Showing posts with label Conservative Party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Conservative Party. Show all posts

Tuesday, 21 January 2014

Conservative Councillor suspended for alleged racist comments

A Conservative councillor in Enfield has been suspended from the Conservative Party while he is investigated for allegedly making racist comments on Facebook.

The Crown Prosecution Service dropped its case against Cllr Chris Joannides earlier this month but he now faces a 5 week investigation by the Conservative Party's board. He had the whip removed almost a year ago by his local party.

There's no 24 hour rolling coverage of the investigation by the national media you would expect if he was a UKIP councillor as yet but I'm sure it's being prepared as I type.

Saturday, 2 November 2013

The Tories Wither On the Vine

It is not often Michael Heseltine gets things right, but he hit the nail on the head in his otherwise risible performance on the Sunday Politics.

When asked about John Major's speech which included an intervention on fuel prices (7:20), Heseltine said: "I myself was more interested in the other part of his speech....the need for the Conservative Party to recognise what is happening to it...it's membership is shrinking into a southeastern enclave."

Indeed.

Reading between the lines, this could well be the fate of the Tory party. Outside of the well-heeled home counties, support for the party is fading away. UKIP is taking a considerable percentage of the old "Thatcher Tories" vote - those aspirant working class and lower middle class voters notoriously labelled  the 'C2s' in the jarring marketing argot. Even in rural areas, where support for the Conservative Party is still weighed rather than counted, recent reports suggest that support is not as solid as it once was.

There are many reasons why this should be so: the ever-increasing concentration of wealth in London and the South East stockbroker belt plus rampant immigration has left poorer rural areas and "Essex man" voters feeling the pinch alike. As a result, these former Tory heartlands are increasingly vunerable to growing UKIP support. The whole situation is not exactly helped by Cameron's decidedly metropolitan leadership which to put in mildly does not come across as sympathetic to these area's concerns.

However, as valid as these reasons are, there are long term reasons for the Tory decline in these demographics that they will find it very hard to recover from. To understand why, you have to understand that the Conservative Party isn't really at heart a "conservative" party at all, it is a Tory party, dedicated above all to preserving elite power and privilege.

Arguably, during the past few decades the Conservative party has done as much if not more damage to institutions and traditions that people of modest backgrounds relied on to prosper. It can be argued that the three most important of these are (were) family, national identity and grammar schools. Of these three, the so-called  Conservative party initiated and engaged enthusiastically in the destruction of the first two and stood idly by as Labour maliciously destroyed to third. It was the Conservative Party, during the Chancellorship of Ken Clarke, who started the revocation of the marriage tax allowance. It was the Conservative Party, of course, that signed us to the then the European Economic Community in 1973 and have had a more or less disgraceful record on the subject of "Europe" ever since. As for grammar schools, although their demise was initially a result of the Labour education minister Tony Crosland's malevolence, it suited high Tory purposes that these were levelled down to "bog-standard comprehensives" because it meant less competition for their own, usually privately educated, children.

The results of this vandalism are all visible all around us: an ill-educated, socially-immobile, confused and demoralised population reeling from the effects of family breakdown and a rapid weakening of national identity. A properly "conservative" party would surely have defended all these institutions and more with gusto. However, because their survival  meant little to the elite they completely failed to do so. Yes, the Left have taken full advantage of circumstances to make the situation indescribably worse, but they would not have been able to advance their  multi-cultural sub-marxist ideology to anything like the same extent they have if the Tories had not been asleep on the watch.

Many of the more dim-witted and myopic Tories blame the rise of UKIP as the cause, not a symptom, of their travails. However, the reality is that the rot was well set in long before UKIP arrived on the scene. The Times  journalist Matthew Parris once came up with a great metaphor to describe how political change happens in society, likening it to the tipping of gravel into a swamp. For a long time no change seemed to be occurring on the surface, but all the time underneath the pile of gravel continues to build, until one day it breaks the surface. Arguably that is what the rapid rise of UKIP represents - long neglected voters are finally in revolt. A similar process is also underway in Labour voting heartlands, as the ever more marxist Labour Party becomes progressively estranged from the concerns of it's core voting demographic.

The Tories are finally waking up to the need to change, and are now making substantial efforts in order to re-engage with the voters. Doubtless their efforts will meet with some success, and UKIP should by no means be complacent in under-estimating the threat that the ideas of Douglas Carswell could pose to our party. However, in the great scheme of things it is almost certainly too late to reverse the decline entirely: the neglect, contempt and betrayal felt by many previously conservative-voting demographics is so deep-rooted that millions will find it extremely hard to trust the party again. Instead, many seem to be attracted to UKIP as a new, energetic and (largely) unsullied rival. A future as a minority, perhaps even south-eastern regional, party seems the best the Conservatives can hope for.

Monday, 7 October 2013

Conservatism vs. Toryism

Recently we have had a lot of tiresome articles in the "right wing" press around the theme of "uniting the right" prior to the next general election.

As you would expect, there was a lot of  nonsense about formal pacts with the Conservative Party: let us not even bother with that. However, what was most risible was an article in the Spectator by Toby Young suggesting that the differences between the UKIP and the Conservative Party were essentially petty, and that both parties were conservative with a small 'c'.

It is amazing the extent to which the dwindling band of Conservative Party supporters delude themselves about the true nature of their party, and why it is now is such steep decline. In am article of rare insight, Tim Stanley nails it in the Telegraph, explaining current Conservative Party troubles in terms of the fundamental split between proper small-c conservativism and toryism.

The fact is that at the core of the Conservative party is toryism. The Tory Party was of course  the ancient predecessor to the Conservative Party, originally formed to protect vested interest and the status quo during the reign of Charles II. The party  adopted the mantle of conservatism much later under it's leader Robert Peel, whose maximum was the much more progressive idea of reforming the bad but preserving the good in society. Peel's subsequent repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846 led to a major split in the party.

However the Conservative Party has never been able to get rid of the canker of Toryism, and throughout it's history an inner core of aristocratic or well-born Tories have always cynically used the party as a very effective shield for the preservation of elite interest. This has been especially true since extensions of the electoral franchise meant that the numerically small number of high-born Tories were vastly outnumbered by the total voting population. The strategy always adopted by the Tories within the Conservative Party has been to co-opt various small 'c' conservative sections of society under the party banner in order to remain in power and see off the threat of socialism.

Throughout the 20th Century this was surprisingly electorally successful, but the underlying presence of toryism within the Conservative Party has nonetheless caused a lot of harm. One very damaging consequence was the continued association in the minds of many people of capitalism with the exploitation of the workers by the aristocracy. Another was that benign institutions that deserved conservative support such as the grammar schools were left undefended because their destruction was actually helpful to elite Tory interests.

The modern age has seen an ever-widening and unbridgeable gulf between the interests of conservatism and those of toryism, and this is perhaps the central reason for the Conservative Party's long term decline. Perhaps the dominant reason was and is the rise of the European Union and the new international elite, which pitted the Tory lust for power and position directly against the conservative desire to preserve and nurture national institutions: "Conservative" governments have proved enthusiastic supporters of signing away our sovereignty in a way that truly "conservative" governments would never countenance.

The diametric opposition between conservative and tory goals is manifest in a multitude of other ways, too. Consider:

A conservative is in favour of grammar schools, whereas a tory sees their destruction as helpful to the preservation of their own public school educated dynasties.

A conservative believes in the wealth-creation of free market capitalism, whereas a tory is happy with corporatism, better preserving as it does the old boy network. 

A conservative would support traditional marriage, whereas a tory sees little value in doing so, as the breakdown of marriage damages the poor far more the than the rich.

A conservative would help the traditional family in the tax system, whereas a tory sees the lower orders as mere units of production to be sent out to work.

A conservative would believe in limiting immigration, not least because of it's impact on local communities, a tory has no interest in doing so and just sees another source of cheap labour.

A conservative would support meritocracy, whereas a tory would be quite happy with gender quotas, knowing how these can be subverted to create an elite of extremely wealthy power-couples and concentrate wealth still further.

A conservative would support a feee market in energy, whereas a tory supports wind farm subsidies, as they transfer resources from the taxed poor to those with landed estates.

A conservative has set principles, whereas a tory is a Vicar Of Bray.

The sad fact is that, whatever deluded conservatives like Toby Young think, the Conservative Party only believes in conservative ideas fitfully. Moreover, the suspicion is deeply lodged within the minds of large sections of the electorate that it only ever adopts conservative positions when it helps the inner tory elite. This has had the tragic effect of estranging vast chunks of the electorate from conservative ideas. Quite obviously, as Dr. Stanley says, in many ways under the blue-blooded leadership of the Cameroons this is a decidedly tory government rather a conservative one.

UKIP may not be an out and out small-c "conservative" party, but it certainly contains strong elements of conservatism within it. What it certainly is not is a "tory" party, and it should have nothing to do with a Conservative party that is forever deeply tainted with a tory cynicism and selfishness that has hobbled the progress of this country for so long.

At the end of the day, you cannot touch pitch and not be defiled.

Thursday, 15 August 2013

Zombie Tories Today, Zombie UKIP Tomorrow

Stuart Parr blogged yesterday on the astonishing news that Tory membership could be as low as 59,000. Having crunched the numbers, he showed that even taking much more generous estimates of membership that the party, once sitting councillors were excluded, is now almost completely devoid of activists.

No one seems to know exactly how many members the Tory party now has, including the Tory party itself. Rumours circulate of estimates between 59,000, 84,000, 100,000 and 130,000. However membership does seem likely to have slipped below the psychologically important 100,000 mark. Still appreciably bigger than UKIP's of course, but crucially even those members who remain are horrible demoralised, with around half of them no longer campaigning for the party.

The Tories are now a Zombie party. Terrified that it's members and the country will perceive the horrible truth  must surely be the reason why the Tories refuse to release estimates of membership. However, it is another fantastic own goal by it's blundering, arrogant leadership. Refusing to be open about the issue won't stop rumours circulating, and, as is the way with rumours, getting ever more wild over time. More importantly, it is yet another insult to it's poor remaining membership. After all, would you want to be a member of an organisation that refused to tell you even the most basic of information about itself?

Given our own rapid rise in membership, it is very tempting for us 'Kippers to sit back and gloat, and look forward to the wonderful day when UKIP membership overtakes not only the failing Lib Dems but also the weak and sickly Tories.

Not so fast.

The fact is that our structure is as archaic and in desperate need of reform as all the other parties. The era of the rigid silo is well and truly over. In the internet age, political parties will have to take on the characteristics of social networks.  Policy formation, for instance, must be crowd-sourced rather than confined to a closed and select few, and there must be all sorts of models for social engagement and membership.

In no way should the hard work and guts of UKIP activists in getting our party up to a historic high of 30,000 members against the fierce head winds of general voter apathy and alienation be disparaged. However, as the pundit Fraser Nelson never tires of pointing out, something is desperately wrong with party politics in this country when other voluntary organisations and causes routinely have memberships in the millions.  Put UKIP membership figures in that context and it shows just how far we have to go.

The first political party who radically reforms itself on social network lines may see huge increases in membership, and there is a great danger that it won't be us. Nothing is as dangerous as success, as the saying goes, and it is very tempting indeed to think that nothing is wrong and to carry on as we are.

It has been to UKIP's huge luck and advantage that it's principle rival has been lead by people without an original idea in their heads over the last few years. It would be extremely foolish to bank on that luck lasting forever. Facing extinction, there are strong signs that the Tories are now beginning to look seriously at Douglas Carswell's ideas to "spotify" the party. Carswell, perhaps the most brilliant original thinker in British politics today, has already proven the worth of his ideas in his own Tory branch in Clacton. Given his head, he would be far more formidable opponent than dunderheads like Cameron or Grant Shapps.

The political fates are always fickle: although now very seriously wounded, you should never underestimate the Tory party's ruthless instinct for survival. It has still got significant financial resources,  individual though woefully under utilised talent and  residual - though badly tarnished - brand recognition and loyalty. A Tory party returned to it's members and supporters via the social network route could well leave UKIP high and dry, struggling to catch up but without the depth of resources to do so. It is therefore absolutely essential that UKIP is both first and boldest in embracing the new models of social organisation that are an inevitability in the age we live in.

The Tories may be a zombie party, but that is the thing about zombies: they have a very nasty habit of rising from the dead.


Wednesday, 7 November 2012

Mad Nad: The Plight of a Fighter


Nadine Vanessa Dorries. An incredible woman by far. Her early career included being a trainee nurse at Warrington General Hospital and was formally in the practice from 1978 to 1981 in both Warrington and Liverpool. Before spending a year working in a Zambian community school, where her (now divorced from) husband ran a copper mine, she became a medical representative to Ethicla Ltd throughout 1982. She climbed up and by 1987 she had founded the Company Kids Ltd providing child day-care services for working parents.  The company was sold in 1998 to BUPA, at which she served as a director of the health provider for a year.

Dorries was elected to the House of Commons at the 2005 General Election for the safe seat of Mid-Bedfordshire. As a profound believer in pro-life for babies in harmony with her profound beliefs on pro-choice for women, had soon become a notable figure through her introduction of the Private Members Bill which called for the legal abortion time limit in Great Britain to be reduced from 24 to an eventually amended 20 weeks; introducing a ten day 'cooling-off' period for women wishing to have an abortion, during which time the woman would be required to undergo counseling. It was defeated by a large margin at the time but since then Health Minister, Jeremy Hunt has recently carried his interests of the proposals back into the Commons.

Dorries is an outspoken figure who is hailed for representing the working class power of the Conservative backbench and being a leading rebel against November 2011's notorious 'three line whip' fabricated in Cameron's exceeding fear that the motion calling for a referendum on the UK's membership of the EU could have actually been passed.

Frankly, Dorries has been humiliated and kicked into the sand by the very leadership she blasted as "a bunch of posh boys" in the wake of Dorries's submission to the eye screeching, nonetheless popular TV show 'I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out of Here'. She has been suspended from the Conservative's parliamentary whip for disregarding the fact that Chancellor of the Exchequer's budget plans are set to be stated soon (perhaps there is a political message to it: that Osborn's say is worthless to that of the European Commission - we know her). From return to Westminster, which I fear will be an early one because of the shenanigans her party, particularly Theresa May (...and Louise Mensch), have unleashed, and will see Dorries having to explain her "misconduct" to the Tory chief whip.

This shows indignity towards her status in parliament, or at least, if everyone in there have abandoned The Voter, Dorries's demotic national status. But don't belittle the reality of things and say these sanctions are out of mere concern, the Tory mantra is "Frankly, I think an MP's job is in their constituency and in the House of Commons." This, frankly May, is absolute baloney. When Boris Johnson hung off the zip wire who warned him never to do something that silly again? It was all "aww, that's so cute". (More like "Tory piñata!") Because, frankly, the only threat Johnson brings is that of Cameron's leadership... allegedly. He has a spark which can relieve the Tories from their plight in 2015... apparently. Dorries, on the other hand, is feared to be - quite simply - the Antichrist of Conservative stability: possessing a petition which could see, if completed, the post of Conservative leader up for re-election; and leading a secret legion of backbench rebels which could instantly...turn purple.

Attending 'I'm a Celebrity...Get Me Out Of Here' is a wonderful attempt by Nadine Dorries to enhance her political platform, to discuss her ideas and values by the fire. She wants to be a human being as well as a politician - and you rarely get the two intertwined in this day and age. And if her party can't respect the means she's taking to get her message across, which her constituency voted for her to do, then frankly she's in the wrong party. I wish her well for the show and hope that these inane controversies do not blight the prospects of real success which is winning the title 'Queen of the Jungle'.

Friday, 26 October 2012

Tory MPs briefed against Carswell's EU membership private bill

I normally wouldn't drive traffic to a Tory supporting blog but in this case I'll make an exception.  Someone in the Conservative Party has leaked details of a briefing against Douglas Carswell's private members' bill calling for us to leave the EU to Guido Fawkes.

Compare the intelligence-insulting questions Tory MPs are being told to ask with the government's response to the latest EU referendum petition.  This isn't the work of politicians, it's far too organised and joined up - this is the work of the europhile civil service and Cameron's army of special advisors and researchers.

Carswell's bill is due to be debated today.
  • Does the Minister agree that the passage of such a Bill would lead to a constitutional and political crisis within both the UK and the EU?
  • Does the Minister agree that now is not the time to take such a drastic move, given the economic turmoil that Europe is experiencing?
  • Repealing the EC Act would be a dramatic move. Does the Minister agree that the people of the UK should be consulted on such a move?
  • Does the Minister agree that, as the British people now have a vote on any future treaty change, they should also be counselled on a move as severe as withdrawing from the EU altogether?
  • Does the Minister agree that the audit of competencies should be completed before any major decisions on the UK’s future relationship with the EU?
  • Does the Minister agree that it is far better to consult the British people through the audit of competencies, rather than making a rash decision to unilaterally withdraw now?
Would the last eurosceptic in CCHQ please turn out the lights?

Thursday, 5 July 2012

Should UKIP aim to destroy the Conservative Party?


Previously I have argued that the rise of UKIP represents the long-term de-merging of the classical "19th Century" liberal and conservative strands of thought within the Conservative Party, artificially conflated as they were after Liberal Party splits in the early 20th Century and held together by the threat of Socialism thereafter. There is some evidence for this analysis, most notably the number of libertarians joining Young Independence, who may drag UKIP in a progressively more  Libertarian direction in future. 

Shorn of it's Thatcherite minority, in such a scenario the Conservative Party would return to being properly "conservative", in the sense of defending what Burke called "the organic state" and, in Peelite expression, of using power for 'reforming ills while conserving the good'.

However, this leads to another question. Namely, is the dominant tradition within the Conservative Party today "Tory" rather than "conservative"?  If so, does the Conservative Party really deserve to continue to exist at all, and can it even survive? Should, therefore,  the ultimate aim of UKIP be to destroy and replace the Conservative Party?

To analyse these questions it is necessary to go back  to the formation of the modern Conservative Party. It's antecedent, the original "Tory" Party grew out of the English Civil War. Essentially reactionary, it was made up of people  who wished to preserve the status quo, largely to their own advantage. The more sophisticated - and altogether more noble - "conservative" tradition emerged later between  the end of the 18th and early 19th Centuries.


The major problem for the Conservative Party is, of course, that older and more cynical Tory tradition never really died, and has always remained a powerful force within the party. Unsurprisingly, when 'reforming the ill' clashed with Tory vested interests, as happened most notably under Sir Robert Peel and repeal of the Corn Laws in 1846, a major party split ensued. However, for much of the Conservative Party's later history,  it has proved perfectly possible to reconcile the two traditions. Consequently it has proved difficult to know which tradition actually had the upper hand and the true motives - noble or cynical -  behind Conservative Party policies. 


But all that was before the European Union arrived on the scene. The reason that "Europe" is such a toxic issue for the Conservative Party is that not only does it directly pit the Tory lust for power and position against the conservative, Burkean tradition in a way that no other issue can, but it has proved impossible for the party to ignore. 


And, sadly,  Europe has illuminated for us in bright, neon capitals that it is the cynical Tory tradition that is dominant within the Conservative Party.  At every juncture, despite principled objections from true conservatives, the Tory faction has won out, with ever more sovereignty lost and national institutions ever more damaged. The consequences to the Conservative Party itself have proved nothing short of disastrous: over the last 20 years, the increasing revulsion felt by activists with the "Tory" nature of it's leadership has lead to the haemorrhaging of membership and fuelled the rise of UKIP. It can be argued that this process will lead to the Conservative Party entering a death-spiral, as the cynical and unappealing face of an ever more dominant Toryism within the party makes it less and less electable. Arguably these effects are already apparent under the Prime Ministership of the very Tory David Cameron, with his advocacy of coalition government policies such as gay marriage, the replacement of the House of Lords (not 'reform' as is so disingenuously claimed) and destruction of the Armed Forces: all policies which could never remotely be called "conservative" and profoundly alienating to much of the electorate, particularly the Conservative Party core vote.


So where does leave UKIP? If the Conservative Party is weakening and both it's activist and voting base increasingly up for grabs, where should we pitch ourselves in order to achieve our ends? Should we seek to inherit the mantle of the classical liberal right wing, become essentially libertarian in outlook, and leave the mainstream "conservative" tradition struggling within the Tory-controlled Conservative Party? The advantage of this strategy is that UKIP can be philosophically more coherent and a fount of radical new Libertarian ideas, although unlikely ever to wield power except as a minority partner in a coalition. However, by 'pissing in' rather than 'pissing out'  of the Conservative Party tent, we would probably be more effective than the Conservative Party right-wing currently is in promoting Libertarian policies.


Alternatively, should we go the whole hog and seek to acquire both the classical  liberal and conservative strands, destroying and replacing the Conservative Party in the process?  The advantage of this option is that it would hopefully weaken the thoroughly malign Tory tradition of power at any price which has so disfigured our politics, and at the same time keep the Right of British politics united. It isn't outlandish to claim that, following a complete Conservative Party collapse, one day we may even get to form a government ourselves.


What is not in doubt is that huge opportunities are opening up for UKIP that may see us break through as a major political force and our response to them will define the future identity of our party in the decades to come. 

Saturday, 5 March 2011

Another Tory defects to UKIP

Thurrock Councillor, Stuart St Clair-Haslam, has defected from the Conservative & ΛEuropean Unionist Party and joined UKIP.

Three Tory councillors in Little Thurrock left the Conservative Group on Thurrock Council (but not the party) last year amid concerns about proposed housing developments on green belt land and formed the Concerned Conservatives group.

Councillor St Clair-Haslam's defection to UKIP was announced at conference today.

Thursday, 5 November 2009

Trust: earned, not learned

Cameron's probably undergoing an excruciating learning process - one where trust is earned, not learned.

Benedict Brogan posts a cogent analysis on why we must demand a referendum on the EU.

One would hope that politicians have learned that semantic games backfire.

Why can they not simply be straight with us?

The answer is obvious. They have too much to hide. They serve more than one master and when the inevitable conflict of interest arises, they have no choice but to fudge or lie.

They become emboldened with each lie/fudge that pays off, but eventually, the electorate cottons on and an almighty boil builds.

Sensible, integrity-steeped politicians will recognise the building boil and will seek to lance it. These wonderful souls (Dan Hannan) are, of course, ignored.

Until they resign and thence, lance the boil.

Then, the very subjects which the politicos wished to avoid discussing, become the very subjects which the electorate most want discussed.

Who wins?

Knowing that they have lost the argument on the big issues that concern the electorate, they try to buy us off with concessions on minor issues.  Avoid 'difficult' issues at all costs.

And so, debate is denied, lying becomes entrenched.

My mother warned that the danger of a lie is that one had to be able to recall ones previous lies to be credible. The real danger of lying is that the web of lies that invariably ensues, entraps us and forces us to face that which we sought to avoid - magnified. 

Integrity is in vogue, but our politicos appear to be the only people in the nation who don't know it.

Apart from UKIP, that is.

Cross-posted

Sunday, 17 May 2009

Full List of MPs Expense Claims



Trouser presses, pouffes, moats and Maltesers – you name it, our MPs have claimed for it. Here is a run down of the expenses claims published so far:

THE EYE-WATERING CLAIMS

Douglas Hogg
Former Agriculture minister Mr Hogg has been paid more than £20,000 a year between 2004 and 2008 in second home allowances, it has been revealed.

Among the costs itemised were £2,115 for having a moat cleared, £646.25 for “general repairs, stable etc” and £40 for piano tuning, the Telegraph said.

Hazel Blears
The Communities Secretary claimed for three different properties in a single year, spending almost £5,000 of taxpayers’ money on furniture in three months.

She also avoided capital gains tax on her £45,000 profit when she sold a London flat by telling Inland Revenue it was her main home, and thus exempt - despite its being registered with the Commons as her second home.

On Tuesday night Ms Blears said she would voluntarily pay £13,332 to the taxman

Sir Michael Spicer
Sir Michael, who is chairman of the influential Conservative 1922 Committee of back bench MPs, has claimed £620 for the installation of a chandelier and rewiring work and more than £1,000 for servicing an oven, The Daily Telegraph said.

He also claimed more than £5,650 for gardening work at his Worcestershire manor house, as well as £4,000 for council tax on two homes.

Other items reportedly claimed included £3,000 for roof repairs and £2,350 for work on his chimney.

John Prescott
The taxpayer paid for the former deputy prime minister to fit the front of his home in Hull with mock Tudor boards and for his toilet seat to be repaired twice in two years.

David Heathcoat-Amory
The Tory MP for Wells in Somerset reportedly claimed £388.80 for horse manure between 2004 and 2007.

He also submitted a bill of £986.17 for heating oil in January 2008, and between July and September 2007 Mr Heathcoat-Amory also claimed £1,792.50 worth of invoices from a gardening firm.

David Miliband
The Foreign Secretary claimed almost £30,000 for doing up his £120,000 constituency home over five years, it was reported.

He spent up to £180 every three months on the garden at the property in South Shields.

At the bottom of one receipt for £132.96 in April 2008, his gardener wrote a note questioning whether some of the work was necessary.

Alan Duncan
The shadow leader of the Commons claimed thousands of pounds for his garden before agreeing with the fees office that the spending “could be considered excessive”.

Millionaire Mr Duncan recouped £4,000 over three years. However, a £3,194 bill for gardening in March 2007 was not paid after officials responded suggesting that the claim might not be “within the spirit” of the rules, according to the Daily Telegraph.

In a letter to the MP for Rutland and Melton, the fees office said that it expected gardening costs “to cover only basic essentials such as grass cutting”.

In March 2007, Mr Duncan claimed £598 to overhaul a ride-on lawn-mower and then a further £41 to fix a puncture a month later.

Mr Duncan is also said to have claimed £1,400 a month for mortgage interest on his home in Rutland.

On Tuesday Mr Duncan refunded £4,704.86 of his gardening claims

Margaret Beckett

The Housing Minister found herself in trouble with the Fees Office after attempting to claim £600 for hanging baskets and pot plants.

Michael Gove
Mr Gove - the Shadow School Secretary and a close ally of Mr Cameron - spent more than £7,000 in five months furnishing a London property in 2006 before “flipping” his second home designation to a new property he bought in Surrey.

He then apparently claimed more than £13,000 in stamp duty and other fees from his Parliamentary expenses for this property.

On Tuesday Mr Gove repaid £7,000 of furniture costs and £500 he claimed for nights staying at the Garrick club in London

Ken Clarke
The former Chancellor’s book-keeping skills “leave much to be desired” according to the newspaper.

Mr Clarke, now Shadow Business Secretary, was apparently asked repeatedly to submit receipts for thousands of pounds in claims for security and cleaning at his second home in London.

The records also revealed he does not claim a council tax discount of up to 10% to which he should be entitled having designated the property as his second home.

On Tuesday Mr Clarke repaid £600 relating to council tax

Margaret Moran
The Labour MP for Luton switched her second home to the house she shares with her partner, 100 miles from her constituency - just days before spending £22,500 on treating dry rot at the seafront property.

On Tuesday Ms Moran promised to repay the £22,500

Francis Maude
The Shadow Cabinet Office minister claimed almost £35,000 over two years for a mortgage on a London flat a few minutes walk from a house he already owned and then rented out.

The taxpayer footed the £387.50 bill for moving his effects down the road.

He also tried to claim mortgage interest on his family home in Sussex, but the arrangement was reportedly rejected by the Fees Office.

On Tuesday party leader David Cameron banned Mr Maude from claiming the second homes allowance in future

Stephen Byers
The former Labour Trade Secretary used the expenses system to claim more than £125,000 for the London flat owned by his partner.

Over the past five years, Mr Byers spent more than £27,000 on redecoration, maintenance and appliances at the flat in Camden, north London.

The claims included extensive renovations to the outside of the entire building, which consists of four flats.

Documents showed Mr Byers put the entire £12,000 bill for the work - including his partner’s share - on expenses.

David Willetts
The shadow innovation, universities and skills secretary claimed £115 plus VAT to replace 25 light bulbs at his second home in west London.

On the same claim - part of a £2,191 invoice for odd jobs that included cleaning a shower head - Mr Willetts charged another £80 to “change light bulbs in bathroom”.

But parliamentary authorities pared the bill back by more than £1,000, refusing to refund £175 for a dog enclosure and £750 for a shed base.

According to the Telegraph, the fees office frequently cut his claims because of errors or overclaims.

On Tuesday Mr Willetts repaid the £115 plus VAT for fitting the light bulbs

John Reid
According to leaked receipts, the former Home Secretary appears to enjoy his creature comforts when in his Scottish constituency.

Mr Reid’s claims included a £199 pouffe, a £370 armchair, an £899 sofa and a £29.99 a “black glitter toilet seat”.

James Arbuthnot
Mr Arbuthnot claimed £1,471 for “grass, trim, pool, fuel” costs associated with the garden of his property in Hampshire.

During the period May to October 2007, he also submitted a claim for £2,433 “for the expense of our housekeeper”. Furnishing he asked to be reimbursed included £728 for a new television and £100 for a sign at his new home.

In total, the chairman of the Defence Select Committee has claimed £108,062 over the past five years - the maximum amount possible according to the paper.

On Sunday he said he would be repaying the swimming pool work claims

Cheryl Gillan
The shadow Welsh Secretary spent £4.47 of taxpayers’ money on dog food. The fees office also reduced a claim for a gas bill because the statement showed Ms Gillan’s account was in credit.

On Sunday Ms Gillan said she would repay the £4.47 she had claimed by mistake

Oliver Letwin
Mr Letwin, who is in charge of drawing up the Conservative general election manifesto, claimed more than £2,000 to replace a leaking pipe under his tennis court.

He said he had been ordered to mend the pipe by the local water company and did not make any improvements to the court or his garden.

The taxpayer also picked up the tab for regular services to his Aga cooker.

On Tuesday Mr Letwin repaid the £2,000

Chris Huhne

The Liberal Democrats home affairs spokesman regularly submits claims for food and groceries including pints of milk, fluffy dusters and chocolate biscuits.

Millionaire Mr Huhne, who is MP for Eastleigh in Hampshire, also expensed a £119 trouser press which was delivered to his main London home.

On Monday Mr Huhne said he had repaid the cost of the press

Lembit Opik
The Liberal Democrat housing spokesman billed a £40 summons for the non-payment of council tax on a flat to his second home expenses.

On Monday Mr Opik said he will pay back the £40

Andrew George
The Liberal Democrat MP has claimed £847 a month for a riverside flat in London used by his student daughter, according to the Telegraph.

Mr George, who is MP for St Ives in Cornwall, said his daughter Morvah, 21, had access to the property in Rotherhithe but was not the sole user.

Sir Menzies Campbell
Former Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies spent nearly £10,000 of taxpayer funds refurbishing his central London flat.

Among the items claimed were a new king-size bed worth £1,024, bed linen worth £373 and five cushions costing £176.25. He also claimed thousands of pounds of food over the summer recess.

On Wednesday Sir Menzies said he would repay the £1,490.66 fee to the interior designer who oversaw the work on his flat

Julia Goldsworthy
The Liberal Democrat local government spokesman spent thousands of pounds on furniture just days before the deadline for using up parliamentary allowances, it was reported.

She bought a £999 TV, £1,500 of furniture in House of Fraser and a £1,200 leather rocking chair from upmarket furniture store Heal’s on March 28 and 29, 2006.

The House of Commons financial year ends at the beginning of April, after which expenses incurred must be set against a new allowance. Ms Goldsworthy said that she had claimed “reasonable” costs for furnishings.

On Wednesday Ms Goldsworthy said she would repay £1,005 she claimed for the chair

THE LEADERS


Gordon Brown
Mr Brown used his expenses to pay his brother Andrew £6,577 for cleaning work at his Westminster flat between 2004 and 2006.

The brothers shared the cleaner at their two flats. Under the arrangement, Andrew Brown paid the cleaner and the Prime Minister reimbursed his share of the cost.

David Cameron
The Tory leader claimed a total of £82,450 on his second home allowance over five years.

The majority of Mr Cameron’s claims were for mortgage interest and utility bills for his Oxfordshire constituency home.

One exception was a £680 bill for repairs to the property, which included clearing wisteria and vines from a chimney, replacing outside lights and resealing his conservatory’s roof.

The newspaper reported Mr Cameron’s expenses appeared relatively straightforward compared to other members of the shadow cabinet.

On Tuesday Mr Cameron repaid the £680 maintenance bill

Nick Clegg
The Liberal Democrat leader reportedly had his second home allowance docked last year after exceeding the £23,083 maximum by more than £100.

Other claims made included £1,657.32 for food, and phone bills which included calls to Colombia and Vietnam.

He said that when he sells his second home, any profit will go back to the taxpayer.

On Tuesday Mr Clegg said he had paid back the £80.20 cost of the international calls

CABINET AND SHADOW CABINET

Alistair Darling
The Chancellor “switched” the location of his second home four times in four years, allowing him to claim thousands of pounds towards the cost of his Edinburgh home and for the London flat, it was reported.

The taxpayer contributed almost £10,000 towards the cost of furnishing the Chancellor’s London flat, including £2,074 for furniture and £2,339 for “magnolia” carpets.

The public also footed the bills for £765 from Ikea and £768 from Marks and Spencer for a bed.

George Osborne
The parliamentary authorities considered the Shadow Chancellor’s personal website too “political” to be publicly funded, the newspaper said.

After claiming £30 for a private company to host the site, Mr Osborne was told by an official: “I draw your attention to the ’Latest News’ section of your webpage. This includes some articles ... which contain clearly political content and are therefore not acceptable on a publicly funded website.”

He also put a £440.62 bill for a chauffeur company to drive him from Cheshire to London on November 11 2005 on expenses.

While the invoice offered a 5 per cent discount for “prompt settlement”, Mr Osborne received the full amount.

The records showed he also claimed hundreds of pounds for cleaning and remortgaged his second home in Cheshire, increasing his monthly mortgage interest bill from £1,560 a month to nearly £1,900.

On Tuesday Mr Osborne refunded the £440.62 chauffeur's bill

Lord Mandelson
The Business Secretary claimed thousands of pounds for work on his constituency home in Hartlepool shortly after announcing his resignation as an MP, it was reported.

He renovated the terrace house in 2004 and sold it for a £136,000 profit.

Lord Mandelson’s spokesman insisted the expenditure was to repair the property, “not improve it”.

Geoff Hoon
The Transport Secretary was able to switch his second home in a way which allowed him to improve his family home in Derbyshire at taxpayers’ expense before buying a London townhouse.

Chris Grayling
The Shadow Home Secretary received thousands of pounds to renovate a London flat, even though his constituency home in Surrey is only 17 miles from Parliament.

Mr Grayling, who already apparently owned three properties within the M25, bought the flat with loans subsidised by the taxpayer.

In an unusual move, Mr Grayling negotiated an arrangement with the fees office that allowed him to claim £625 a month for mortgages on two separate properties - the main home in Ashtead, Surrey, and the new flat.

An exception to the rules was made for the Epsom and Ewell MP because he was unable to obtain a 100% mortgage on the flat.

He is also alleged to have delayed putting in claims for decorating and refurbishing costs so he could receive the maximum in Additional Costs Allowance (ACA) over consecutive years.

On Tuesday Mr Cameron banned Mr Grayling from claiming the second homes allowance in future

Jack Straw
The Justice Secretary claimed for the full cost of council tax, even though he received a 50% discount from his local authority.

He repaid the money last summer, shortly after a High Court ruling requiring the receipts to be published.

In a note to the fees office he wrote: “Accountancy does not appear to be my strongest suit.”

Nick Herbert
The shadow environment secretary claimed back £10,000 of the £14,700 stamp duty when he bought a home with his partner in his constituency.

He also charged for fees and a survey of the property in Arundel, West Sussex and claimed for the entire monthly mortgage interest even though his partner’s name was on the deeds.

Andy Burnham
The Culture Secretary wrote a note to the fees office in which he pleaded for his expenses to be paid urgently and even wrote he “might be in line for a divorce” if the money did not materialise within days.

Andrew Lansley
The Shadow Health Secretary spent thousands of pounds renovating a thatched Tudor country cottage - and sold it shortly afterwards.

He redecorated with premium paint in some rooms at a cost of £2,000 and spent more than £500 having the driveway re-shingled.

He is then said to have “flipped” his expenses to a Georgian flat in London, and claimed for thousands of pounds in furnishings, including a Laura Ashley sofa.

On Tuesday Mr Lansley repaid £2,600 he claimed for house renovations

Shaun Woodward
Taxpayers contributed almost £100,000 to help pay the mortgage on Mr Woodward’s £1.35 million flat - one of seven properties owned by the multi-millionaire Northern Ireland Secretary.

Caroline Flint
The Europe minister put solicitors’ fees and stamp duty totalling £14,553 on her Parliamentary expenses after buying a central London flat.

Paul Murphy
The Welsh Secretary used his second home allowance to buy the freehold on a flat close to Parliament, putting the arrangement fees and stamp duty on his expenses.

He also claimed for decorating and furnishing costs, including £35 for a toilet roll holder, £537 for an oven, a £605 TV and a £449 sound system.

Douglas Alexander

Mr Alexander’s constituency home was damaged in a house fire in 2007 after he spent more than £30,000 doing it up, the newspaper reported.

The International Development Secretary told the fees office he was “under-insured” and claimed almost £2,000 on items lost in the fire, which he later repaid when his insurers reimbursed him.

Theresa Villiers
The shadow transport secretary claimed nearly £16,000 in stamp duty and fees for a London flat, despite already having another house in the capital only 14 miles from Westminster, it was reported.

On Tuesday Mr Cameron said that Ms Villiers would no longer claim the second homes allowance

BACKBENCHERS AND THE REST

Michael Martin

Mr Martin, who as Commons speaker fought to prevent MPs’ expenses claims entering the public domain, spent more than £1,400 on chauffeurs in his Glasgow constituency.

Phil Hope
The health minister for care services claimed £41,709 over five years on furniture and fittings for his "modest" two-bedroomed flat in south London.

The items claimed included a new kitchen, seven doors, wooden flooring, bedroom furniture, chairs and tables, two bookcases, a television, a £120 barbecue and £61 of gardening materials - despite a Commons ban on claiming for garden equipment.

On Wednesday Mr Hope promised to refund the £41,709 in full

Barry Gardiner
The MP for Brent North made a profit of almost £200,000 from a flat mortgaged and renovated with the help of taxpayers’ cash, it was alleged.

Vera Baird QC
Mrs Baird, who as Solicitor General is one of the Government’s top legal advisers, fell foul of expenses rules after trying to claim for Christmas decorations. Officials rejected the £268 invoice.

Sinn Fein
Five Sinn Fein MPs raked in expenses of almost £500,000 for running a second home, despite not taking up their seats in the Commons.

The party’s two most senior figures, president Gerry Adams and Northern Ireland deputy first minister Martin McGuinness, were said to have jointly claimed £3,600 a month to rent a shared two-bedroom flat in the capital, which a local estate agent suggested would be worth £1,400 a month.

The three other MPs together claimed £5,400 a month to rent a shared town house estimated to be worth around £1,800 a month.

John Gummer
The former Tory cabinet minister claimed £9,000 a year for gardening, charging the taxpayer hundreds of pounds for treating insect “infestations” and removing moles and jackdaw nests from his Suffolk property, and for an annual “rodent service”.

Tony Blair
The former Prime Minister was able to use his parliamentary expenses to remortgage his constituency home for £296,000 - nearly 10 times what he paid for it - just months before buying a west London house for £3.65 million.

The claims, some of which were revealed last year under a Freedom of Information request, showed interest repayments on his constituency home amounted to almost a third of the new mortgage.

The London town house was one of five properties owned by Mr Blair - reportedly worth a total of £10 million, the newspaper reported.

Kevin Brennan
The junior minister was said to have had a £450 widescreen television delivered to his family home in Wales and then claimed it on his allowance for his second home in London.

Kitty Ussher
The Department for Work and Pensions minister drew up a list of renovations she hoped to make to her London house and asked Commons officials to “pay as much as you are able!”

Iain Wright and Tom Watson
Mr Wright, a junior housing minister, asked if he could buy furniture before he had even bought the property he shares with Mr Watson.

He was told it would be better to wait until after the general election in case he lost his seat.

He told the Commons authorities: “It seems stupid to carry it over into next year when a large chunk of my (allowance) would go unused.”

Greg Barker

Mr Barker - the first prominent Tory to be caught up in the expenses row - reportedly made a £320,000 profit on a flat he bought at the taxpayers’ expense.

Stewart Jackson
The Tory communities spokesman has claimed more than £66,000 for his family home in Peterborough, the paper said.

He billed the taxpayer for £304.10 for work on the swimming pool, and more than £11,000 in professional fees and costs incurred with the move to the property in 2005.

According to the report, household items claimed include a £3,000 berber carpet, a £741 king size bed and £775 for plumbing work in his summer room.

He said he would be repaying the money claimed for the swimming pool work.

David Davis
The former shadow Home Secretary spent more than £10,000 of taxpayers’ money on home improvements in four years, including a £5,700 portico at his home in Yorkshire, it was disclosed.

He also claimed more than £2,000 for the cost of mowing and rolling two paddocks at his home.

Sir Alan Haselhurst
The Deputy Speaker has charged taxpayers almost £12,000 for gardening bills at his Essex farmhouse, the report said.

He told the paper that the gardener “does all the heavy work which I don’t have the opportunity to do when I’m in London.”

Michael Ancram
The former Conservative deputy leader charged the cost of having his swimming pool boiler serviced to his parliamentary allowances, it was reported.

Records seen by the paper show £98.58 was claimed for the boiler repair, as well as more than £3,000 in cleaning costs and £1,250 of gardening expenses in a single year.

He said none of his items claimed “could be considered extravagant or luxurious”.

Bob Marshall-Andrews
The left wing Labour MP has claimed £118,000 for expenses at his second home, including stereo equipment, redecoration and a pair of Kenyan carpets, The Daily Telegraph said.

In 2006 he claimed £750 on a “multi-room audio system” and £830 on a DVD recorder and other electrical goods.

He has also claimed almost £1,300 for an intercom, brass name plaque and other door adornments.

Mr Marshall-Andrews said the claims for his TV and DVD recorder were “met” from second home allowances “in error”. They were mainly for office use and should have been claimed accordingly, he told the paper.

He added that all other claims were “within the spirit and letter of the law”.

Alan Reid

The Liberal Dem MP for Argyll and Bute in Scotland has claimed more than £1,500 for staying in hotels and bed and breakfasts in his constituency, according to the Telegraph.

The paper said he put in receipts for eight nights in Scottish lodgings during 2005/06, but was told by the Commons fees office that stays in constituency hotels could not be claimed. In 2007/08, he also claimed for three stays in Scottish hotels including one overlooking Loch Etive and one of the Isle of Bute, 38 miles from his designated second home.

Norman Baker
The campaigning Liberal Democrat MP asked the Commons fees office if he could claim for a bicycle for use between his London flat and Parliament. The request was denied.

Thursday, 30 April 2009

Bloggers4UKIP first to report New Recruit !

Respected Conservative Councillor Defects to UKIP

In the run-up to the Council and European Elections on 4th June, Councillor Nigel Haughton, a much respected member of Brickhill Parish Council and life-long Conservative supporter has defected to the UK Independence Party. He has also announced his candidacy for the Bedford Unitary Authority elections, for his new Party.

Councillor Haughton said: “I have become increasingly disillusioned with the local Tories on the Borough Council. The best efforts of the Brickhill Conservative Action team have been thwarted by the leadership of the Borough Conservative Group.”

“The lack of support for the campaign to save our green fields in Brickhill is a prime example of the leadership’s indifference to the concerns of local residents. Whilst the coffers of the Borough have been swelled as a result of the local housing development, we have seen no benefits whatsoever; the funds have been spent elsewhere.

“At a national level, the daily siphoning away of £40million of taxpayers’ money to unelected Brussels bureaucrats is even more disgraceful.

“Reflecting on the complacency of the Borough Tories whilst nationally the Party ‘sits on the fence’ over our national independence, I have decided to take a principled stand by joining and supporting the UK Independence Party.”

Peter Reeve, UKIP's Regional Organiser in the Eastern Counties said: "We are delighted to have Cllr Haughton on board. He will be a major asset to our campaign in this and future elections. We look forward to working with him in the great cause of claiming our country back."

Monday, 20 April 2009

NATIONAL ICON TO HELP UKIP LAUNCH ITS EUROPEAN ELECTION CAMPAIGN

One of the nation's most well known and respected political icons will be helping the UK Independence Party launch its Eastern Counties and national campaign for the 2009 European Election. On Monday 20th April, at a special press conference being held at the Assembly House The Eastern region will Launch their campaign,

Outgoing UKIP MEP and former Party Leader, Jeffrey Titford, will be introducing his potential successors including lead candidate David Campbell Bannerman, who is also the Party's current Deputy Leader, alongside Norfolk poultry and arable farmer Stuart Agnew and City finance director Andrew Smith, who are the second and third candidates. The Party will also be launching its high-spending region wide poster campaign featuring the well-known icon who will be highlighting the immense daily cost of EU membership and exhorting the public to vote for the UK Independence Party.

David Campbell Bannerman commenting on the launch said: "This is going to be an eye catching and hard-hitting campaign. UKIP is the only Party offering the British people a genuine choice at this election. All three of the old parties are wedded to continued European Union membership, despite its immense cost to our economy, the appalling damage it is doing to our country's ability to govern itself, to control its own borders and immigration, as well as the grave loss of democracy.”

"The European Election represents the British public's only opportunity to say a big NO to the European Constitution or the Lisbon Treaty, as it is now known. We were promised a referendum and then denied it, on the spurious excuse of calling it something different. Voting UKIP on 4th June is the only way to say NO and make it clear that we want our country back as well as the £40 million per day it currently costs us. We simply can't afford it any longer. Regenerating our economy and getting people back to work are much more important than continuing to subsidise the corrupt and anti-democratic EU."

UKIP gained 12 MEPs at the 2004 European Election, taking third place nationally with 2.7 million votes, relegating the Liberal Democrats to 4th place and, with even stronger results in the Eastern Counties, where they took second place with over 296,000 votes, ahead of Labour and the Liberal Democrats. This shocked the political establishment and demonstrated that the British people were deeply sceptical of the 'European Project'.

That scepticism has considerably hardened since then, with recent polls indicating that the majority of respondents support British withdrawal from the EU. UKIP is the only major party offering that option and its target of 20 seats in the European Parliament is a realistic prospect that would give it an extremely powerful mandate for pursuing British independence from the EU and repairing the damage 35 years of membership have done to the country.

Sunday, 19 April 2009

UKIP: Stuart Wheeler's speech at the UKIP Spring Rally

Here is the text of Stuart Wheeler's (the spread betting millionaire thrown out of the Conservative Party for donating to UKIP) speech to the UKIP Spring Rally. Today in the Great Hall at Exeter University. Photos are available from PA. Mr. Wheeler was given a standing ovation as he came on to speak and again as he finished.

I suspect there are many here today just like me – Conservative at heart but feeling let down over Europe. I know I am not alone in this awkward position; when I decided to donate money to UKIP, many people got in touch and expressed their support for my actions – and almost all of them were die hard Tories.

And what was the straw that broke the camel's back – that turned us from our natural party? Two words: Ken and Clarke. But it is two words of another Tory politician that I want to examine this morning: William and Hague.

Last Saturday, the Daily Telegraph carried an interview with William Hague.Nothing, nothing could have illustrated better why I shall vote UKIP in the Euro-elections. There was in his interview no commitment to anything.

Let's look at it. If there is a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty will Ken Clarke vote against it? William Hague says that he expects, expects, mark you, that he will. What kind of language is that? Why doesn't William Hague know how Clarke will vote? Did he and David Cameron not ask him that simple question before they appointed him to the shadow cabinet?


Ken Clarke himself was quite specific on the subject as a backbencher “Calls for a referendum were absurd”. Take another point. The Conservatives should make it absolutely clear that, if elected, they will immediately call a referendum on Lisbon. But what do we find?

William Hague indicates that the Conservatives are likely to attempt to scrap the Treaty – possibly by calling a retrospective referendum. Heavens above! The Pope has indicated that he is likely to possibly be a Catholic!

The Tories want to sound tough without making the slightest commitment. The leadership is terrified that a tough stance will split the party. But who will be on the Europhile side of the split?

Just two big beasts, Clarke and Heseltine, and one or two smaller beasts. The party has shown quite rightly that it is not afraid of big donors, by expelling me. It should not be afraid of big beasts either.

By the way it is only the leadership that is so timid. A back bencher Tory MP came up to me and begged me to go on doing what I was doing. “80% of our MPs are behind you”, he said.

The polls are perfectly clear about the voters as well. They were recently asked by the pollsters, YouGov, which of ten things they would most like to see done. Top – reduce immigration: second – reduce the powers of the EU and increase the powers of Britain's Parliament. Way down below – reduce taxes, deal with climate change, scrap id cards etc...

Just listen to the voters, David and William, they do care about Europe, a lot. People have asked me, since my donation, why I did not stay within the Conservative party and use, as they put it, my influence. At one time I did have some sort of influence. I might almost say I was subject to a charm offensive Would I like to have lunch with shadow minister X?

Would I pop in for a discussion with shadow minister Y? Would I like to see William Hague to discuss Europe? The reason of course was to make me unlikely to say something awkward for the Conservatives or, god forbid, to support UKIP. I cannot resist one final point about William Hague's interview. He asks for a protest vote in the Euro elections. Well, which party would a protest vote be for?

Obviously not the party easily leading in the polls, the Tories – that could not be a protest vote. It can only mean voting UKIP! I look forward to him joining me in expulsion from the Party!

Thank You !

Monday, 16 February 2009

Philip Vander Elst Debates This Friday In Oxford


The Oxfordshire Branch of the Pro EU European Movement is organising an "Any Questions" evening for South East European Parliament candidates in Oxford this Friday. Sparks are expected to fly as candidates from five political parties compete for support in this Open Public meeting, answering questions from the audience which they have no notice of.

Keeping order will be the branch president, Lord Hurd of Westwell. Douglas Hurd was Conservative MP for Witney and British Foreign Secretary for many years, and is a well-known supporter of the European Union.

The members of the panel will be: Richard Ashworth MEP (Conservative) , Catherine Bearder (Lib Dem) , Philip Vander Elst (UKIP) , Dr Derek Wall (Green Party) ,Labour have promised that they will be providing a "heavyweight" to participate in the event, but have yet to provide a name.The meeting starts at 7.30 p.m. in the Maison Francaise, Norham Road in North Oxford.

Notes:

Richard Ashworth was elected to the European Parliament in June 2004 to represent the South East of England (he was also a candidate in 1999). He was a dairy farmer in East Sussex for over thirty years and during this time operated his own dairy business. He is currently a member of the European Parliament's committee on budgets and is Conservative Spokesman in this area, his secondary committee is employment.

Catherine Bearder is an Oxford resident, has served as an Oxfordshire County councillor and a Cherwell District Councillor, and has stood as a parliamentary candidate in both Banbury and Henley constituencies. Having travelled the world studying conservation issues with her husband Simon, a professor at Oxford Brookes University, Catherine puts prime emphasis on tackling climate change.She is number two on the Liberal Democrats' list for the South East in the June elections.

Philip Vander Elst is a freelance writer and lecturer who has spent nearly 30 years in politics and journalism, and is now a colleague of Richard Cunningham’s at Areopagus Ministries. After obtaining his Philosophy and Politics degree at Oxford University, where he was also an officer of the Oxford Union Debating Society, he worked at the Centre for Policy Studies, the Institute of Economic Affairs, and edited the political journal Freedom Today. He has written widely on political, philosophical, economic and religious subjects for papers on both sides of the Atlantic and has been a visiting lecturer at many American universities and colleges. He is the author of a recent Bruges Group paper on The Principles of British Foreign Policy. He is the No.4 UKIP MEP candidate for the South East Region.

Dr Derek Wall is an experienced Green political campaigner, published author and journalist. He was Male Principal Speaker of the Green Party of England and Wales. He describes himself as an eco-socialist and stresses the importance of combining electoral politics and non-violent direct action (NVDA) to effect change.Green Party.

Friday, 23 January 2009

Does Spink Have any Influence ?

Last week was quite typical for UKIP MP Bob Spink. He spoke in Parliament over 20 times, tabled over 50 questions (to hold the Government to account), tabled and sponsored 20 Motions, helped 117 individual constituents and worked about two days in Castle Point.

Bob got a meeting with the Prime Minister for local and national officers of Age Concern to get more help for all pensioners. As Bob said: “It is easy to simply grumble and score political points, but trying to get constructive action to help people is much more useful. It will be great to take local pensioners to No 10 to tell the Prime Minister, face to face, what really needs to be done.”

Bob tabled several amendments in the House of Commons to give greater transparency to MP’s expenses. The Leader of the Commons, the Rt Hon Harriet Harman said of two of Bob’s amendments: ‘That makes sense…. it is important for the public to be able to see year by year how things change’ The Deputy Leader of the House also appeared to agree to Bob’s move to stop a £14,000 ‘jobs for the boys’ MP’s pay rise.

And much more (for instance fighting for a better ‘Warm Front deal for pensioners)
Not bad for an MP who local Tories claim has no influence! They should stop bickering and work with Bob for the community. It is all on the record.

Monday, 19 January 2009

Clarke joins front bench, Tories start to join UKIP

UKIP is gaining members because of Ken Clarke's return to the Tory front bench. "Clarke's views on Europe are so out of line with the bulk of the Tory Party membership that they simply cannot stand being in the same party any more." said Nigel Farage, UKIP leader.

Mike Nattrass, UKIP MEP for the West Midlands said "Only UKIP is firmly committed to leaving the EU so that we can be free and independent once again." "Tory MEPs consistently transfer power to the EU and that Tory policy is confirmed by Clark's return."

The first defector in the West Midlands is Denis Allen. A former Mayor of Wellington, a town councillor in Wellington, a councillor on Telford and Wrekin Unitary Authority and former cabinet member there. Denis has also been the Chairman of the Wrekin Conservative Association. After service as an officer in the RAF Regiment Mr. Allen went on to become a Lt. Colonel in the Light Infantry TA.

"I was already uncomfortable with the way that David Cameron fudged the issue of the Conservative membership of the EPP group in the European Parliament. But the appointment of such a strong europhile like Ken Clarke to the front bench was the last straw. We can see that we can't negotiate from within: they ignored the Dutch and the French referendums and they're ignoring the Irish now. We have to leave so that we can rule ourselves." said Denis Allen. "That's why I joined UKIP, the only party advocating that Britain should be ruled by the British."

Mike Nattrass added " Tory MEPs put their Group allowances into the "Yes" campaign and that says it all."

Wednesday, 3 December 2008

UKIP - your anti-EU voice and choice.