UKIP seems to have got past the 'First they ignore you' stage

The slow but steady rise of UKIP in the polls over the last few months went almost unheralded until the weekend before last when in what still looks like an outlier poll, the Mail on Sunday put UKIP as equal
to the Lib/Dems on 11%. Since then there were a couple of days where, due to statistical anomaly YouGov put us above them.

This has brought forth a small deluge of mostly hostile commentary in the press, some from commentators, others from largely Conservative politicians. The insults have flown "Swivel eyed" etc, the condescension dripped. "'UKIP were relevant 15 years ago", said George Eustice MP on Newsnight, "But now we have a robust Eurosceptic as Prime Minister they are irrelevant".

None of this has made a blind piece of difference. Indeed the combined attempt to insult and belittle us has driven even more towards us.

So the game hots up. The first result of this is an attack piece in the Guardian, reprsing this in the HuffPo.

Slightly amused by the shock horror breaking news story about something that happened in 2004/5 and involves as one of its protagonists someone who died in December.

So I wonder what could it be about the rising in the polls, causing real headaches to the mainstream parties UKIP that caused this story to appear now?

Now I am not saying that Msrs. Clark and Booth did not break the funding rules of the European Parliament. They used their staffing allowance in a way that was not allowed. They used it to do what they could to strengthen the cause of Euroscepticism in Britain, by funding UKIP staff rather than personal patronage. At no point did they gain from this personally. In fact the opposite as they initially forewent money that would help them in their own regions, and secondly when they were penalised they lost the money again, this time from their own pockets. But rules are rules.

However I am certain that this will not be the last story of its sort. Birds have told me that an edict has gone out from the coalition headquarters to friendly editors that UKIP must be hit hard. So I expect that in the next couple of weeks we will see a few more stories like this, dredged up, polished and presented to the public.

UKIP must be seen as bad as the rest. It must be undermined, damage must be done before the elections.

So for those of you who are standing for UKIP in the coming elections I have a message.

Thanks for getting us to the stage that they feel they have to attack us. Without you they would just be ignoring us. This article, and the ones to come are a testament to your hard work. To the way that through you and others we are beginning to threaten the vested interests.

Oh and if you have any particularly juicy skeletons in your closet, either come clean yourselves, or nail those closets shut.

Taking a swipe at Stevens

Reposting again I am afraid, again on from ConHome, this time in response to a slightly odd piece from John Stevens, Fornmer Tory MEP, then Quixotic Founder of the Pro-Euro Conservative Partty in 1999, a man so upset with how sceptic the Tories had become (yes really) that he went off on his own. To vbe fair he came second behind Bercow in Buckingham, and I rather admire him for his dogged defence of what he believes, But now he is argueing for an in/out referendum in order to silence UKIP. He should be so lucky.

Reading Mr Stevens on EU affairs is one of those guilty pleasures. I would suggest people take a short peruse of this article in the Guardian from 2008, The crisis in the Eurozone was already upon us, Greece, Italy, Spain Ireland and Portugal were already in the spotlights and John, dear John had this to say,

"But the eurozone offers not just a discipline to prevent the repetition of past failures, but also a more solid stimulus to future success. Membership would indeed encourage our competitive advantages, which remain significant and, if not compromised and undermined by a culture too dependent on debt and consumerism, will surely again be powerful engines of our prosperity."

A man of great prescience and wisdom I think we can all agree. It's worth looking at the whole series of articles, it will give you a warm feeling that goes perfectly with a decent coffee and a croissant. So what of these arguments.

Yes, it is true that,any Conservative government worth its salt would address his series of issues far better than they do today. It is true that they cannot do so whilst they are forced to introduce deeply unpopular measures by this or that Directive or this or that ECJ or ECHR judgement (pasty tax, charity tax, prisoner votes, the current chaos surrounding Qatada). It is probably true that a Tory majority Government would at least start to approach some of these issues in a way that would give succor to its despairing membership. But would having a referendum deal with UKIP in the way he presumes? Not in any meaningful way. UKIP are currently averaging about 7-8% in the polls. 1 or 2% might decide to go back to the Tories, in the event of a promised referendum. But doesn't he think that if the Tories were to do such a thing that the Labour Party, or the Lib Dems would not do the same? Of course they would.

At which point any electoral advantage would vanish. Then there is the problem of believability. Does he really think that anybody will believe a word of it? There has been a huge change in the people who support UKIP in the last year or so. Far from being the single issue obsessives that we were (with some accuracy) caricatured, we have become a far more grounded, broad and responsive party. These days UKIP is a radio, set not just to broadcast, but to receive. Those who are joining us are doing so for a variety of reasons, though they all share our desire to govern ourselves.

A referendum promise, if it had been kept at the last election may well have 'dealt with' the UKIP problem. At least in Westminster electoral terms. But using it today in Andrew Bridgen's terms elsewhere on this site, to 'shoot the UKIP fox', is like the armchair generals in the MOD, always laying plans to fight the last war. The target has moved on. Oh he is right on Lord Bethell, a man whose latter day ardent federalism sadly has obscured magnificent work on human rights and anti-communism over decades.

What is the difference between these two stories?

Here is a bad photograph of today's EU story in the Telegraph, page 20,

As I am sure you can see the story, about the latest somehwhat generous attempt by the EU to get more of your cash finishes with these words,

Richard Ashworth, leader of Conservative MEPs and a member of the European parliament's budget committee, vowed to fight the increase.
"It is as though these people live on another planet where there is no recession, no eurozone crisis, no bottom to taxpayers' pockets and no limit to their own self-indulgence. They seem to have no concept of the abject disgust which will greet this demand for evermore cash," he said.

Which is funny, because the online version finnishes with these words,

"It is as though these people live on another planet where there is no recession, no eurozone crisis, no bottom to taxpayers' pockets and no limit to their own self-indulgence. They seem to have no concept of the abject disgust which will greet this demand for evermore cash," he said.
Nigel Farage MEP, the leader of Ukip, said: "This outrageous demand is Cameron's chance to wield a veto by refusing to pay any extra. If he doesn't voters will be entitled to ask why their public services are being cut while the only way up is for Brussels spending."

Now I wonder why that is?

If Ashcroft hasnae clue, then who the Devil does

Lord Ashcroft has written a rather coruscating piece on Con Home this morning, accepting that UKIP do indeed present a threat to Tory interests.  I responded there but am re-posting my comment here,

In many ways the good Lord Ashcroft is correct in his analysis. There are two stand out points he makes that suggest to us in UKIP that our rise in popular support is no flash in the pan.

Firstly we have yet to meet a single UKIP voter who does not agree with our basic desire to leave the European Union. As things stand the Conservative Party maintains itys belief that it can reform the unreformable. The fiasco of announcing all the changes that it was going to force through the ECHR in Brighton this week and having almost everything watered down by the colleagues shows how hard that will be. You can only march people up and down the hill of "changing Europe from the inside" before they understand that those ambitions are impossible to realise.

Next he recognises that UKIP haven't just sat around, banging on about Europe. But have developed a series of policies that appeal to the centre ground of the British population, but sound radical if viewed through the prism of Westminster. On education, law and ode, tax, benefits, international aid, environmental and energy policy, we now speak with a clear distinct voice that appeals to a cross party section of the public. A significant proportion of those moving to UKIP are not from the Conservative Party. It is no surprise to us, though it may be to the readers here, that our biggest growth area according to the polls is the Midlands and the North. After all who suffers most from the failure of the comprehensive schools system, a breakdown in Law and Order, the impact of mass migration. It isn't the middle classes.

His prescription for a revival of Tory fortunes and the attracting back those voters who have moved towards us in UKIP is rather despairing. After all if Lord Ashcroft is 'not sure where' the Conservative Party 'is heading' then that suggests that less than 20people in the country have a clue.

"IF they see a competent government with a grip on events, a plan for the economy, an understanding of public services, that knows what it wants to achieve, and can show that it is delivering on its promises on things like crime and immigration."

That is one hell of a big if.

He waves away the thought of waving through policies that might succeed in doing this, but then runs down a list of this that could or should be done,
"Changes to the Human Rights Act, which constrains what the government can do to uphold the law and protect our security, might be one theme. An emphasis on controlling people’s energy bills and living costs, rather than imposing higher prices through misguided environmental policies, might be another. Addressing the bloated international aid budget could be considered. There will be, and there is much more – but at a time when the party needs to show it is serious about law and order and understands people’s concerns in tough economic times, it may not be a bad place to start."

Looks very like UKIP without EU withdrawal to me, and some of these things would require us to leave the EU anyway, as they are driven by EU law and we cannot alter them without the EU's permission, which we will not receive.

Nope I would say that though UKIP will lose some supporters due to the harsh light of FPTP many more will be staying with us.

How to hand the rich power: Lord O'Donnell's great plan

Finally it seems Siobhan Benita is being asked a couple of difficult questions. The independent candidate, or more accurately the Mandarin's candidate has been getting a remarkably easy ride up until now with a spate of fawning interviews across the media. People have started to ask questions about her reasons for leaving the civil service, which are as anti-democratic as can be, "she was losing faith in the power of the civil service to keep politicians in check", not really the task of a civil servant. 


She is very energised by the fact that, with no electoral support, and no political track record she has not been put on the platform in candidate hustings. As you well know UKIP are also a bit miffed by this, but with a little more reason, given that we are ahead of the media's preffered candidate on almost all matrices. But I digress.

Possibly the most extraordinary argument yet made in the 'who gets to have TV coverage and sit on the hustings panel' I have ever seen has been made by that Pooh Ba of Pooh Ba's, Augustine Thomas O'Donnell, Baron O'Donnell GCB. In the Huff Po he states,

"Lord O'Donnell said they should instead look at bookmakers odds. William Hill currently has Benita as third favourite to win behind Livingstone and Johnson."

Yup. the man they called God is seriously suggesting that the BBC should tear up its normal procedures (well maybe) and replace them with a trip to William Hill.


So that a decision on who gets free airtime should be made by how much someone puts on a candidate. Thus a rich benefactor, say Peter Jones from Dragon's Den could put £10,000 on her, and thus skew the odds.


Better still it wouldn't even appear as campaign donations...


Extraordinary

So what are the Lib Dems for?

Lets go to Nick Clegg's website and find out

Then Click on that button there on the left hand side, yes the one that says 'What we stand for', and Coalition Agreements,

Yup, absolutely nothing. Stands to reason, when you think about it.

Anybody still 'Agree with Nick'?


HT Mathew Barrett @MBarrettCH

The Prof demands complacency

Prof Tim Bale, pundit, academic and slayer of political myths has taken it upon himself to take a pot shot at suggestions that UKIP are on the rise. Worse than on the rise that they threaten a Tory majority, or even relevance in UK political terms.

That sort of thinking for the good Professor is decidedly below the salt. Those who think otherwise are cogently described as, “a host of nerds and nutters”.

Fine. From my perspective keep up that complacency Prof. One of the key things a chap like him should do is to is to rid himself of some 20^th Century ideal of politics. Where the graph of political support spreads conveniently along a straight line, or as he would say a left right bell curve.

Politics is today digital and Prof Bale seems to be happy to live in an analogue age.

What he forgets is that there is a vast difference between what is the centre of politically acceptable opinion and the opinion of the great majority of the people of this country. Where UKIP place themselves is at the centre of that, not of what Fleet Street and Islington define as what is acceptable.

So on issues such as the European union, where when forced to have forced to choose between in the EU and out YouGov Cambridge has 53% of the country saying out, UKIP are not weird, not out there, but smack bang at the centre of what people are thinking. On a whole host of issues, such as choice in Education, crime, taxation and so on, what is acceptable to the ivory tower, and what is acceptable to Fred down the Bull and Bush is a very different thing. Where UKIP score is that we  don’t really care what he, or the psephologists in Victoria and Millbank think. We go with what we think.

Not being able to afford focus groups, nor really wanting to, we go with what we believe.

And weirdly that belief has a resonance with the public at large.

As a final thought, what I wondered idly are Professor Bale’s links with the European Union? After all he has talked about ‘facing down’ eurosceptics.

He is part of the University of Sussex’s European Institute, an institute which is part of the EU’s Monnet program of Centre’s of Excellence.

In the case of Sussex I do not know the precise details but, suffice to say they are funded by the EU.

A secular crown jewel

Wandered along to the Damian Hirst extravaganza at the Tate Modern over the weekend and was predictably unenthused. To me it was a perfect place to take a few youngsters and pretend that they have experienced some sort of culture. Hirst’s oeuvre is in the main flash-bang, the drip-spin, spotted, gore and utensil work appeals to the superficial, the fashionable and the childish.

So in terms of my plan it was a result. However one particular exhibit really got my goat, and it wasn’t so much the object itself but the curating of it that rankled. That Mr Hirst was able to find someone foolish enough to allow him to corrugate a skull with a pound or two of cut diamonds is neither here nor there. It is marginally interesting as an idea and has something about it. But the way that the object is set is extraordinary in itself.

One small object, less than a foot square (indeed human head sized) is allowed to take up the entire space in the cavernous Turbine Hall.

In the vast and deliberately darkened void looms a small black building, picked out with soft lights. It sits, discreet and self-important. A couple of ostentatious (armed) security guards loiter with intent. One is ushered round the back, out of sight where a terminus style queue worms itself packed and invisible in the shade. The queue is strictly controlled and lengthened by what appears to be a deliberate policy of delaying entry into the inner sanctum. The slower people are allowed to pass through, the greater the queue, the greater the ‘experience’ the greater the awe.

Finally one is allowed to enter a pitch-black room and there is the Aztec bling, picked out by a dozen pin-prick spots.

It struck me, that what was happening was an attempt, by a taxpayer funded body,

to grant this small object some form of secular divinity. The pomp and circumstance, the whole theatrical performance designed to create a denationalised crown jewel.

It left a distinctly deflated feeling. The children? They were antagonised and bored by the queue, didn’t understand what the fuss was about.

A cold wind from across the pond

This is a little worrying, for those who like a little flutter on political markets,

The Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) today issued an order pursuant to Section 5c(c)(5)(C)(ii) of the Commodity Exchange Act and CFTC Regulation 40.11(a)(1), prohibiting the North American Derivatives Exchange (Nadex) from listing or making available for clearing or trading a set of self-certified political event derivatives contracts. The contracts are binary option contracts that pay out based upon the results of various U.S federal elections to be held in 2012.

I know this the States and they are a little bit chary of online gambling, but it might give our own Lords and Masters some bad ideas.

Mike Smithson they are coming after you.

I'm getting a little worried about the Very Reverend john Hall

He is the Dean of Westminster Abbey and is peculiar, in both senses.
It was he who last year decided to hold a ceremony in the Abbey to celebrate Europe Day, with a rather embarrassing service

Lord God our Father,
we affirm our commitment to the European Union
as a force for good in your world.
Guide us, we pray, by your Spirit;
give us wisdom, courage, and hope,
that we may serve you in the cause of justice and friendship,
and remain united in your peace;
through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

He seems to be up to his old tricks, by proposing a memorial to Sir Edward Heath.

"Although he and Edward Heath were on the opposite side of many political arguments, they were both of that remarkable generation that served in the Second World War and continued to devote their lives to the service of their nation and of the world. It is fitting that we should honour them."

That Heath lied, dissimulated and practised deception on this land in order to get us into the EEC/Common Market as it was then is well known. So why should this fellow, this man who would prefer the Councils of foreign potentates rather than his own people be so honoured?

Now if all former Prime Ministers were to be so honoured I would have no complaint. But what puts Heath above such figures as Wilson, Macmillan, Douglas Home and Eden?