To-day is the day, Nigel beckons

Tuesday’s Daily Telegraph editorial was interesting in its summary of points arising from the recent elections. The article cited public distrust and disbelief in David Cameron’s promises of an in/out EU referendum in 2017.

The piece also referred to the promise to use the three years up to 2017 to re-negotiate the terms of Britain’s membership.

Forum members can make their own judgments regarding the trustworthiness of David Cameron’s pledge on the referendum, the re-negotiation is another matter.

There can be no re-negotiation. There is no mechanism in what passes as an EU constitution for re-negotiation. Any amendment to a treaty obligation requires the approval and consent of all the member countries. No suggestion for re-negotiation could even appear in the EU as a discussion paper. Kaput !

Funny, the French have started to call for a renegotiation now too, after the Far Right won their election. The process has started. A mechanism can be built.

Cameron’s pledge has been straightforward as far as I can see – if we win, I will legislate for a referendum, or will resign if I cant get one. That’s pretty unequivocal isn’t it? One thing is for sure, if he doesn’t win, there will be no referendum.

There can be no re-negotiation. There is no mechanism in what passes as an EU constitution for re-negotiation. Any amendment to a treaty obligation requires the approval and consent of all the member countries. No suggestion for re-negotiation could even appear in the EU as a discussion paper. Kaput !

THANK YOU!! The point I have been repeating ad nauseam in various threads for more than a year, but it never seems to provoke any comment or response.

John,

Under the circumstances, ‘within weeks’ is little different to overnight. Until they could see the ‘books’, they had no idea how bad things were, except that they knew there was no money..

DC is left of Thatcher, but not left of centre. Yes, he moved to the left, in the same way that Blair moved to the right. He had no choice IMHO. I don’t believe either party crossed the centreline.

I have no issue with homosexuality whatsoever. Frankly I don’t understand the distaste which some treat the issue. To me, that is wholly a non issue. The education system has been in desperate need of reform for many years. Again, I don’t see the issue of Grammar schools as an issue myself. That said, I don’t entirely agree with Mr Gove either, who certainly doesn’t make all the right moves.

Yes, I believe that Tony Blair was, and is, a very clever man. The Iraq issue is always used against him, but it ignores all of the achievements of his government. At the end of the day, he made a difficult decision, based on the best advice he had at the time. That the advice was wrong is the fault of the advisors, and indeed the Americans. It is the job of the man in the chair to make those difficult decisions. They will never be right all of the time.

I would be prepared to bet too, that the jump to the centre that Blair made, was done with the full expectation that the Tories would follow suit in time. I am sure there was a good deal of surprise that it took them so long to do so. I am also sure they knew that when it did happen, that a party very much like UKIP would appear to expose all the inevitable cracks that were very much present at the end of Thatcher’s premiership, and in full view for the entirety of Major’s. Perhaps I give him too much credit; perhaps not. His plan to wipe out the Tories entirely nearly worked.

I always thought of Blair, and still do, as entirely machiavellian in an unpleasant mix with cold charm and the arrogance of self-belief. A heartily unsavoury individual.

Tuesday’s Daily Telegraph editorial was interesting in its summary of points arising from the recent elections. The article cited public distrust and disbelief in David Cameron’s promises of an in/out EU referendum in 2017.

The piece also referred to the promise to use the three years up to 2017 to re-negotiate the terms of Britain’s membership.

Forum members can make their own judgments regarding the trustworthiness of David Cameron’s pledge on the referendum, the re-negotiation is another matter.

There can be no re-negotiation. There is no mechanism in what passes as an EU constitution for re-negotiation. Any amendment to a treaty obligation requires the approval and consent of all the member countries. No suggestion for re-negotiation could even appear in the EU as a discussion paper. Kaput !

Re 103

Yes, ‘within weeks of taking power’. It wasn’t done overnight. Even the need for urgent restorative action did not lead to precipitate overnight moves.

As for DC not being ‘left of center’ his dismissal of grammar schools and espousal of same sex marriage, his proclaimed belief that he was ‘heir to Blair’ are, for me, prima facie evidence of his move to the left.

So you think that Tony Blair was ‘a very clever man’. Some would say that in his promotion and support for the invented existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq he was being extremely stupid. He used this ‘hogwash’ as an excuse to bring death and destruction to thousands of innocents. People who had done no wrong other than live under an extremely unpleasant regime.

Having lived and worked in Central and Northern Iraq on various civil engineering projects I, along with a few hundred others knew that the Iraqi’s were incapable of developing or supporting WMDs. Most of the time the country, in terms of continuity of supply of the utilities – among other things – simply did not work. The idea that the Iraqi’s could maintain or help to maintain sophisticated weaponry was ludicrous.

But, Tony Blair having stepped aboard the runaway train to aid his buddy George Bush Jnr. couldn’t get off. Besides which I think that he saw Iraq as his Margaret Thatcher Falklands moment. A clever man – no. An excellent ‘bullshiner’ yes.

Interesting letter today from Alan Sked, founding father of what became UKIP.

“SIR – Iain Martin’s article on Ukip is not quite accurate. The Anti-Federalist League was not founded by any “group” in 1991, but by myself alone. I had, until then, been a leading member of the Bruges Group, which had been founded as non-party but has become identified with the Conservatives. I was then expelled from it for promising to run candidates against the Tories.
The main achievement of the AFL was Chris Patten’s defeat in Bath at the 1992 general election, when I forced him publicly to refuse to apologise for the poll tax. In 1993, I, along with leading members of the AFL, changed its name to Ukip. The new party’s membership form committed all party members to have no prejudices against foreigners or lawful minorities of any kind; and not to take up seats in the European Parliament. These commitments were dropped after I left.
The party only grew subsequently owing to two factors: in 1999, the EU changed the electoral system allowing parties with very small votes to enter the European Parliament. This enabled Ukip to board the gravy train, and get some political leverage. But until the Lib Dems entered coalition with the Conservatives, the party got nowhere in Britain after almost 20 years of de facto leadership under Mr Farage. I left in 1997, and it still has not won a by-election or a seat at a general election.
Ukip has no policies for Britain. Its last manifesto has been characterised as “drivel” by Mr Farage himself, although he wrote a foreword recommending it. It is now the protest party for all malcontents, and does contain racists and homophobes.
I still hope, however, that it will help bring us out of the EU by pressurising the Tories. But let’s not kid ourselves about how it is run, what it represents or the quality of its leadership.

Alan Sked
Professor of International History
London School of Economics”

My support for UKIP is conditional and attached to one principle. The removal of Britain from membership of the EU and Britain’s return to full sovereignty and independence.

With luck it will not be ‘Britain’ that leaves the EU, just England, Wales and Ulster. Meanwhile the Scots will be desperately clamouring to get back in.

Moggy

The sad thing is that our obsession with celebrity means that all too often we base things on the actions of people who may well be less informed that we are.

In some ways, I don’t disagree – but look at the big picture. UKIP have 9.5% of the vote, by share of the total electorate. That means that 90.5 percent of people either don’t agree with him, or are apathetic.

Merkle had 35%, that means 65% disagreed with her party too!!

Ohhhh I feel like Snafu here :p

There is no doubt in my mind that the European experiment has gone too far. However we must be careful to avoid the ‘All immigration is bad’ line. Many, many immigrants add a huge amount to our economy. There are a comparatively small number who seek to come here for our health service and our benefits.

I agree with that, you get movement the World over, however you do need the right to refuse entry.

UKIP is more than just Nigel Farage – it is several generations on from its humble beginnings. The issue for them, like the others, is does the party have the same appeal without its figurehead?

Thats why I said the likes of, meaning all parties across Europe that have taken a stance, I realise you cannot base a complete party on one man, though of late most of the mainstream seem to do that.

Odd isn’t it, we cannot really have a say in who comes into this Country from the EU, but if they are carrying 20,000 Fags and 50 gallons of Whisky from the EU, we can stop that, so much for free trade and movement.

..

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27599171

Say what you like, I do see Farage and UKIP being good for this Country, for far too long power has slowly been devolved away from the Sovereign Countries to Europe without the populace of those Countries having a say and Europe more or less now has a free will to do what they want carte blanche.

In some ways, I don’t disagree – but look at the big picture. UKIP have 9.5% of the vote, by share of the total electorate. That means that 90.5 percent of people either don’t agree with him, or are apathetic.

The fact that so many Countries have revolted against this shows that there is an endemic feeling amongst the population of Europe that the EU is out of touch with what they were set up to do and have simply written themselves a greater roll than the one originally planned when the Common Market was born.

Actually, look at the countries that have demonstrated sceptic views – they are mostly the ones that put in money as opposed to those who take it out. Funny that!

Like a weed it has spread it’s roots far and wide quietly across Europe taking over from Countries those tasks that I feel should be controlled by those states, Law and the making of for one, Immigration another.. yes I can understand some commonality is a good thing, but when a Country cannot control it’s own borders or sentence and deport those undesirables because of European law, that is wrong…

There is no doubt in my mind that the European experiment has gone too far. However we must be careful to avoid the ‘All immigration is bad’ line. Many, many immigrants add a huge amount to our economy. There are a comparatively small number who seek to come here for our health service and our benefits.

Now everyone one is saying Farage and all the other parties across Europe won’t make a difference, but that is wrong, they are, the link above shows that the Establishment is running scared, true, they might not hold the control of the EU parliament, but that is assuming all the other delegate turn up and for the current incumbents it is a worrying trend that at the next elections may see a shift in power.

I suspect it will mean the main parties trimming their sails accordingly. Yes, UKIP will make a difference, but it wont be Nigel Farages bum in a cabinet seat. There is no doubt in my mind that splitting the conservative vote next year will guarantee Mr Millibands place in the history books, and of the big three (two?) only the Conservative party have offered any sort of referendum.

The sole fact that everyone is waking up to the fact that the EU has become this out of control entity that rather than being subservient to the Countries in it, is trying to dominate them. Changes are happening and not before time, and without the likes of Farage, that would never of happened..

UKIP is more than just Nigel Farage – it is several generations on from its humble beginnings. The issue for them, like the others, is does the party have the same appeal without its figurehead?

John, this is aimed at my colleague, but having already replied to you, it is too good an opportunity not to follow up.

I think that you are ‘nit picking’ and ‘splitting hairs’. I have no doubt that UKIP’s economic policies for this country (subject to Brussels permission before we withdraw) will be clearly set out.

If UKIP have inherited a successful economy from a previous Govt. Why would they IMMEDIATELY want to change anything. It would be more of the same. Doesn’t that make sense ?

Well, New Labour did do that in 1997; they kept the Tory spending plans for a couple of years, whilst they sorted themselves out. In fact, it isn’t such a daft suggestion. However, they do need to be clear on what their policy is, especially in light of the distinctly unpopular cuts to spending at present.

By way of an example, during the weeks following election, UKIP might want to adjust the effect of personal or corporate taxation or, perhaps, make a reduction in VAT. This is what I referred to as ‘tweaking’.

I do not know of any Govt. taking office that, responding to political ideology or any other impetus of a leisurely nature made swift changes to the economic life of the nation. It would be unthinkable, given the need to maintain at least outwardly the picture of stability so necessary to the world’s financial centers.

Of course you do – Camerons government made enormous changes to the economy within weeks of taking power – because they had to. I don’t remember it, but I suspect Margaret Thatcher’s government did much the same…

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-27599171

Say what you like, I do see Farage and UKIP being good for this Country, for far too long power has slowly been devolved away from the Sovereign Countries to Europe without the populace of those Countries having a say and Europe more or less now has a free will to do what they want carte blanche.
The fact that so many Countries have revolted against this shows that there is an endemic feeling amongst the population of Europe that the EU is out of touch with what they were set up to do and have simply written themselves a greater roll than the one originally planned when the Common Market was born.
Like a weed it has spread it’s roots far and wide quietly across Europe taking over from Countries those tasks that I feel should be controlled by those states, Law and the making of for one, Immigration another.. yes I can understand some commonality is a good thing, but when a Country cannot control it’s own borders or sentence and deport those undesirables because of European law, that is wrong…
Now everyone one is saying Farage and all the other parties across Europe won’t make a difference, but that is wrong, they are, the link above shows that the establishment is running scared, true, they might not hold the control of the EU parliament, but that is assuming all the other delegate turn up and for the current incumbents it is a worrying trend that at the next elections may see a shift in power.
The sole fact that everyone is waking up to the fact that the EU has become this out of control entity, that rather than being subservient to the member Countries, is in fact controlling them. Changes are happening and not before time, and without the likes of Farage, that would never of happened..

Re 96

Bruce, that is a good summary. We differ on a couple of points. David Cameron’s move to ‘left of center’ was the cause of much grief to many core Tory supporters – they moved to UKIP and are still there. That, for David Cameron, is his most intractable problem.

John, with the best will in the world, Cameron is clearly not left of centre – he is well right of the Labour party, and of the Lib Dems. Your belief that he would have won by sticking to core Thatcherite policies is not supported by the evidence. The Tories failed on three separate occasions, under Hague, Duncan Smith and Michael Howard, to win back the electorate to Margaret Thatchers principles. Moving left was the only way they stood a chance of getting back to power. The promise of ever more money from the Labour party nearly confounded them – he still didn’t get a majority. Had he been able to, I have no doubt that the appeal of UKIP would be less.

Yes, I was a Thatcherite Tory. She was the lure that took me into local politics. I am as sure as one can be about these matters that if David Cameron had continued with her policies he would not have needed a Coalition to keep him in power. Why vote Tory ? There was little clear space between Left and Right. Remember ? Dave’s claim of being ‘heir to Blair’ ?

Yes, I too was a Thatcherite Tory, but I have to say that I learnt a lot from Tony Blair. A very clever man, who understood the people. I think he even claimed to be Margaret Thatchers heir at one point! Anyway – Blair and Thatcher has one thing absolutely in common; They were leaders. Major was not, Brown was not, Milliband is not, Cameron isn’t quite, but he is the best the Tories have right now. What Nigel Farage has in common with Blair, and Thatcher, is a huge amount of charisma, a quality that must not be under rated. I would say that David Davis doesn’t have it either.

John Major? I think that his public image strongly contributed to his downfall. Here is a confession: When Tony Blair was elected, I felt a sense of ‘new brooms sweeping clean’. Some mild feelings of relief – of escape from an exhausted Tory Govt. that had lost its way.

Yes quite. Major is a thoroughly decent man, and unusually for the Tories comes from a lowly background. No charisma though.

My support for UKIP is conditional and attached to one principle. The removal of Britain from membership of the EU and Britain’s return to full sovereignty and independence. That is all. It is now confirmed that I share that opinion with millions whose numbers increase daily – the result of the Newark by-election should be interesting.

Fair enough – but that wont win them an election – they need to be more than that. It is difficult at present to be certain they are more than a protest vote; especially if one looks at where the votes could be drawn from – BNP supporters? Certainly, Disaffected LibDems? – possibly, Right Wing Conservatives? – No doubt. Labour party? I rather doubt it.

Your Moderator colleague refers to ‘Bongo, Bongo land’ and ‘keeping wogs’ out as tho’ this is both excuse and justification incorporated into UKIPs manifesto. UKIP’s attitude is both measured, responsible and in tune with most people:

When coming to this country, immigrants should be able to speak English
They should be able to support themselves and not be a liability on the State
If they subsequently commit criminal acts, they should be deported.

Every other country in the world that admits immigrants has these caveats in place – why not Britain ?

As I say above, I don’t think its enough. The issue for UKIP right now is to be clear what the message is, and to stay on it. Too many people, are taking up the UKIP flag as one of convenience, and espousing their own views as policy – because there is a policy vacuum at the top. That rather confuses the overall message, and leads to the claims of racism and worse. That can be difficult to counter – if those who are standing for election have demonstrably racist views, and they become a majority, then the party is racist. If there are only one or two, and they are quickly removed, then it isn’t. You see the problem?

Finally, my oft stated distaste and dislike for all things socialist as the fount of all evil, has probably reached a state of caricature. I don’t mind. But, let me even things up. I have an equal distaste and dislike for capitalism in its most extreme forms. Selfishness and greed whether from the Left or the Right should, ideally, play no part. But, they do, and all too often they exist, as man made influences, to corrupt what were, in their beginnings, untainted ideologies.

Actually we agree on that – and perhaps you have taken the first step to the left…

Re 98

Accepted. Thank you.

I’ve re-read my previous comments for any indication that ‘economic policy could be set after the election’. My comment at #93 mentions ‘transition’.

I think that you are ‘nit picking’ and ‘splitting hairs’. I have no doubt that UKIP’s economic policies for this country (subject to Brussels permission before we withdraw) will be clearly set out.

If UKIP have inherited a successful economy from a previous Govt. Why would they IMMEDIATELY want to change anything. It would be more of the same. Doesn’t that make sense ?

By way of an example, during the weeks following election, UKIP might want to adjust the effect of personal or corporate taxation or, perhaps, make a reduction in VAT. This is what I referred to as ‘tweaking’.

I do not know of any Govt. taking office that, responding to political ideology or any other impetus of a leisurely nature made swift changes to the economic life of the nation. It would be unthinkable, given the need to maintain at least outwardly the picture of stability so necessary to the world’s financial centers.

Re 96

Bruce, that is a good summary. We differ on a couple of points. David Cameron’s move to ‘left of center’ was the cause of much grief to many core Tory supporters – they moved to UKIP and are still there. That, for David Cameron, is his most intractable problem.

Yes, I was a Thatcherite Tory. She was the lure that took me into local politics. I am as sure as one can be about these matters that if David Cameron had continued with her policies he would not have needed a Coalition to keep him in power. Why vote Tory ? There was little clear space between Left and Right. Remember ? Dave’s claim of being ‘heir to Blair’ ?

John Major? I think that his public image strongly contributed to his downfall. Here is a confession: When Tony Blair was elected, I felt a sense of ‘new brooms sweeping clean’. Some mild feelings of relief – of escape from an exhausted Tory Govt. that had lost its way.

My support for UKIP is conditional and attached to one principle. The removal of Britain from membership of the EU and Britain’s return to full sovereignty and independence. That is all. It is now confirmed that I share that opinion with millions whose numbers increase daily – the result of the Newark by-election should be interesting.

Your Moderator colleague refers to ‘Bongo, Bongo land’ and ‘keeping wogs’ out as tho’ this is both excuse and justification incorporated into UKIPs manifesto. UKIP’s attitude is both measured, responsible and in tune with most people:

When coming to this country, immigrants should be able to speak English
They should be able to support themselves and not be a liability on the State
If they subsequently commit criminal acts, they should be deported.

Every other country in the world that admits immigrants has these caveats in place – why not Britain ?

Finally, my oft stated distaste and dislike for all things socialist as the fount of all evil, has probably reached a state of caricature. I don’t mind. But, let me even things up. I have an equal distaste and dislike for capitalism in its most extreme forms. Selfishness and greed whether from the Left or the Right should, ideally, play no part. But, they do, and all too often they exist, as man made influences, to corrupt what were, in their beginnings, untainted ideologies.

Apologies.

Your assertion that economic policy could be set after the election seemed to preclude ‘sensible’ discussion

Moggy

Re 95

There is on occasion, more than a hint of spitefulness about your comments. You appear to have an interesting imagination coupled with perhaps a sense of being undervalued ?

If you want to engage in a civilised discussion then at least discuss sensibly and politely.

In many ways, the rise of UKIP is analogous to the rise of Militant although that remained as part of the Labour party.

UKIP speaks to traditional (by which I mean Thatcherite) conservatives, like John, as it offers them ‘more of the same’, from a brand which could be construed as being successful in the 80’s and 90’s. Indeed, in many ways, they were, but its important to understand why, along with the reason that New Labour was so successful for much of its tenure, and why Cameron actually had no choice but to abandon the Thatcherite conservatism that John is so enamoured of.

In 1979, when Margaret Thatcher came to power, no-one, surely can pretend that Britain was not on its knees. We were in a hell of a state. Thatcher didn’t just bring historic conservative principles with her though, much of what she did was based on the work of others. Much has been said before about the free market, but by applying it on such a wide scale, she was able to start to bring the economy back from oblivion.

The Labour party didn’t actually know how to react, and this in fact parallels what happened to the Conservatives in the early part of this century. Michael Foot continued as a socialist leader, espousing more of the same policies that had got us into the mess in the seventies. As did Neil Kinnock. At no point did they make much inroads into the Conservative lead until the Tories made their big miscalculation – the Poll Tax. That was the beginning of the end of predominantly right wing policy IMHO. At about that time, the Labour party finally realised that what they had to do was to completely reorganise, and meet the Tories half way. John Smith started it, Tony Blair finished it. He also finished the LibDems; they just haven’t stopped moving yet.

Blair is misunderstood – regardless of the big mistake – the Iraqi war, he was, and is an excellent communicator. He also understands the basic issues, probably far more than any other premier before or since. Not that I ever voted for him, but I respect some of what he achieved. The Graph that Tony published above is quite interesting, and appears to give the lie to the tax, spend and deficit argument, at least in the early years of New Labour. However, it hides a basic problem.

Blair and Brown made a clever (if ultimately fatal) move, in around 2001/2. Working Tax credits brought a huge number of working families effectively out of the tax system. Yes, they paid their taxes like the rest of us, but then the government gave them back again. If they had more than two kids, they were actually in credit! Of course, this was a huge economic stimulus and cancelled out the expected recession. ‘An end to boom and bust’. Remember that! The problem was that to pay for it, they had to rely on big tax revenues from the financial sector, which meant that they didn’t pay too much heed to what was going on. The rest is history.

In the meantime, and after successive defeats campaigning on Thatcherite policies, David Cameron finally realised that, in fact, Tony Blair had the right idea all along, so he tacked left, aligned himself with New Labour, and finally got the top job – but only just.

The point is, for anyone who has read this far, that Right Wing Conservatism, of the sort currently espoused by Nigel Farage, ultimately didn’t work any more than Left Wing Socialism. Both parties realised that the centre ground would get them the votes they needed for power. For John, and other UKIP supporters, that is akin to selling their souls, but if Cameron hadn’t moved left, he would be just the latest in a succession of failed Tory Leaders, we would still have Gordon Brown, and perhaps David Davis would be doing what Ed Milliband is doing now.

The Lib Dems, who came up with the idea in the first place, will lose heavily at the next election, and be confined to the also ran bin, along with many others. There was never going to be four party politics. What we might see is three party politics with UKIP replacing the LibDems for a while, but as has been said above, they need to work out what their policies are. For me, they are little more than a disparate group intent on getting away from Europe, but with no clear idea what to do next.

As time goes by and the new govt. makes known its economic policies

It shows more of your crashing political naivety if you honestly think UKIP can win a general election on a “Leave the EU and keep the wogs out” platform, and make up an economic policy the day after the election.

That isn’t how it works.

Moggy