telford & Wrekin where it is the only party to publish a local manifesto”.

Cllr Choudhary hopes to be joined on Great Dawley Parish Council by 25 year old Ryan Laing who has been selected to contest the parish and borough by-elections in Dawley on 14th February. Ryan is a former member of the Scottish Youth Parliament, former member of the UK Youth Parliament, former Chairman of South Lanarkshire Youth Council and is currently a Trustee for two local charities, a voluntary street pastor and works as a houseparent in a special educational needs school in Shrewsbury.

The local Labour lot aren't very happy ...

Press TV attack UKIP for defending democracy

UKIP is getting some stick - mainly in the left wing press - for refusing to support an attempt by the EU Commission to ban the nationalist group that the BNP and French National Front belong to from receiving EU funding.

Who says news is being dumbed down?

The far left Iranian state TV channel, Press TV, describes UKIP as "far right" and says that the party "backs Euro extremism".  They also say that Godfrey Bloom was expelled from the EU Parliament for "directing a Nazi slogan against a German colleague".

Godfrey was indeed removed from the EU Parliament for quoting Hitler's "ein volk, ein reich, ein führer" at German MEP, Martin Schultz.  But this was a reference to Schultz's fascist behaviour (Schultz has previously called Emperor Barosso a fascist in the EU Parliament and nobody batted an eyelid) rather than him behaving like a Nazi.

UKIP is far from far right and certainly doesn't back any form of extremism.  It's worth remembering the words of First they came for the Jews by Pastor Niemoller, made all the more pertinent with today being Holocaust Memorial Day.

First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.

Once they've finished with the nationalists, they'll move on to the eurosceptics and then who?

No matter how odious the BNP may be, they were democratically elected in a free and (mostly) fair election.  This isn't about protecting the BNP, it's about protecting democracy.

Statement on gay marriage

Following recent events where UKIP's stand on gay marriage has been misrepresented in the press and on social media, the party has clarified its position once again:

Nothing about this Bill has alleviated our concerns over whether individuals or religious institutions will be adequately protected from legal contests against their stance on same sex marriage.

Such legal contests could end up in the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg. With only one example of case history directly relating to same sex marriage, it is impossible to predict how future judgments would go.

The real issue here is that final judgements would be made by judges in Strasbourg and could not be overturned by the UK. The matter would be entirely out of British hands.

A lot of the debate on same sex marriage actually centres on the definition and propriety of the term “marriage” and how various individuals and institutions take ownership of and interpret that term. For the Church of England the word defines a contract between a man and woman. For many in society and across the world, the application is far broader. As a party we are not in any way opposed to civil partnerships. Indeed we are the only party to believe that transferable married tax allowance should be made available to couples in civil partnerships and that they should be on an equal footing with traditional marriages.

We are more than happy for people who wish to define themselves within society as “married” to do so, however we wholly disagree with the intrusion of the Government on a religious institution’s definition of the term marriage, whatever that religion may be.

Where the Bill purports to protect the individuals and religious institutions, it is our fear that via legal interference, quite the reverse is true.

The issue is not the clean-cut black and white debate that is being portrayed in the media. It raises a variety of challenging questions ranging from the definitions of consummation of marriage to adultery, which will lead to a Gordian knot of legal implications and difficulties likely to wind up in a court in Strasbourg to which British law is fully subservient and over which Britain bears no control.

It is expressly for these reasons that we believe the Bill is rather cynically being used as a popularity boost and a distraction from other issues, when in fact there is far more at stake than meets the eye.

UKIP's opposition to the British government's proposed new law on gay marriage isn't because the party is opposed to gay marriage, it is because the party wants to protect religious freedoms and not just for Christians but for all religions.

Lewes Cllr Donna Edmunds defects to UKIP

Cllr Donna Edmunds has defected from the Conservatives to UKIP.

Cllr Edmunds said that aside from their stance on the EU, she left because the Tories have "abandoned their conservative values and no longer speak for the aspirational".

Cllr Edmunds is now the UKIP councillor for Barcombe & Hamsey ward of Lewes District Council.

Nice speech Dave, let's celebrate with a defection

Kent County Councillor, Adrian Crowther, has defected to UKIP "not just because of our stance on the European Union, but more importantly on our stance on a number of issues, both local and national" said UKIP leader, Nigel Farage.

Meanwhile, the phones have been ringing off the hook today at Lexdrum House with disgusted and disillusioned Tories responding to Cowardly Cameron's pathetic speech by joining UKIP.  One lady is reported to have been furious at his decision to only hold a referendum after the next election, describing it as "blackmail".

Expect a raft of defections in the coming days.

This councillor's not for turning

Conservative Home's Harry Phibbs had been emailing UKIP Councillors asking them to join the Conservative Party after Cameron's pathetic EU speech today.

Dear UKIP councillor,

As some of you know I edit the Local Government section of Conservative Home and would be interested in your reaction to David Cameron's speech this morning.

In particular if you feel that the offer of an in/out referendum on EU membership from the Conservatives means you feel Conservative victory at the General Election would be preferable to Labour victory and if so if you will consider joining the Conservatives. Or if not what would be required to persuade you to join.

I would like to write a blog with comments so please let me know if they are on the record or not for attribution.

Strangely, I didn't get this email despite being a UKIP councillor and even being on Conservative Home's mailing list.  Perhaps their generous benefactor, Lord Ashcroft, has a target list of UKIP councillors as well as constituencies?

In case you're wondering Harry, I'd rather poke my eyes out with a spoon that join the Conservatives.  I've never voted Tory in my life and I certainly don't intend to start just because David Cameron has made another empty promise of an EU referendum after the next election that he won't win on the ridiculous premise that he would somehow renegotiate our relationship with the EU when the only legal basis for doing so is invoking Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty which gives notice that we intend to leave.  David Cameron has made it very clear yet again - as he did before the Conservative Party membership voted for him as leader - that he is committed to the UK's continued membership of the EU and clearly isn't going to entertain the idea of invoking Article 50.  There is very little difference between Labour and the Conservatives and whichever of those two authoritarian, economically illiterate, europhile parties manages to secure a majority in 2015 really doesn't matter because without UKIP MPs in Parliament this country isn't going to get back on its feet.

Sorry, Mr. Cameron, But UKIP Has Many Foxes

Well, if the headlines are to believed this morning, then David Cameron is about to pledge an In/Out Referendum on EU Membership after the next election.

It's quite easy to see his strategy here. Firstly, he hopes that he will "shoot UKIP's fox" by offering the referendum, allowing ex-Tory voters to return to the fold in time for the next election. Assuming the Conservatives form the next government, then despite the almost certainly choreographed huffing and puffing  from senior EU sources stating that no renegotiation is possible, clearly some cosmetic changes will be afforded. That will allow Cameron to claim a great victory, even though it is nothing of the kind.  He and other EUphiles will then campaign to stay in the EU in the subsequent referendum, banking cynically on the publics fear of change.

On the subject of UKIP's support, his major difficulty is that UKIP these days has many foxes. Behind the curve as usual, Cameron and his fellow cronies don't realise that UKIP has come to represent mainstream thinking on a whole range of issues for people repelled by what they see as an arrogant and remote MetroLib Establishment. Moreover, Europe lags significantly behind immigration as a priority issue for UKIP inclined voters.

It is for these reasons that Cameron's strategy regarding UKIP voters is likely to backfire spectacularly. Yes, we may take a short-term hit in the polls, probably a significant one,  and the "UKIP surge" will be triumphantly written off by a relieved establishment that will go back to it's complacent, arrogant ways. But in the medium term it is likely to bolster the respect for the party seen to have taken on an invincible elite and won though sheer tenacity and determination.

And if it can be done once, then it can be done again and again on issue after issue. Given the deep public unease over immigration and the coming influx of Romanians and Bulgarians in 2014 many will feel that voting UKIP may finally bring the establishment to heel over that issue as it has done on the EU question.

In conclusion, when you look at the bigger picture, UKIP's major triumph is not to force a referendum on the European question, significant though that is,  but to give a cowed and apathetic British electorate hope that their voices will, in the end, be heard.

No doubt it will continue to be very tough, and at times demoralising. But keep on fighting, and in the end the field will be ours.

EU wants power to sack journalists

The EU wants to force the creation of a media regulator in the UK with statutory powers to fine journalists and remove their accreditation.

A panel of EU fascists has criticised the British government for not creating a media regulator and recommended that one be forced upon us, answerable to the EU Commission to "ensure [it] complies with European values".

The timing of this latest assault on democracy and freedom by the EU couldn't be better.  The media will be reporting on Cameron's in/in sham referendum speech tomorrow and they're likely to be less than positive about the EU and his unswerving commitment to our membership when they're directly attacking the media.

EU wants to ban funding for nationalists

The EU Parliament is trying to stop funding for the Alliance of European National Movements group because they don't like their politics.

The group contains the BNP, French National Front and Hungarian Jobbik Party amongst others.  They are due to share €300k of funding in a couple of weeks but some MEPs are trying to stop that funding by rushing through a change to the rules that says only groups that respect EU values can get EU money.

The proposed rule change defines EU values as "respect for human dignity, freedom, democracy, equality, the rule of law and respect for human rights, including the rights of persons belonging to minorities".  The people of Greece, Ireland and Italy might have something to say about the EU's respect for dignity, freedom and democracy seeing as how they've had austerity, billions of pounds of debt and in the case of Greece and Italy, an EU-sponsored coup d'état followed by the imposition of unelected leaders forced on them by the EU.

But irrespective of what europhile traitor MEPs like to think the values of the EU are, this proposed rule change would set a very dangerous precedent.  As odious as the BNP and their ilk are, they are democratically elected representatives and to refuse to give them funding they are entitled to because their politics are offensive to most MEPs (if that transpires to be the case) is undemocratic.  And once they've banned the nationalists from getting EU funding, how long until they turn to the eurosceptics that don't promote the EU value missing from the above list of destruction of the nation state?  And then the conservatives who, in theory, should oppose the isolationism and protectionism of the EU?

Unsurprisingly this attempt to ride roughshod over democracy has been supported by all of Labour's 13 MEPs but it still needs a further 70 MEPs to support it before the rule change can be made.  Let's hope that this dangerous, undemocratic rule change doesn't get forced through.

First they came for the BNP and I did not speak out because I was not BNP. Then they came for the eurosceptics and I did not speak out because I was not a eurosceptic. Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.

UKIP Is Here To Stay

After the Marr show last weekend, ConHome's Tim Montgomerie tweeted, bizarrely, that if an In/Out Referendum on the EU was granted, then UKIP should disband and put all their resources into campaigning for an out vote. He seemed dispirited that this was "now not going to happen."

No, it's not.

The persistent delusions concerning UKIP held by the Metropolitan classes are truly remarkable: namely that we are simply a single issue pressure group / protest vote / angry white men / reactionary Tories / turbo-Thatcherites / Thatcherite tribute band / < insert your prejudice here >.

Plainly there are - or more correctly were - elements of truth  to some of these accusations, but less and less so with every passing today. Obviously UKIP did start life as a single issue party, and it's adherence to classical Liberal economics and strands of Libertarian thought could, albeit somewhat simplistically, be defined as turbo-Thatcherite.

If that was all there was to us,  then both labels would confine UKIP to permanent fringe party status. But these days it is quite clear that what UKIP represents more than anything else is the return of honesty and conviction in British politics and a rejection of the deceits and vanities of the MetroLib political and media classes.

More and more people now perceive that we live in effectively a neo-Medieval society. Power is concentrated in the hands of a small and highly concentrated elite whose internationalist outlook and values have far more in common with their counterparts in other lands than the great mass of people within their own realm. This elite view the common people in a not disimilar way from the way the old Medieval elites did - namely as an uneducated mob whose prejudices must be occasionally pandered to but otherwise be locked out of power and influence. Hitherto, the old class-based Tory-Labour duopoly has proved extremely useful to the elite in this regard, locking in unthinking tribal voting patterns for generation after generation. True, the heavy religious component of Medieval life seems at first glance to be absent, but the Roman Catholic Church has been replaced by the new internationalist organisations whose goals have been raised to a quasi -religious status - for instance the European Court of Human Right and, of course, the European Union.

Before the financial crash, it seemed that this elite hegemony was set fair to go on forever. However, the current depression has concentrated all our minds and show the Emperor really has no clothes. People increasingly see through the trickery and illusion, and as such UKIP's appeal is broadening substantially. Every television performance by a passionate UKIP representative shines a bright light onto the blandness, mendacity and cowardice of the political class parties, slowly but surely crystallising opposition to them. It is often argued that UKIP is a threat merely to the Tories, risking permanently splitting the right-wing vote in a way that the Labour - Liberal split so damaged the Left in the 20th Century. However, long term UKIP are arguably as great a threat to the Labour party. Bereft of class baggage, the party can appeal to the social conservatism and level-headedness of many Northern working class voters who would never consider voting Tory in a million years.

We all tend to ignore and discount trends we find uncomfortable, and the dismissal of UKIP's rise by the Political Class is part of that phenomenon. Although plainly they are beginning to see us as some form of threat, the magnitude of that threat is still not properly perceived.

The truth is that UKIP have a moral mission well beyond it's founding issue of the European Union. In fact, Britain's original entry into what has become the European Union could be regarded as a symptom of a disease, rather than the disease itself. Namely that even 40 years substantial elements within the old political elites had nothing but contempt for the country and the people they governed, and were ready to betray them when they calculated it was to their own advantage. It is UKIP's task to advance the cause of liberty not merely by reversing many of the acts of treachery over the past decades, but by leveraging the technological possibilities of the digital age to give people powers of self-government that they have never truly had.

Power to the People!

How you can help to get cabinet devolution minutes released

Cross-posted from Wonko's World

The SNP have asked the British government for the minutes of the 1997 cabinet meeting on devolution in which it was decided that the Scots and Welsh would be allowed self government whilst England would not.

This important document has been requested a number of times under the Freedom of Information Act and blocked every time.  The Information Commissioner has ruled that release of the minutes is in the public interest and ordered their release but they were blocked by the Attorney General, Dominic Grieve.

What are these traitors so desperate to hide?

Vetoing FOI requests requires the unanimous agreement of the cabinet.  When Jack Straw and Dominic Grieve vetoed their release in 2009 and 2012, these people conspired to keep the minutes secret:

Jack Straw	Dominic Grieve
The Rt Hon Gordon Brown MP	The Rt Hon. David Cameron MP
The Rt Hon Harriet Harman QC MP	The Rt Hon. Nick Clegg MP
The Rt Hon The Lord Mandelson PC	The Rt Hon. William Hague MP
The Rt Hon Alistair Darling MP	The Rt Hon. George Osborne MP
The Rt Hon David Miliband MP	The Rt Hon. Kenneth Clarke QC MP
The Rt Hon Jack Straw MP	The Rt Hon. Theresa May MP
The Rt Hon Alan Johnson MP	The Rt Hon. Dr Liam Fox MP
The Rt Hon Hilary Benn MP	The Rt Hon. Philip Hammond MP
The Rt Hon Douglas Alexander MP	The Rt Hon. Dr Vince Cable MP
The Rt Hon John Denham MP	The Rt Hon. Iain Duncan Smith MP
The Rt Hon Ed Balls MP	The Rt Hon. Chris Huhne MP
The Rt Hon Ed Miliband MP	The Rt Hon. Edward Davey MP
The Rt Hon Andy Burnham MP	The Rt Hon. Andrew Lansley CBE MP
The Rt Hon Shaun Woodward MP	The Rt Hon. Michael Gove MP
The Rt Hon The Baroness Royall of Blaisdon PC	The Rt Hon. Eric Pickles MP
The Rt Hon Tessa Jowell MP	The Rt Hon. Philip Hammond MP
The Rt Hon Jim Murphy MP	The Rt Hon. Justine Greening MP
The Rt Hon Yvette Cooper MP	The Rt Hon. Caroline Spelman MP
The Rt Hon Liam Byrne MP	The Rt Hon. Andrew Mitchell MP
The Rt Hon Peter Hain MP	The Rt Hon. Owen Paterson MP
The Rt Hon Bob Ainsworth MP	The Rt Hon. Danny Alexander MP
The Rt Hon The Lord Adonis MP	The Rt Hon. Michael Moore MP
The Rt Hon Ben Bradshaw MP	The Rt Hon. Cheryl Gillan MP
The Rt Hon Nick Brown MP	The Rt Hon. Jeremy Hunt MP
The Rt Hon The Lord Malloch-Brown KCMG PC	The Rt Hon. David Laws MP
The Rt Hon John Healey MP	The Rt Hon. Danny Alexander MP
The Rt Hon Pat McFadden MP	The Rt Hon. The Lord Strathclyde PC
The Rt Hon The Lord Drayson PC	The Rt Hon. The Baroness Warsi PC
The Rt Hon Jim Knight MP	The Rt Hon. Francis Maude MP
The Rt Hon The Baroness Scotland of Asthal PC QC	The Rt Hon. Oliver Letwin MP
The Rt Hon Dawn Primarolo MP	The Rt Hon. David Willetts MP
The Rt Hon Rosie Winterton MP	The Rt Hon. Sir George Young Bt MP
The Rt Hon Sadiq Khan MP	The Rt Hon. Patrick McLoughlin MP
	The Rt Hon. Dominic Grieve QC MP

The minutes are really of more interest to the English than the Scots as they got what they wanted and we got shafted so we shouldn't be leaving it to the Scots to get these minutes into the public domain.  If every English person interested in seeing what decisions were made at the cabinet meeting that have resulted in over 15 years of institutional discrimination against the English made a Freedom of Information request for the minute, it would be extremely damaging to the British government if they tried to block their release to hundreds or thousands of people.

If you want to help force the release of these minutes, you need to send an FOI request for them to foi.team@cabinet-office.gsi.gov.uk.  My request is as follows:

Under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act, I am requesting a copy of the minutes of the 1997 Cabinet meetings on devolution. I am also requesting a copy of the Terms of Reference for the cabinet committee headed by Lord Irvine that the minutes relate to and any legal or departmental advice provided to the cabinet in relation to these meetings.

Update:
Kev has started an e-Petition on the British government's website.

See also:

• The Illusive Man
• English Patriot
• English Standard
• The Blog of Kev
• England Exists

Farage tells Cowardly Cameron not to book himself any studio time

Responding to Cowardly Cameron's pronouncement that the leader of the UK's third (and fastest growing) party shouldn't be allowed to take part in any televised leaders' debates before the next election but the leader of the fourth party should, Nigel Farage had this to say:

If he wants to restrict it to those parties who are likely to form the next government, he’d better not be booking studio time himself.

Quite.  Meanwhile, someone has started a petition on the HM Government e-petitions site for UKIP to be included in any televised debate and it's trending already.

Extracts from Cowardly Cameron's cancelled EU speech

Conservative Home has extracts from Cowardly Cameron's cancelled EU speech.  They can be summed up in one word: weak.

Every time someone votes for UKIP a puppy dies

I want Britain to stay in Europe… “I come here as British Prime Minister with a positive vision for the future of the European Union. A future in which Britain wants, and should want, to play a committed and active part.”

Britain doesn't want to play a part in the European Union.  Most people want to leave.

…but Europe must change. “I want to speak to you today with urgency and frankness about the European Union and how it must change – both to deliver prosperity and to retain the support of its peoples.”

It's the EU, not Europe.  The EU won't change for the better, it will continue to diverge at an alarming rate from the national interests of all member states (apart from Germany of course) and especially ours.

Yes, it really must change. “More of the same will not secure a long-term future for the eurozone. More of the same will not see the European Union keeping pace with the new powerhouse economies. More of the same will not bring the European Union any closer to its citizens. More of the same will just produce more of the same – less competitiveness, less growth, fewer jobs. And that will make our countries weaker, not stronger.”

The EU is an anti-competitive, protectionist, despotic state.  It will never compete with emerging economies because it is insular and above all a political project, not a trade one.

The three challenges facing Europe. “There are always voices saying, ‘Don’t ask the difficult questions’. But it’s essential for Europe – and for Britain – that we do because there are three major challenges confronting us today. … First, the problems in the eurozone are driving fundamental change in Europe. Second, there is a crisis of European competitiveness, as other nations across the world soar ahead. And third, there is a gap between the EU and its citizens which has grown dramatically in recent years and which represents a lack of democratic accountability and consent that is – yes – felt particularly acutely in Britain.”

He means the EU, not Europe.  The collapse of the €uro is driving change the wrong way - towards full fiscal and political union which is a disaster for democracy.

Britain could leave if these challenges aren’t overcome. “If we don't address these challenges, the danger is that Europe will fail and the British people will drift towards the exit,”

Europe can't fail, it's a huge landmass.  The EU will fail though and if we don't get out in time we will get dragged down with it.

Although, again, I don’t want that. “I want the European Union to be a success and I want a relationship between Britain and the EU that keeps us in it.”

Yes Dave, we know you're a committed europhile and will do whatever it takes to make sure we stay in.

And more on the democratic challenge. “There is a growing frustration that the EU is seen as something that is done to people rather than acting on their behalf, and this is being intensified by the very solutions required to resolve the economic problems … People are increasingly frustrated that decisions taken further and further away from them mean their living standards are slashed through enforced austerity or their taxes are used to bail out governments on the other side of the continent.”

It's all part of the plan Dave, all of it.  As expected, Cameron has committed himself to our continued membership of the EU and once again thrown away the only bargaining chip we have.  Conspicuous in its absence from this europhile drivel are details of his pinky promise in/in referendum.  Eurosceptic Tories will be bitterly disappointed at what was evidently going to be a fawning, pro-EU speech.  Confirming the worst kept secret - that the EU referendum won't have an "out" option or will at least contain two "in" options to dilute the "out" vote - would tip huge numbers of them over the edge.

Cameron blocks Romanian & Bulgarian immigration figures

David Cameron and Eric Pickles are conspiring to prevent the release of official predictions of how many Romanians and Bulgarians are likely to move here when immigration controls are relaxed for the two EU member states next year.

Our glorious leader with his Nazi-loving
friend in the EU Parliament

Unofficial estimates put the figure at around 425,000 which would drive up unemployment, decimate already inadequate housing stocks and put an intolerable strain on public services.

Cameron said that they don't want to release the predictions early because they don't have enough confidence in them and then went on to cite the influx of Polish immigrants in 2004 when the British government predicted 14,000 would move here and nearly half a million came instead.  If he's suggesting that the 425,000 number that's being thrown around might be a bit on the low side then we need to know right now because there are 21m people living in Romania and Bulgaria and a fifth of them are living below the poverty line.

We need to know right now because to deliberately flood the country with that many eastern European immigrants knowing that there is a very real possibility that it would destroy the economy, send unemployment out of control, leave tens of thousands of people homeless or living in overcrowded houses and increase racial/ethic/cultural tensions then one or two people might consider that to be an act of treason.

Cameron cancels EU speech & says no to Farage TV debate

David Cameron has cancelled his speech on "Europe" (he means the EU) that was due to be delivered in the Netherlands tomorrow because he wants to stay at home and keep on top of events unfolding in Algeria where a UK citizen has been killed by terrorists and others are being held as hostages.

Presumably nobody thought to tell him about this new invention that's been increasing in popularity in recent years called the mobile phone which lets people talk to you wherever you are.  Even in the Netherlands.

Meanwhile, he's shown everyone how he's totally not worried by UKIP at all and especially not that rotter Nigel Farage by telling House Magazine that he doesn't want Farage in a leaders' debate if they hold another one before the next general election.

With Cast Iron Dave™ running scared of an EU referendum and a televised debate with Nigel Farage, anyone would think he was turning yellow ...

Why are some otherwise normal people in favour of the UK being in the EU?

I always like talking to people who support the UK being a member of the EU. I really, really want to know why they think EU membership is good for the UK. I really want to know, because I can't see a single positive practical aspect of it, not one.

I have spoken to several (the few brave enough to come forwards!) at various times to get to the bottom of their support for UK being in the EU.

Its about UK membership, not the EU itself

For instance allowing exporters to meet one standard to export to all members of the EU - UK exporters would still benefit from that even if UK itself was not a member.

Often their first arguments are not about the UK being in the EU, but about the EU itself - these can really be dismissed - as whatever they think the benefit is, it has no relevance to the UK being an EU member. So it is just a matter of making clear the question. It is not about 'the EU' it is about 'UKs membership of the EU'. I'd qualify this dismissal by saying some are attracted to an organisation that they think 'does good' even if being a member makes no actual difference to it (glory by association) this 'influence' can't be completely ignored.

Two classes of logical argument

Once the focus is on UK membership of the EU, rather than the EU per se, the arguments they initially present usually fall into two classes.

The first class is issues that don't actually require the EU.

For instance - standards, laws and other things that the UK could perfectly well manage itself, you may agree that a particular EU law is a good thing, but there is no reason that the UK couldn't enact such a law itself outside the EU. The EU didn't invent these things, they are there for us to adopt, use, create etc. whether we are in or out.

And, of course, by being in the EU we are obliged to enact the standards and laws we don't approve of, and they even apply to domestic trade forcing up costs for items that are never intended for export.

The second class is those that are just bogus. 'Common knowledge'  but false!

For instance the free movement of labour, a good example to counter this is the French Civil Service - a UK teacher wanting to work in France is little better off than a new graduation - needing to do years of additional training. There is no will to change this - quite the reverse, the French (despite being a leading EU member) are getting ever more protectionist. This 'free movement' is primarily unskilled labour moving from poor member countries to richer member countries - and often to claim benefits rather than to earn a wage by supplying labour at all!

So why do you really support UK membership of the EU?

Having worked through the various arguments and dismissed them, and the dismissal being accepted as correct, the answer is... "I just do", "Its a good thing", "I like the idea of being part of it".

Simply, its an emotional attachment. Being 'in a group' appeals to some people - maybe the less confident, less secure about any change, who want to hide in the crowd. Those that aren't the 'go getting' people who want to strike out and make things better, happy to sit back and accept 'whatever' because it seems 'good enough' and don't really care that they are being fleeced and others are living far better lives than themselves at their expense!

Summary

The logical arguments are need to be made for the logical, sensible, rational people. But far harder to overcome will be the many insecure who are simply scared of change in case it makes things worse. 

They have to be sold a new vision, who is going to create that vision and circulate it? Who is going to pay for it? Time is short if it is to be established before the people are asked.

Lib Dem MEP boasts of defending Rotherham social services

The soon to be former eurofanatic Lib Dem MEP, Chris Davies, has boasted about defending the fascist social workers in Rotherham that took three children off a couple because they were UKIP members.

Interesting that this horrible little toad relies on guilt by association to justify his actions and misguided belief that UKIP are racist.  So presumably Chris Davies MEP won't have any objections to being accused of being a fraudster, adulterer and purveyor of prostitutes, thug, perjurer, expenses fiddler, benefit cheat, racist and homophobe?  That's how guilt by association works isn't it Chris?

Cameron's in/in/out referendum will keep us in EU forever

So, David Cameron is going to give a speech on "Europe" (he means the EU) on Friday and he's going to give us a Cast Iron Guarantee™ of a referendum after the next election.

I say, who let in those plebs?

Cameron said today that people were fed up of not having a say on "Europe" because people have been promising referenda and not following through with them.  Apparently it was "the government" that failed to give us the referenda that he personally promised and personally whipped his MPs to vote down.

There is no confirmation what this mythical referendum would ask but all the evidence is that it will be an in/in/out referendum - maintaining the status quo, staying in but renegotiating terms of membership and leaving the EU.  This is almost certain to result in a vote for renegotiation as human nature is to err on the cautious side and find a "third way" and the LibLabCon will have spent millions of pounds on taxpayer-funded propaganda to scare us into it.  And this is why Cameron, as a committed europhile, can't lose.

The suggestion that renegotiation of our relationship with the EU is possible is a con.  There is no legal basis for a "pick n mix" membership and absolutely no appetite for it in the EU or the leaders of any of the EU member states.  When superficial attempts to renegotiate fail the referendum will have produced an overwhelming "in" vote which will be held up as "proof" that the electorate want to stay in the EU.

There is also the little publicised fact recently revealed by Better Off Out that 2017 is the date specified in the Lisbon Treaty for mandatory full fiscal union for all EU member states.  That means goodbye pound, hello €uro.  With 2018 being suggested by Tory MPs as the most likely time for the aforementioned mythical referendum, leaving would then involve unpicking fiscal union and bringing back the pound possibly less than a year after it has been abolished.

UKIP membership tops 21k & members' forum suspended

UKIP General Secretary, Jonathan Arnott, has the following two interesting pieces in his newsletter today:

A few weeks ago, the Party's membership broke through the 20,000 barrier.  I am pleased to be able to inform you that the Party has today gone past 21,000 members.  Given the rate of decline of the Liberal Democrat party membership, if UKIP can continue our meteoric rise then we could overtake them in terms of size as well as membership before the General Election!

At the request of the Party Chairman, the members' forum has been suspended due to an article in the Sunday Mirror which featured comments from the forum.  I should point out that:

1. The posts concerned date back to September and November 2012.
2. The posts were removed at the time for breaching the rules.  However, a member had clearly taken a screenshot before they were removed.
3. The forum has over 2,500 members; the article mentioned posts by 3 members.

Nevertheless, the Party cannot allow ourselves to become subject to attack in the media as a result of the forum.

Force be with you Commers. Statement from YI Caretaker Chairman Rob Comley...

Statement from YI Caretaker Chairman Rob Comley:

Dear Young Independence Members,

As you will be aware, I have been asked by the NEC to look after YI as a caretaker until we hold our annual elections in March and a new council can be elected.

It is clear to me that events over the past week have caused some frictions in YI. It is also clear to me that some of you feel let down and hurt by certai...n decisions and I empathise with you. In the short period I hold the helm before we elect a new chairman I will work, on your behalf, with the NEC and discuss with them, as well as other members of YI, how exactly we should work within the party. I shall be asking the NEC for a written list of recommendations on how they would improve YI as a political youth wing.

It is an honour to represent YI, even for this short time and I will not let you down. I urge you all to remember that we are fighting for the same cause!

Rob Comley – Caretaker YI Chair

Stocksbridge Town Councillor Jack Clarkson Joins UKIP

Stocksbridge Town Councillor Jack Clarkson Joins UKIP

The Stocksbridge & Penistone Branch of The UK Independence Party is delighted to announce that on January the 10th 2013 Jack Clarkson will represent the UK Independence party as Town Councillor for Stocksbridge.

Jack is an experienced Councillor on the Stocksbridge Town Council and has represented and fought for many local people in relation to issues ranging from simple Council house repairs/accommodation problems to more complex issues surrounding the involvement of the Local Government Ombudsman.

Jack left the Lib Dem’s after Nick Clegg’s announced that ‘he was sorry’ for making a pledge to cut student tuition fee’s, a pledge that Jack as always maintained should have been kept and honoured, after all it had been promised to the electorate during the 2010 General Election.
Jack said, “For me Nick Clegg’s Integrity is as been totally shot to pieces, people know that a promise is a promise. You simply don’t make pledges to the electorate then renege on your promise.
Saying sorry after life threatening riots simply just sucks, and I find Nick Cleggs comments simply embarrassing.”
Although Jack has been acting as an independent Cllr on the Stocksbridge Town Council, he has been an advisor and running mate for Jonathan Arnott (UKIP’s) Sheffield Branch Chair in the local Police and Crime Commissioners elections which took place in November last year and was assisted in campaigning for the prospective UKIP Parliamentary Candidate for Rotherham around the Thorpe Hesley area.

Jack said: “For the last six months I’ve been quite heavily involved with UKIP campaigning on several fronts, and we’ve seen some fantastic results.  I’ve met some really nice genuine people, ‘who tell it as it is’ and are not afraid to speak out about real issues and not bury their heads in the sand like representatives of the other main stream parties.

Many people are concerned about their jobs, housing, pensions and how the issue of immigration has and will continue to have a detrimental effect on all of these issues.

As a UKIP Town Councillor for Stocksbridge, I will ensure that common sense policies and proposals are put forward and supported.  My announcement to become a UKIP Town Councillor will definitely upset many of the serving Councillors on the Town Council, why? because they all see UKIP as a  real threat, a party that represents people, and a party that fights for local people.

At the moment Labour in Sheffield are ensuring that their favoured areas are being looked after and it is quite evident that monies has been diverted away from Stocksbridge and the Upper Don Valley, I will continue to highlight and fight against Labours unfair polices that are being inflicted on Stocksbridge in relation to the sports centre and Deepcar’s recycling centre.

Nigel Farage MEP & Leader of the UK Independence Party said “I am delighted that Jack is joining our team in Stocksbridge  His move to UKIP just highlights that UKIP members come from across the spectrum. That people of his calibre and life experience now see UKIP as a way to improve the lot of their locality speaks volumes about the way that this party is moving forwards and upwards. Welcome aboard Jack!”

Thoughts of a Young Independence member #1 The Neville Scandal.

An Observer Opinium poll has recently revealed Ukip to be beating the Tories in the North West, (http://politicsuk.eu/archives/12950). I'm not one to boast, (especially after those tiring London elections), but this does not only amplify the increasing momentum of Ukip support, but the sheer enthusiasm for - a Ukip. This already defeats the pinnacle of public enthusiasm for the Lib-Dems, in that epoch when it was ok to blabber on elusive policies - frankly, because it was cool being the political bench warmer. Nonetheless, I'm not digging into pre-2010 politics today.

Bluntly, Young Independence, the, (before all this to the least), rapidly growing Youth Wing of Ukip, is now in limbo after facing a leadership crisis soon after a November by-election. A very upset Olly Neville - and right to be - was revoked of his Chairmanship of YI in an NEC decision. This was followed by the voluntary resignation of Christina Marian Annesley, as Deputy Chair of YI Yorkshire, Gareth Shanks, as YI Elections Officer, and Allrik Birch, as YI Treasurer, in protest to the NEC's decision. A 'decision' made merely because his Libertarian values were a couple steps ahead to that of the NEC.

 The decision was inane; not even deserving 'insane'. He was elected by a landslide majority and had great intentions for YI, as any bloke believing in a future Ukip force should; hence I have started to question the NEC's long-term vision of Ukip. They must comprehend the fact that Ukip actually does have a gleam in the eye which does steadily entice Lady Britannia; something which the Lib-Dems never enjoyed and the Conservatives have lost in the North West.

I don't necessarily agree with Neville. Moreover, I was strongly cognizant of his views on issues such as prostitution and drugs - when I voted for him. Voted for him.

Gay marriage? I wasn't surprised. He's a pure Libertarian; I'm not. Although, I do possess sympathy for the drugs argument, particularly on cannabis reform. But that's the beauty of YI, isn't it? We either have yellow, purple or striped tied YouthKipers working together in harmony in efforts establish ground in the social fabric. Neville was an opportunity to enhance this relationship and get it working on the doorstep.

Nevertheless, I believe in YI - we will find our way, hopefully starting to replicate Ukip's momentum with the youth, already with a redoubling platform in universities and just starting to pierce into the bigger youth picture. A brilliant bunch indeed.

EU planning to ban cash transactions over €500

The EU is planning new laws to make cash transactions over €500 illegal.

All companies and some self-employed people will be required to have credit card machines this year and Greek Deputy Finance Minister, Giorgos Mavraganis, has made no attempt to hide the motivation behind the move - it isn't just to tackle tax evasion, it's to collect data about citizens and where they're spending their money.

The problem with this is that the type of people who evade tax aren't the sort to take any notice of a law telling them they aren't allowed to pay more than €500 in cash for something.

UKIP's Growing Pains

Today's "#ollyshambles" as Twitter termed the defenestration of Young Independence's Chairman elect Olly Neville, comes on the back of a slew of embarrassing media coverage, including Winston Mackenzie's lurid comments on gay adoption and a local council candidate's remarks about abortion. Neville's sacking is especially embarrassing coming just days after Nigel Farage's comments about preferring a party of eccentrics to a party of the bland.

UKIP was obviously going to suffer some "blowback" after it's recent successes. Even without a series of own-goals, a spooked political class was always going to call in some favours from tame journalists who would go looking to dig up dirt on the party. Expect a great deal more to come. This is a big boys' game and it won't be pretty from here on in.

The party is now in perhaps the most crucial stage of it's development - that part where the it has to manage  the major structural and cultural change from, to use a corporate analogy, enthusiastic start-up to mature corporation. The perception of the party by the public, hitherto largely ignorant or indifferent to UKIP,  is currently crystallising. Once set hard, it will be very difficult to remould, so our enemies will spin every set-back ruthlessly in order to stymie our growth.

UKIP's "unique selling point" with the wider electorate is not gay marriage, or even the EU, but it's reputation for straight talking  and courage in a world of political class careerists, cynics and robots, too scared to talk out of line in case it may damage their careers. It is especially relevant to those voters over 40, who can dimly remember a different world: watching Farage or Nuttall go head to head against a member of the political class  is like watching a film in colour rather than black and white, and brings back  half-forgotten memories on  how colourful and passionate politics, and politicians, used to be prior to the rise of the political class.  Take that away, and the party becomes yet another bland, diet coke offerring of little interest.

Equally, the party can't really afford to have spokesmen whose views are plain outrageous or who seem to spend most of the time railing against party policy, making us look like ferrets fighting in a sack. Plainly, a balance must be struck.

Party management of the problem is complicated by two factors, Firstly, the rise of social media and the narcissism it tends to generate, means that party management have to develop a mind-set that anything they say or write may rapidly appear on the internet. Secondly, UKIP members tend, thankfully, to be people of strong conviction, and therefore not easily silenced. This is exacerbated by the younger membership containing many committed libertarians, whose personality type often tends towards the egotistical.

Perhaps a compromise should be struck, whereby people who are in a position to officially speak for the party are expected to promote the official line, but at the same time not expected to lie and go against deeply held personal convictions by stating they agree with something they don't. It shouldn't be too difficult to train spokesmen and women in how to handle such situations gracefully..."well personally it's not how I would want it, but the party generally believes this the right course for the following reasons...etc, etc."

A party full of people of strong convictions and passions - libertarians, conservatives and patriots - is always going to generate a certain level of embarrassment and furore, but then so does real life. In that sense UKIP are unique in that it treats the British public as adults, and asks to be judged by the same standards. Bear that in mind in all our communications and we will continue to go from strength to strength.

Subsidised Child Care, Marriage and Erosion of Male Sexual Identity

Yesterday, this coalition government announced it's plans to subsidise childcare costs, once again showing both  it's aloof MetroLib disconnection from reality and why the Tory Party is doomed by it's own myopia.

Child care costs are, of course, a major issue for many families, not least because UK costs are very expensive compared to many other countries, and certainly severely effect the ability of many parents, mostly women, to return to work, trapping them and harming the economy.

Thus the case for subsidy. However. the wider implications of such policies are entirely ignored, namely  that the policy not only effectively progressively nationalises the family but also nationalises male sexual identity in particular.

Women's rights are important, of course, but it is the position of men, rather than women, in the family we should now mostly worry about. A combination of economic factors, women's emancipation and political policy has substantially weakened the position of men in the family in the past few decades, particularly at lower income levels.

As Politically Incorrect as it is to say it, male sexual identity largely rests on protection and provision for the female and her offspring. It is most often how men express their love for women and the children they have with them. Remove that role and many men - and women - start to perceive men as essentially redundant in the family unit. Instead, the state becomes the father.

The consequences of ignoring these truths for the nuclear family have been truly malign, most notably the now utterly horrendous rate of family breakdown. In the United Kingdom, nearly half of children will see their children split up before they reach maturity, and it is now very well established that the emotional trauma, together of course with the material and emotional poverty this causes, profoundly disadvantages a person's life across a whole range of metrics: youthful, delinquency, poorer physical and mental wellbeing, the inability to form stable families later in life and so on.

Whatever the case for reducing child care costs, reversing the trends of family breakdown is by far the most important issue that family policy should be addressing, and it is well established that the institution of marriage is the best way of not only keeping parents together but in creating a happy family environment where children - and adults - can flourish.

Strengthening marriage through tax breaks seems logically to be the first step to doing this. If we do have such large amounts of money to spend on family policy, it is here that the bulk of it should go. Unlike subsidised child care, tax breaks are also both broadly choice and gender neutral. If a couple want to spend that money on childcare so that both parents can work, fine. If one parent wants to stay at home, also fine. The important thing is that lifelong commitment is recognised and facilitated. In comparison, subsidised child care discriminates against those families where one parent decides to stay at home. Much more tragically it will, in the long term, encourage more women to have children independently of men and more men to shirk the responsibilities of fatherhood.

Many such as the predictably pathetic Nick Clegg would complain that marriage tax breaks are discriminatory. Indeed they are. But marriage itself is designed to be a highly discriminatory institution in the sense that the one man, one woman model bound in a lifelong commitment is by far the best way known of raising children, and those of us who are pro-marriage should not be afraid to say so. Moreover, it should be remembered that effectively married couples heavily subsidise the lifestyles of others who bring up children in what was once called "alternative" lifestyles, due to the significant social costs they tend to incur.

So why does the coalition have such warped sense of priorities?

Well, for a start who have to contend with Nick Clegg. A hopeless Dopamine Junkie, Clegg, like all his fellow MetroLib types, formulate policy based on what feels good, rather than what does good. Helping women directly gives oneself a nice warm glow, whereas promoting marriage seems just soooo judgmental in this day and age.

Then there is naked political class calculation. More women vote than men, and critically more are likely to be floating voters, hence the obsession in tailoring policies to them directly without thinking of the wider implications over the long term.

Lastly, there is David Cameron's myopia: inasmuch as he cares about the future of the Tory Party, he is simply too unimaginative to see the damage such policies do to the Tory party's long term prospects: for instance it is  well known fact that women in particular tend to become significantly more right-wing and conservative upon marriage, whereas an atomised society is much more likely to look to the government for support.

And it for that reason that the policies that will, no matter how well-intentioned, as a side-effect promote the atomisation of society are very bad news for social conservatives and libertarians alike. For too long we have neglected the fact that men and women were designed by nature to be interdependent, not independent. Family policy should promote that reality.

'Same Sex Marriage' - revisited - still an oxymoron.

I blogged almost a year ago about 'same sex marriage' - having had various discussions, debates and arguments about it I thought it was about time to summarise developments.

One thing that hasn't changed is that 'same sex marriage' is still an oxymoron (self contradicting), it cannot exist.

However the arguments to explain this situation have developed since I last blogged and there is one that is particularly key - so here goes.

The essence of marriage is an exclusive relationship between the two parties. A man and a woman who are married are legally bound to only have sexual intercourse with each other - breaking this exclusivity is 'adultery' and with no further ado is grounds for divorce. In fact the marriage only properly begins when they do have sexual intercourse together following the ceremony and by so doing 'consummate' the marriage.

Returning to (say) 'an old flame' or having a 'one night stand' even the once is 'adultery' and in itself grounds for divorce. There is no need to demonstrate any particular damage, hurt, reasonableness - the act itself is all that matters.

However, it has been 'decided' that under 'same sex marriage' the definition of consummation and adultery will not be changed to cover same-sex situations. So a partner in a 'same sex marriage' could indeed return to an old flame, or have a one night stand and would not be considered 'adulterous'. For the 'marriage' to be terminated by divorce some proof of 'unreasonableness' would have to be demonstrated by the 'other' partner.

More perversely - if a partner in a same-sex marriage did have sexual intercourse with another person (of the opposite sex...) it would be considered adultery(!). So performing an act with someone that they had never, and could never perform with their 'partner' becomes grounds for divorce, while performing sexual acts they can/do perform with their partner are not!

This isn't a 'new' or 'clever' argument - it is just capturing some essence of my initial objection to 'same sex marriage' - marriage recognises and protects a unique and exclusive relationship between one man and one woman focused on the unique act of creating children together and raising a family.

'Same sex marriage' defines nothing that makes the couples relationship exclusive or unique - the essence of 'marriage' is simply not there - 'same sex marriage' is indeed an oxymoron.

First published at http://free-english-people.blogspot.co.uk/2013/01/same-sex-marriage-revisited-still.html

Olly Neville removed as YI Chairman

There is much rumour, outrage and (as you'd expect) blatant lies about the removal of Young Independence interim Chairman, Olly Neville, from his position.

Twitter exploded earlier this evening with rumours that Olly had been removed from his position over his support of gay marriage. UKIP doesn't oppose gay marriage but believes the Tories have got it very wrong because the EU courts will force the church to conduct gay marriage on equality grounds so sacking him on the grounds of supporting gay marriage would be pretty odd.

Press officer, Gawain Towler, issued a clarification on Twitter that the NEC had removed him because of his promotion of non-party policy. Olly responded shortly afterwards with copies of emails from party Chairman, Steve Crowther, confirming that he had been removed because he had strongly promoted gay marriage, stating that David Cameron was right on the subject, at a time when the party was saying that Cameron had it completely wrong and for saying that the EU elections are a sideshow while the party is making much of UKIP's predicted win. This, the NEC apparently believes, is damaging to the party and not appropriate behaviour for the Chairman of Young Independence.

This is being widely reported (mainly by Tory bloggers and lefty haters) as punishment for supporting gay marriage when clearly it isn't. Gay marriage was the policy he went publicly off message on but it was for going too far off message that he has been removed from his position, not his views on the subject which are broadly in line with party policy.

What has happened poses two important questions. Are we really a party that sacks people for disagreeing with the party in public and is his treatment equal to that of, for instance, Winston Mackenzie who is still a party spokesman despite saying gay adoption is akin to child abuse?

The answer to the first question is clearly yes because it's just happened. The jury is still out on whether it was justifiable. The answer to the second question is clearly no because what Winston said was highly offensive and said in the run-up to an important by-election that was being watched by the world's media yet he has kept his job as spokesman on culture and sport and the commonwealth.

If the party intends to discipline officers that stay too far from the party line then so be it but if a line is drawn the officers need to know where it is in advance and the rule needs to be applied fairly and equitably. Olly is well known as a maverick and has spent most of his time in UKIP being completely off-message, surely someone should have thought to set some boundaries when he was appointed Chairman in the first place? Maybe they did. But that's a secondary issue to that of fairness and it's an undeniable fact that Olly has not been given the same lenient "sentence" as Winston  despite Winston's comments being far more damaging to the party.

Coalition with Labour? Not a chance!

There has been some disquiet amongst UKIP supporters today following Nigel Farage's comments in the press about the possibility of UKIP forming a coalition with Labour after the next election.

Farage didn't actually say that UKIP was open to forming a coalition with Labour or anybody following the election in 2015 but the papers ran with the story anyway.  What he said was that following the election, "UKIP may well be needed in a coalition" and said that there is no way he could work with David Cameron.

The views of the membership on a coalition have been made pretty clear over the past year or so as the prospect of UKIP gaining representation in the House of Commons has come tantalisingly close.  The Lib Dems have shown what happens when you abandon your principals for a sniff at power and there is no desire amongst the membership or the leadership of the party to do the same.  UKIP MPs may support a minority government in exchange for some key concessions but a coalition would be political suicide.

Peter Mandelson, who isn't allowed to criticise the EU otherwise he'll lose his very generous pension, said:

Beginning 2013 by placing this large and indefinite question mark over our membership of the EU, and all the trade and investment privileges it brings us, can only be described as economically insane

With people like the disgraced communist Peter Mandelson - and there are many, many disgraceful communists in the Labour Party - they are no more likely to hold an in/out referendum on membership of the EU than the Tories are and any mention of electoral deals in exchange for one is just Farage spreading dissent in their ranks.

UKIP campaign against the Dudley Mosque strengthened

From the Chairman of UKIP Dudley & Halesowen, Bill Ethridge ...

UKIP's ongoing campaign against the siting of the planned mega mosque in Dudley has been strengthened with the announcement that it is being backed by local Muslims.

Shazadi Shah who joined the UKIP's local Dudley branch in part because of it's principled opposition to the current plans for the mosque

Ms Shah said,"I'm a Muslim, and I'm Dudley born and bred. I believe that the issues surrounding the mosque are simple, and the concerns of the vast majority of the 70,000 locals who signed the petition against it could be settled if we took the common sense approach proposed by UKIP.

We have no problem with the current Muslim centre expanding to serve the greater numbers of Muslims who live in Dudley  But to have the Mosque sited at the top of the Hill dominating our historic town centre and towering over the castle, the great symbol of Dudley is if nothing else insensitive.

The whole issue of the mosque has soured community elations for years and has caused resident to turn against resident.

As the whole Mosque issue has been going on for such a long time the Mosque Community Members could have decided on leaving this particular site and may well have even built a better Mosque with all the facilities such as a funeral centre which is much needed., on an alternative site suiting all the Community". " Has this just been a political issue for the Members?"

As a Muslim woman, I do not believe the management committee  of the mosque when they claim to be open to all, as over the years, my family,and other families of the the Shia Muslim community have been barred access to the facilities run by the Committee. Over the years it has been clear to us that this is an exclusive organisation, not the inclusive one that they claim. The plans that they have, supported by the local Labour dominated borough council are not about taking part in the public life of Dudley, but about dominating the town and lording over the people who live here.

Good citizens, good neighbours do not do things like that."

She went on, "I am delighted to be joining UKIP, not just because it opposes the mosque in its present form, but because it is a party that is open toall and listens to the concerns of all. I have been impressed by the hands on work of local representatives, who spend their time trying to make life better for all who live in our proud town".

UKIP on 16%, predicted to cost Tories next election

An opinion poll for the Daily Mail has UKIP on 16% and a predicted loss of 51 seats for the Tories as a result.

I think you've earned a
smug grin Nigel

The poll by Survation and analysed by Professor John Curtice predicts a landslide Labour majority of 94 seats thanks largely to UKIP.  Curtice reckons that UKIP still won't win a Westminster seat because of the antiquated First Past the Post electoral system even though the party is projected to take 1 in 6 votes nationwide and over 50% of respondents wanted to see Nigel Farage elected as an MP.

Tories will no doubt seize on this analysis and tell UKIP supporters they're letting Labour in and what a terrible thing that would be as is their wont but that kind of reaction is just an example of why the Tories are in the situation they're in.  Tories arrogantly lay a claim to any UKIP vote, believing they belong to them in some way and mistakenly assume that UKIP supporters would rather a Tory government to Labour when the truth is, most UKIPpers couldn't choose one over the other if you put a gun to their heads.

Cameron has greeted the news that UKIP is fast leaving behind the Lib Dems and catching up with his party by telling Andrew Marr that UKIP supporters are "some pretty odd people".  He also said that the referendum the Tories have been teasing the media with will offer "a real way of giving consent" to our membership of the EU.  So he describes 1 in 6 voters as "pretty odd" and then responds to the increasingly vocal demands for an in/out referendum on EU membership that most voters want by watering down his previous promise of an in/out/reform referendum to become a no change/reform referendum.  After the next election of course, that's a Cast Iron Guarantee™.

The results of the polling are: Labour 38%, Conservative 29%, UKIP 16% and the Lib Dems on just 11%.

Cllr Frank Whittle defects to UKIP

We're only 5 days into 2013 and we've got a defection already.

Cllr Frank Whittle has defected from the Tories to UKIP, saying he was disillusioned with the leadership of the Tories nationally and not being allowed to speak his mind locally.

I am known for speaking my mind and this has meant that I have become persona non grata with the local Conservative Party. I am very much looking forward to being a part of UKIP, a party that puts Britain first and which isn’t afraid to speak out on the controversial issues of the day.

Completely ignoring Cllr Whittle's reasons for defecting to UKIP, chairman of Bury St Edmunds Tories, Andrew Speed, said:

We are disappointed that Frank has felt the need to move to UKIP but we maintain a healthy majority on the district council. We expect that once the national policy on Europe has been defined he may well return at which point we would welcome him back with open arms.

Cllr Whittle didn't mention the EU (which Tories always seem to ignorantly confuse with Europe) so it's unlikely he'll return to the Tories just because Cameron makes another promise he has no intention of keeping for a referendum on "repatriation" of powers from the EU that isn't possible.

Cllr Whittle is a member of Stowmarket Town Council and Mid Suffolk District Council.

Bearing all for UKIP LGBT*

New UKIP member, 19 year old Daniel Silverwood, decided (helped by lots of red wine) to bear all to promote the UKIP LGBT* group.

Dan says he doesn't want to be a political pin-up boy but he wouldn't mind featuring in Guido Fawkes' totty watch.  What do you reckon UKIP LGBT*'ers?  Would he make the cut?