UKIP: May Contain Loose Nuts.

The forthcoming referendum, which is very likely to be held in late 2017, will have to be a vote by the people against the establishment if we are to leave. That the media attempt to couch a referendum within the context of party politics misses the point entirely; politicians will have the same vote as the rest of us in a poll that is not about electing a political party.

It's for this reason this blog has largely ignored UKIP since May 2015; if the leavers are to win the referendum then party political baggage has to be left at the door regardless of the party allegiances.

However Farage has made it clear that he wishes to take a prominent role in the referendum so his UKIP party protestations are going to have an effect on the outcome. This is especially so when the BBC will undoubtedly use him for interviews, thus adopting the same tactic as it did in the 1975 referendum when only clearly diversive leavers were interviewed, such as Tony Benn and Enoch Powell. This tactic allows the BBC to claim they've upheld impartiality while discreetly undermining the anti-EU position.

So it becomes essential that the leave movement doesn't come across as diversive or lay itself open as an object of ridicule. Thus it is with some depression that we see this morning that Farage claims that he was subjected to an assassination attempt:

Nigel Farage fears he has been the victim of an assassination attempt after his car was sabotaged, causing a terrifying motorway crash.

The Ukip leader careered off a French road after a wheel on his Volvo came loose while he was driving from Brussels back to his home in Kent.

When the police arrived at the scene, they told him that the nuts on all of the wheels had been deliberately unscrewed...

The story was the prominent story on the Daily Mail website first thing this morning, but it gives an indication how little they take the claims seriously that the story dropped much further down the website by mid-morning.

The story also appears to have been given little credence by other media outlets as well - the BBC news has led with flooding stories throughout its television output. It would be tempting to regard this as anti-UKIP bias but a party leader of the country's "fourth party" facing a genuine assassination attempt would have led the media agenda. But it has not.

More likely the story hasn't been taken seriously because Farage's claims have a number of significant questions hanging over it. Why, for example, has Farage:

• ...decided to take no further action, despite "the mechanics were absolutely certain of [foul play]". This after Farage has received "death threats"
•  ...only published the story now, not at the time in October 2015?

That Farage believes loose wheel nuts is an assassination attempt is revealing regarding his priorities and overlooks other possible causes. Loose wheel nuts on a car would tend to lead to a "knocking" noise before it becomes a danger, so there would be significant vibrations which would become more acute and apparent under braking. A visit to a local garage would be normal under these circumstances surely? For reassurance if nothing else.

There are a number of reasons wheel nuts could potentially fail. For example a car can go in for a service and the wheel nuts haven't been tightened properly - garages can be hit and miss in quality of customer service. Even among professionals at the pinnacle of elite sport can prove that they can cock up when it comes to loose wheel nuts.

Another explanation perhaps unlikely, though not impossible, is the potential that persons were attempting to steal the alloy wheels early on but were disturbed during the process leaving the wheel nuts loose.

However more interesting is to note that in 2010 Volvo issued a recall regarding wheel nuts which applied to Farage's Volvo V70 (click to enlarge):

"It has been identified that the standard wheel securing bolts may not have undergone the correct hardening process. This will result in corrosion, a noise and/or vibration. If this condition is not rectified, there is a possibility that the wheel may become loose and detach".

It's interesting that Farage's claim has emerged on the first Sunday of new year - a day of the week traditionally associated with political stories - rather than October last year when it apparently happened. Cynically the timing might not be unexpected, particularly with a party which is clearly fundamentally split and an attempt to shore up his position by trying to define the new year narrative.

Further questions emerge that if Farage has had indeed death threats in the past, as he claims, then why was he driving himself?

Facing death threats mean surely hiring a chauffeur would be a logical option. Not only does it provide a witness but hiring a chauffeur has other benefits. It allows politicians to work during long road trips, it absolves politicians of responsibility during an accident especially if it's politically sensitive and anti-terrorist driver training is virtually compulsory for chauffeurs to top political and business figures in Europe. Surely a priority if facing death threats.

Predictably, in light of Farage's comments, UKIP supporters are making hay on social media with claims reinforcing an invidious belief that the EU is "evil" trying to kill eurosceptics rather than dealing with the issue that the UK's membership is entirely voluntary by Parliament. Our problem lies at home.

Even on a very basic level the EU won't try to kill Farage for the same reason the IRA didn't try to kill Ian Paisley. The IRA were canny enough to appreciate that Paisley was the ultimate recruitment sergeant for their movement. The same applies to Farage.

Thus comments in today's article have simply left the leave campaign open to ridicule, inevitably picked up by social media as mere hyperbole. But Farage's hyperbole is nothing new as we saw with his comments on immigration regarding M4 traffic.

It's clear we either support Farage or we support Brexit - the two are mutually exclusive.

1 Down, 23 To Go

For all the celebrations last May from UKIP at 'winning' the European elections (on a very low turnout), and achieving an unprecedented 24 MEPs, those who had seen it all before were instead mentally marking up the odds of how many UKIP MEPs would be left by 2019.

Anticipation and history suggested strongly that the tally won't be good. UKIP's track record of keeping and maintaining MEPs is remarkably poor. To lose one or two maybe careless but to lose over half during the last Parliamentary session suggests a far more serious problem within the party.

And it's in this context we note that the Telegraph reports that UKIP MEP Bashir has defected to the Conservative Party:

One of the UK Independence Party’s most senior politicians has defected to the Conservatives in a major blow to Nigel Farage’s general election campaign.

Amjad Bashir, a Ukip MEP and the party’s leading Asian figure, told The Telegraph that Ukip had become a “party of ruthless self-interest” that was incapable of delivering a referendum on membership of the European Union. 

Interestingly the Mail also reports the defection with a different headline emphasising perhaps there was a different motive:

A senior Ukip MEP has defected to the Conservative Party as it emerged that he was suspended pending investigations into 'extremely serious financial and employment questions', the party said.

With two contrasting accounts for the defection it's naturally difficult to say for certain which report would be the most accurate. However given that the Mail's 'breaking news' piece had a link to the Telegraph website (which it very rarely does and is now removed) would indicate that Telegraph were planning this for a Sunday scoop. Thus all the signs suggest that having got wind of the defection the Mail has been briefed as a spoiler from sources close to Farage.

Whatever the true reasons though we can only agree with much of Bashir's analysis of UKIP:

In a damning broadside against his former colleagues, he described Ukip as “pretty amateur” and condemned its “ridiculous” lack of policies. He said the party was “delusional” about its chances of winning seats in May.

The lack of UKIP policies has long been issue and has led to defections before. Yet to point this out, even as rather gentle constructive criticism, invited much ridicule.

But the facts are clear, UKIP participated in the European Elections with no manifesto, and despite reassurances to its supporters by Farage leader that there would be a fully costed one by the 2015 general election we see little sign of one. Even here its deja vu all over again:

Ukip's policy chief has quit just six weeks ahead of the party's manifesto launch in February.

Thus UKIP candidates are being thrown into an election campaign with no party policies; a betrayal of those who have to campaign on doorsteps and in hustings meetings. No wonder many of them (maybe in frustration) are in absence sending out to the electorate the 2010 version which was dismissed by Farage as drivel.

So with a general election impending UKIP's catalogue of bad press is increasing substantially. Much of it self-inflicted is now entering its third month and shows no sign of letting up. It's clear there UKIP has significant problems which particularly suggests a deep dissatisfaction with the leadership.

Any idea that UKIP will hold the balance of power or even help the eurosceptic cause secure a referendum is looking wildly over-optimistic.

Leaders' Debates: UK Democracy's Failings In Plain Sight

Within our 'representative democracy' expressed by so-called Parliamentary sovereignty the idea of Prime Minister debates, first instigated in 2010, is absurd if not downright objectionable.

The electorate in a General Election do not vote for the PM, instead they vote for their local MP which helps form a Parliament from which a Prime Minster is chosen.

One often consistent criticism of Gordon Brown's tenure up until the 2010 election was that he was 'not elected'. But of course he was elected - by the constituents of Kirkcaldy and by members of his own party - it was that he simply didn't have an electoral mandate (as neither did Major for example in 1990). Brown's position was less a reflection of the failings of himself and more a reflection of the failings of current Parliamentary system.

More seriously the lack of separation of powers represents a system where MPs become hopelessly compromised - by default. After being elected for 5 years their main objective is to achieve a ministerial career rather than attempt to hold the government to account. They want to join the government not listen to their constituents; which one pays more...?

The constituents of Witney, Doncaster and Sheffield will know this best - their own MPs wear two contradictory hats, a situation that Witterings from Witney knows only too well.

And with this in mind we see Cameron and Miliband, among others, engage in unedifying comments regarding a leadership debate without so much as a by-your-leave to the rest of us:

Did you notice that the letter sent to David Cameron about disputed formats for the election TV debates was itself a delicate contribution to pariah politics? Though identical in contents, as Rowena Mason explains, the missives were dispatched separately by Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg and Nigel Farage. Ed and Nick did not sign the same letter as Nigel, oh dear no.

Thus it's acutely apparent that the entire idea of leadership debates is an admission by the establishment that Parliament is failing and that we, as an electorate, are now effectively voting for the executive - the government and the Prime Minister - by proxy.

This becomes even more (offensively) absurd when we consider that Nigel Farage, although leader of UKIP, is not currently an elected MP even though his party has two elected MPs and Farage himself is currently not on course to win South Thanet seat in May.

Thus more than ever the case becomes stronger that we need to directly elect our Prime Minister - and as a consequence separate out more formally the executive from Parliament. This idea is nothing new, it was proposed back in the 18th Century by Thomas Paine. Although born in England, via Common Sense, he was one of the fiercest critics of what he regarded as British tyranny.

The current, and rather childish standoffs over a Prime Ministerial leadership debate merely confirm that such reform is now very long overdue.

The M4 Motorway And Immigration?

 

It's a fair point to make the case that the significant influx of immigrants in the last 10 years has in a number of cases put intolerable pressure on public services in various parts of the country. Thus we see that Farage attempts to make this point as a reason for being late on Friday at a venue in South Wales:

Nigel Farage today blamed immigrants for clogging up Britain's roads after traffic jams meant he missed an event charging Ukip supporters to meet him.

The Ukip leader said he arrived too late for a £25-a-head drinks reception in Port Talbot because the UK's 'open door immigration' policy meant that the M4 'is not as navigable as it used to be'.

However while we're not sure where exactly Farage was held up on the M4, we would query his assertion 'that open door immigration has meant that the M4 is not as navigable as it used to be'.

Like most motorways, the M4 suffers from congestion at busy periods in various locations along its route and has done so for a long time. Particular problem locations are between Reading and Slough and then around Bristol - with junctions connecting with the M32 and the M5.

More notoriously though the bottlenecks intensify as the M4 travels through South Wales as any regular commuter knows. Not long after crossing the (second) Severn bridge, the M4 becomes two lanes around Newport and Cardiff traveling through the Brynglas Tunnels.

To give an indication of how long this section has been an issue an M4 relief road to bypass the tunnels was proposed back in 1991, way before "open door immigration policy".

Then as we move further on towards Port Talbot, the motorway again reduces down two lanes and junctions 40 and 41 have been temporarily closed as an attempt to improve traffic flow - to local residents dismay.

As the National Transport Plan for Wales noted in 2010:

South-east Wales is densely populated, with significant conurbations at Cardiff and Newport and smaller urban areas nearby. Local and long-distance traffic converge in this region, particularly around the M4 motorway

In addition:

...the motorway around Newport does not conform to today’s motorway standards. It lacks continuous hard shoulders, has closely spaced junctions with sub-standard slip road visibility and narrows to a restricted two lane section through the Brynglas Tunnels. Heavy congestion occurs along this stretch and either side of it at peak hours.

Thus when we factor in that Farage was traveling early on a Friday evening is it any wonder he experienced significant delays. There was of course the train - Brunel built it for a reason.

Yet it's a worrying trend and reflection of UKIP's desire to be a single issue party on immigration that, rather than policy and detail, problems are increasingly being put down to immigration alone. Not only does it lend the party to ridicule but it is toxifying the eurosceptic debate.

That said in the short term UKIP have more pressing matters to attend to.

Delingpole: Another MI5 Agent...

James Delingpole former Telegraph blogger and author of fine works such as this has understandably been an enthusiastic advocate of Farage's party to the extent of attempting to bid to be a UKIP MEP. Take this article from 2nd May 2014 for example:

Since the beginning of the European elections campaign, not a day has passed without some vicious new assault in the media on UKIP. But as we've seen, far from denting UKIP's popularity in the polls all this free publicity - bolstering its status as the rebel-outsider, none-of-the-above party - has seen it go from strength to strength.

The people who aren't part of this Establishment, however, not remotely, are the people in the country at large. They feel, for any of number of reasons, that they have become disenfranchised; that the Establishment looks after its own interests but not theirs.

For some the problem is political correctness; for others it's immigration; for others it's the plethora of regulations over which they feel they have no democratic control regardless of which political party is in power; for others still it's the sense that, despite this blessed recovery we keep reading about in all the newspapers, their standard of living appears to be going down.

It's not so much what UKIP stands for that is attracting so many voters as what it stands against: everything they hate.

And what is the embodiment of everything they hate? The Establishment, of course. No wonder the media arm of this Establishment is as proving as discombobulated as the political wing of this Establishment: they're all in the same boat.

The problem of course with being "anti" anything is that it only gets us so far and then a glass ceiling is always firmly hit. Eventually people will want to know what a party actually stands for. That requires well-worked out policies and detail.

In 2012 Delingpole wrote this (my emphasis):

Look at its manifesto. It's the most reasonable, people-friendly manifesto of any political party in Britain. You might quibble with the details: has its championing of grammar schools been rendered irrelevant by Gove's education reforms? Isn't it fence-sitting, rather, on fox-hunting by declaring it a "local issue." But by God, if we could get a government in power which ticked even half the boxes on UKIP's wish list Britain would once more become a land well worth living in.

Despite Delingpole's praise, this manifesto would subsequently be one that Farage denounced as "drivel". 'Dellers' betrayed like many before him.

So with this in mind it's interesting to note that like many of us ex-Ukippers Delingpole seems to have experienced the well-trodden journey of UKIP membership from hope, to frustrations to then despair - he has somewhat belatedly noticed there is something not quite right:

I'm nervous about UKIP for different reasons. My concern is that if they're not careful they're going to end up just like all the other members of the political class in the LibLabCon bubble - more interested in the pursuit and retention of power by telling special interests groups whatever they want to hear rather than in ideological principle.

The other is the apparent lack of anyone like Margaret Thatcher had — a Keith Joseph, say, or a Norman Tebbit — with the ability to underpin party policy with some intellectual and ideological heft.

What, pray, is the point of voting Ukip into power if all you’re going to get is another bunch of career politicians on the make, aping the cynical, vote-catch opportunism of the usual suspects from LibLabCon? You might get more grammar schools here, fewer wind farms there, but without a clear direction of travel you’d just get another party prey to the inevitable temptations of shoring up its power base with eye-catching initiatives aimed at grasping special interest groups.

Delingpole has spotted what a number of us have; that UKIP is bereft of substance and detailed polices (there's always always a manifesto in preparation) and that the leader is essentially trying to "wing" it.

Another (of so many) examples is Farage not bothering to campaign in the Newark by-election today but instead he has been photographed yet again on the booze accompanied yet again with another female.

Despite legitimate criticisms no doubt, as Compete Bastard notes, Delingpole's article will be "spun" as another example of "sour grapes". (how many more examples do there have to be?):

[Delingpole] is obviously out to get Ukip, and it's all just sour grapes because he didn't get selected to be an MEP.

For a party that's been about for 20 years it still doesn't have a detailed policy on how to exit the damned EU project. Therefore Autonomous Mind has it so right when he says:

This blog has long considered itself a critical friend to UKIP, despite the attacks by those who consider themselves virtuous defenders of the cause.  But if UKIP looks set to hamstring the prospects of the anti-EU side by acting as a repellant rather than a recruiter, then the friendship has to end and UKIP has to be taken on and defeated.

I wish there was an alternative to this.  But there’s far more at stake in a referendum than there is in preserving the ambitions of Nigel Farage.  UKIP’s failings must not be allowed to drag down the chances of the anti-EU side of winning a referendum.

I am often asked just what my agenda is as people cannot believe I want to leave the EU, but remain critical of UKIP.  It is very simple. We need UKIP to sort itself out and shape up, or we need to get it out of the way so we can take on and defeat the Europhiles.

It is no coincidence that so many go through the same experiences. So while Farage goes bonking and boozing around Brussels on the taxpayer, the heavy lifting of how to actually extricate ourselves from the monstrosity is left to others.

Despair and betrayal is an all too familiar pattern with UKIP. And sadly 'Dellers' is not immune either. Who to vote for is the cry. If not UKIP who? The answer is simple - the Lib Dems, currently the outcome will be precisely the same.  

The "Life On Mars" Option Lives On In UKIP...

Not unreasonably we assumed that the question of how we exit from the EU had been resolved by UKIP. Farage made clear that we would need to invoke Article 50 and rightly so for reasons that have been well rehearsed here and elsewhere.

However as can be seen in the image above policy consistency within UKIP on how to exit is still frustratingly elusive. The image has been scanned in from a UKIP newspaper from an article titled "We Expose The Top 10 Myths About The EU".

The paper was delivered to me today along with an election leaflet as part of a campaign for the upcoming Euro elections. Given that the newspaper has not been "localised" in any way we can only assume this newspaper has been sent to households across the country as part of a nation-wide campaign.

We are initially perplexed why a UKIP newspaper directly contradicts Farage himself on major party policy? In addition it is an idea that prompts a "head in the hands" moment that we can undo 40 years of integration, trade agreements and regulation in one single day and carry on as normal. It is simply beyond a joke.

To give an example of the complexity of international relations, the UK's entry into the then EEC took 11 years - we first began negotiations in 1961 and didn't sign a formal agreement until 1972.

Another example is Greenland, a vastly smaller country than ourselves who voted to leave the then EEC in a referendum in 1981. But it wasn't until 1985 that a Treaty was formalised. It was hugely complex and even now it still has a special relationship with the EU as part of its overseas countries and territories.

Switzerland demonstrates other complexities with its bilateral agreements which are now falling apart; bilateral agreements which are still ongoing 22 years after rejecting the EEA agreement in 1992.

Thus should we have an "in-out" referendum the europhiles and the pro-EU media would rip the "Life On Mars" option to pieces, liberally sprinkled with FUD on top. Any referendum would certainly be lost.

I guess though on a very slightly upbeat note if nothing else at least the UKIP paper resolves one long running dilemma for me. I have always been a very reluctant participant in Euro elections. If I voted at all, it was always done through very gritted teeth. To vote in the Euro elections is, for me, to legitimise a system I fundamentally disagree with.

However I understood the pragmatic point that the Euro elections provided a political platform - and money - to help UKIP grow in the face of a hostile domestic political system which inherently is heavily weighed against the rise of new parties.

Yet despite 15 years of MEPs, and all the money that goes with that, UKIP has still failed to provide any coherent strategy or plan to leave. A failure compounded by the fact that very workable and coherent strategies are freely available on the internet, not least by Richard North.

This then leads to two conclusions; that a vote for UKIP is to put more people on the MEP gravy train for no obvious benefit to the eurosceptic cause, and even worse that a vote for UKIP would actually mean we remain in the EU for generations to come by virtue of losing any forthcoming referendum due to a complete lack of a feasible workable exit plan.

The question is often asked when critising UKIP, if not them then who? The answer is now simple - no-one. A vote for UKIP is no different than a vote for the Tories, Labour and the Lib Dems: The outcome will be precisely the same - we remain EU members.

After 20 years what a waste...

Rats Leaving A Sinking Ship?

The Times behind a paywall but available elsewhere reports another Farage expenses scandal:

Nigel Farage faces an expenses investigation into almost £60,000 of “missing” European Union funds paid into his personal bank account.

Of course Farage, expenses scandals and his reluctance to publish detailed accounts are nothing new. What's becoming clear though is that there is an element of rats leaving sinking ships within UKIP - in this case information is being provided by "former party officials". Some are wanting to distance themselves...

Newspapers have a number of serious investigations ongoing and they are beginning to close in. Interestingly Farage has this to say:

"And what we are seeing here from The Times - I mean not that I'm surprised because we have been expecting this - we are seeing yet another politically motivated attack from what is the establishment newspaper."

I'm not surprised he's been expecting it...the Times is warming up for the "big one". The sharks are circling...

All of this deeply saddens me as a long time anti EU campaigner. After 20 years what a waste...

Farage Compares UKIP To Millwall Football Club

Autonomous Mind today highlights the contrast in coverage of the Conservatives and the coverage of UKIP. The UKIP’s stories clearly concentrate on the antics of leader Nigel Farage which is hardly surprising given that the man is the party and the party is the man.

As a consquence it’s not UKIP policies that take precedent but Farage himself still having to justify and deny allegations yet again about his private life – all the while consuming yet more copious quantities of alcohol.

Now it’s true that the Mail on Sunday article portrays a far from sympathetic tone, for example this particular paragraph:

[Farage] had no time for the homeless man who tried to sell him The Big Issue, ignoring him completely.

After the bedraggled toothless chap eventually gave up and trudged off, Farage quipped: ‘That’s the first Big Issue seller I’ve come across for a while who isn’t a Romanian immigrant!’

He doesn’t ‘do’ compassion.

In another article we have this:

UKIP leader Nigel Farage has come under fire for using taxpayers' money to pay for a swanky penthouse suite in Brussels.

The Euro MP, who has previously criticised the European Union for its wastefulness, is renting the luxury property in one of the most exclusive addresses in the Belgian capital.

In many ways it comes as little surprise that newspapers adopt a hostile tone. When a party aims to overturn the establishment status quo in terms of EU membership, the cosy alliance of the three biggest parties and the media’s self-interest in maintaining that status quo, any upstart is undoubtedly going to be treated unfairly.

The crucial strategy when fighting the status quo is to become grudgingly respected if not liked. This can be achieved by dealing with policy detail, establishing oneself as an authority on a subject (in UKIP’s case the EU) and - in contrast to others - being seen to be above board in honesty; for example not employing your wife, and mistress, on the taxpayers' expense.

Thus that UKIP would be subjected to smears is no surprise. However shallow smears can always be conteracted by substance. Without substance empty rhetoric is no defence.

The crucial point with UKIP is how much are smears and how much is true? Ironically we turn to Farage to answer this question. He does so by comparing UKIP to Millwall Football Club:

‘We’re like Millwall Football Club, “Everyone hates us and we don’t care!”

Firstly I would suggest that as a leader of a political party it's not entirely conducive to revel in the principle of "everyone hates us, we don’t care". It tends not to result in many votes.

It's true that Millwall's famous chant of: "no-one likes us, we don't care" is a masterpiece of defiance, in tune I guess with some aspects of UKIP which Farage indulges in. Yet conversely it is also a masterpiece of irony. If Millwall supporters truly didn't care, their club would not be defined by a chant that said they didn't.

But more importantly why has Farage compared UKIP to Millwall at all – a club that is associated with thuggery and violence? Even those of a non-football persuasion are fully aware of Millwall’s toxic reputation. Is Farage suggesting they’re all angels simply misunderstood?

We do not doubt that many Millwall fans are normal law-abiding supporters, unfortunately tarnished as they are by their club's reputation. Yet as a club they didn’t earn their infamy through unfairness.

No-one sat looking at a map and stuck a pin highlighting South Bermondsey saying let’s just pick on these chaps for no reason. Millwall earned their reputation. They can complain all they like that they are singled out but a mirror is sometimes useful. Yes their coverage is often unfavourable but a significant number don't do the club any favours.

So in many ways Farage's analogy was correct in a way he probably did not intend. Many of those in UKIP are hardworking volunteers let down by a minority. With no exit plan, a lack of a decent website, a party bereft of policies that are not “drivel” is it any wonder that the media have little else to concentrate on?

So a great deal of one of the Daily Mail articles contains Farage having to deny that he had an affair with Annabelle Fuller:

Has he had sex with Annabelle Fuller? ‘I don’t think we should go into the grisly details.’

Has he slept with her? ‘No.’ Has he kissed her? ‘No. When you work in a tight team, I understand why people might get the wrong idea.’

Why hadn’t he denied it immediately in the European Parliament? Farage falls back on his best weapon: wit. ‘There’s an old saying, if you pick a fight with a chimney sweep you get covered in soot!’

A denial despite that this has been an open secret in the party for years and Fuller herself has openingly boasted about said liason to UKIP delegates in the past. Farage is being less than candid here. Ultimately regardless of Farage's unconvincing response the entire episode detracts from any kind of important issues that UKIP might campaign on. His personal life, paid for by the taxpayer is becoming a hinderance.

And still there is much more to be released about Farage and his entourage. That they have not been made public in media is down to use of Carter Ruck. Thus we suspect that some of the current "smears" are schadenfreude on behalf of journalists who have been on the receiving end of Carter Ruck when investigating numerous alleged misdemeanours - resulting in non-disclosure settlements. For some journalists, with fingers burnt, it's become personal.

Like Millwall, there are smears and facts – and often the former depends heavily on the latter. Criticising those that point out that the emperor has no clothes does not necessarily make them incorrect however uncomfortable the truth.

In the spirit of Farage we'll use another football analogy - we may criticise the manager if he's not up to it, but to do so does not make us a lesser supporter of our club.

A Man Without A Plan

“A goal without a plan is just a wish.”

Antoine de Saint-Exupéry

Whether Scotland later this year agrees to go it alone or to remain part of the UK is of course a matter for them. What is interesting though about the campaign is how it it reveals with great clarity the problems with winning a referendum on removing a country from a union - changing the status quo. There are lessons in abundance that can be learned from the Scottish experience when considering the removal of the UK from another (albeit different type of) union - that of the EU.

The arguments of whether the Scottish people should run their own affairs democratically has been deliberately reduced down to mainly economic arguments by the Unionists; the Westminster village has closed ranks by taking advantage of the SNP's lack of preparation with regard to currency and undermining the independence case by opposing a currency union.

The three main Westminster parties are to declare that whoever forms the next UK government will not enter a currency union with an independent Scotland.

And FUD regarding Scottish exit has been in full flow:

Finance experts, academics and business leaders have raised fears that independence would destroy the economy, hit investment and force companies to migrate to England.

Words like "disaster" and "destroy" sound very familiar and is a foretaste of what we can expect come an EU referendum. Removing a country from a union needs an effective exit plan - in short a man with a plan - to negate the inherent fear factor. But as I've noted here and here, such a coherent strategy has been sorely lacking with the SNP and it is very likely to cost Salmond, and those supporting Scottish independence, the referendum.

As recent polling shows the independence vote is trailing significantly:

• Support for independence is 29%
  
• Support for remaining in the Union is 42%
• Don't knows 29%

Support for remaining part of the UK leads by a big margin, add into that the "status quo effect" inherent in any referendum and the fear factor on the "don't knows" and the campaign for Scottish independence looks doomed. Paddy Power's current odds are 2/11 against independence and 10/3 for. It would take a brave man to bet on Scottish independence.

With the referendum getting ever closer we can expect a ramping up of the same scare-mongering tactics. One such example is the Spectator this week where Alistair Daring exposes the weak links in Salmond's case:

Alex Salmond is now a man without a plan. He is offering Scots a future of uncertainty and instability. Threats of a debt default leaving Scotland and Scots with a bad credit rating. No idea which currency we would be transitioning to.

By contrast if Scots want to know the benefit of remaining in the UK, they need only reach into their pockets and pull out a pound coin. We have one of the most trusted, secure currencies in the world. We have the financial back up of being part of one of the biggest economies in the world. The pound means more jobs, smaller mortgage repayments, cheaper credit card bills and lower prices in the supermarket. Why would we gamble that for an unknown currency?

And so on...

Of course this isn’t the first part of their White Paper that has fallen apart. A few days ago Scotland’s accountants were damning in their assessment that there was no plan for paying pensions. The SNP’s own expert group admitted there was no plan for paying benefits. This is too big a decision to make without having a real plan.

Salmond has been criticised for the lack of preparation as 62% of Scots in a poll last year think the SNP's case is "not very convincing":

According to the survey for the pro-union Better Together group, 62 per cent of people said the SNP case was either “not very convincing” or “not convincing at all”. Twenty-four per cent of the doubters voted SNP in the last Holyrood election.

Thus as the SNP demonstrate having a referendum and being ill-prepared, leaves any independence campaign woefully exposed.

Be careful what you wish for...

Are UKIP The New Judas Goats?

I have been in two minds whether to publish this post or not. While it may not always be apparent on this blog, I tend to pull my punches when it comes to criticism of UKIP.  And I do so out of deference to the many hard working UKIP volunteers on the ground (of which I have also been one of them). They are the unsung heroes of the cause- the backbone of the party.

On the other hand there is also the consideration that some issues within UKIP need to be addressed – the issues that fundamentally, and possibly fatally, undermine the very same hard work by volunteers. It saddens me and frustrates me greatly.

I rejoined UKIP just over a year ago – albeit reluctantly - trying to help out with the impending local elections in May 2013. My membership now over a year old expired last month and I have taken the reluctant decision to let it lapse without renewing it.

The final straw for me I guess was Farage’s recent description of the 2010 manifesto as “drivel”:

"Malcolm Pearson, who was leader at the time, was picked up in interviews for not knowing the manifesto.

"Of course he didn't - it was 486 pages of excessive detail. Eighteen months ago I said I want the whole lot taken down, we reject the whole thing...

"I didn't read it. It was drivel. It was 486 pages of drivel...It was a nonsense. We have put that behind us and moved onto a professional footing."

This would be the same "drivel" manifesto that Farage and Lord Pearson signed and approved of:

Mr Farage signed the foreword to the 2010 manifesto as the "chief party spokesman," along with Lord Pearson and Mr Campbell Bannerman.

The clue here though is David Campbell Bannerman, the man who drew up the 2010 document, and then later defected back to the Tories.

As a consequence under intense questioning from BBC's Andrew Neil, Farage decided to make a personal dig at Campbell Bannerman by dismissing the manifesto in derogatory terms. For the sake of the party he could have instead played a straight bat and simply argued that UKIP had moved on from 2010. But the personal dig was evidently more important – further evidence that UKIP is Nigel Farage’s plaything.

Nothing demonstrates Farage's priorities more clearly than when he is prepared to effective dismiss for personal gain, not only the work of those who spent their time drawing up the manifesto, but the hundreds of UKIP volunteers (in the main) who stood in 2010 in front of hustings meetings, and knocked on doors, defending that manifesto.

Only now are they to be told that Nigel thinks it was all "drivel" despite him approving it at the time and standing at the last election on its promises. Well thanks a lot Nigel... for knowingly sending out hard-working volunteers to the electorate with nothing more than “drivel” to defend themselves. His comments are quite a smack in the face to UKIP members from the “Dear Leader”.

With no surprise the fallout from Farage's comments has already happened, UKIP supporters' arguments are now easily dismissed by using their leader's remarks, as Dr Eric Edmond observed:

Click on link to call Clegg to see how the Lib Dems are profiting from Farage's stupidity. The relevant call is about 10 minutes into the tape. Clegg was able to brush off a UKIP supporter by simply refering him to Farage's denouncing of the 2010 manifesto and decent honest hard working UKIP members.

All that hard work undone by one interview. And, as to the next manifesto for 2015, how do we know that this one won't be "drivel" as well? It's certain that Farage will be asked whether the next manfesto is "drivel"; questions will be asked as to its content in those terms.

Then reflecting on the running theme throughout UKIP's history we have another example of "falling out with Nigel", by Nigel's drinking partner Godfrey Bloom no less: Godfrey Bloom has hit out at Nigel Farage for scrapping Ukip's 2010 manifesto, saying the party has adopted a "no-policy policy":

In a strongly-worded warning to his former colleagues, the independent MEP said the party was turning into a "don't-frighten-the-horses, all-things-to-all-men, pale blue party. The current lurch to the no-policy policy will damage Ukip in 2015,"

Nigel seems to have developed an unhealthy habit of "falling out" with people; UKIP's history is littered with many many examples. Thus Bloom's comments resonate. Though it's worth noting that Bloom was quite happy to take the shilling while on board the EU gravy train without complaint and many of his troubles have been brought upon himself by himself.

We have evidence of UKIP's "no-policy policy" when we come to the recent flooding, particularly in the Somerset Levels which has dominated the headlines. As Richard North and Booker have demonstrated there is a very significant EU dimension to the Somerset floodings. This is a complete open goal for UKIP if ever there was one regarding how our country is run - low hanging fruit in plain sight.

It's a chance for Farage and UKIP to lead the media debate, a chance to fully expose normally secret EU laws, a chance to reveal the damage EU laws are having on our country when flooding has and will dominate the headlines for weeks. But no, Farage chooses not to despite being informed of the details. Instead the leader of the UK's most prominent Eurosceptic party has this to say (via Autonomous Mind):

I don’t know the truth to the extent the Environment Agency is now bound by European Union rules and laws, I just don’t know, which is why we need to have a public inquiry.

That is an astonishingly pathetic response. Where's the detail? Where's the research?

What is clear is that UKIP - by its leader's actions - is removing itself from the EU debate. The question is why? We are reminded of Dan Hannan who indulges in convoluted intellectual gymnastics to pretend he supports exit from the EU but acknowledges as a consequence inadvertently that his priority is power which comes via his membership of his party.

In light of Farage's deep reluctance to highlight the EU's involvement in the current flooding crisis, does one conclude he doesn’t want to upset the establishment after all? Is he a Judas goat - not really wanting EU exit because it would not mean being a member of this or does he really want to become a member of this.

Like many I voted, and joined UKIP, because I had no other political home to go to with regard to EU membership. Sadly as an opponent of our membership of the EU, the clear policy of UKIP to now vacate that arena means I no longer really have anyone to vote for at all.

Farage's current actions are a betrayal of the hard working volunteers; they - we - deserve much better.

Scientology And Other Matters

Tim Stanley from the Telegraph makes an interesting case about the cult-like behaviour of a seemingly substantial number of UKIP members. He doesn't say the words "cult-like" of course but that's what it is - that some in the party and/or UKIP voters are unable to cope with any criticism no matter how slight or well-intentioned it is:

The trouble is, [UKIP] needs more than just leaders. Slowly, it draws to itself activists who are essentially refugees from mainstream politics. Most of them are reasonable people. Many are not. For example, when Mr Farage made the humane case for accepting refugees from Syria, the Ukip Facebook page came alight with angry commentary. “Have you been smoking crack with Toronto’s mayor?” asked one. Another: “Sorry nigel dont agree. This country is full now but with more scum headed our way in a few days.” And another: “keep out of UK its full up ENGLISH are the ethnic minority now.” Someone even asked whether Nigel was being bankrolled by “the Muslims”.

I’ve experienced this unpleasantness at first hand. I have been making a series of tongue-in-cheek online videos for the Telegraph that offer “five top tips” for the party leaders on how not to mess things up in 2014. The one I filmed for Ukip was intended to be as light-hearted as Mr Farage himself: keep Godfrey Bloom under lock and key, avoid Scotland, read your own manifesto. The emails and thousands of comments that followed contained personal vitriol of the sort you rarely get from any other party supporter — and that would probably horrify reasonable Ukip sympathisers. Common themes were my ugliness, youth, class and sexuality. [We moderate comments, but you'll find plenty of belters on YouTube].

...why should any reporter write nicely about a party whose supporters throw homophobic insults at them? Especially when “Ukippers” effectively write their own negative headlines. It wasn’t journalists who made Godfrey Bloom refer to women as “sluts”. It wasn’t the media that made Lord Pearson forget the contents of Ukip’s own manifesto. And it is far too easy to find one of the party’s activists willing to say something derogatory about a minority.

Given that UKIP is a threat to the established order, and that the media in general see UKIP as a problem to be eradicated, it is tempting to dismiss Tim Stanley's comments as part of an establishment which aim to belittle the party. Yet looking through the comments below Tim's piece they largely make the point for him. They illustrate quite clearly that anything mildly critical is tantamount to heresy.

Sadly this is also personal experience, and experience of fellow bloggers, which suggest that Tim's comments are uncomfortably accurate.

For example to merely venture on this blog the (not unreasonable) point that UKIP has failed in the 20 years of its existence to offer a coherent exit plan brings out rapid condemnation, despite the obvious fact UKIP has many well paid MEPs yet there is no real policy on the matter. This is a point that has been made elsewhere. 

Revealingly only by the phenomenal hard work of Richard North (unpaid) has there been an attempt to answer the longstanding question about Brexit and how it can be done. And he has done it by putting forward a very coherent and detailed argument in terms of the "Norway" option which has been shortlisted for the IEA Brexit prize. To point out the lack of such a policy where UKIP is concerned though is heresy.

Autonomous Mind has had similiar problems when he makes the following justifiable points:

For as long as I choose to blog (which may not be much longer given the way I am feeling), shutting up about it isn’t an option for the simple reason that, rightly or wrongly, Farage is seen by many as the head of the Eurosceptic movement by virtue of his position as UKIP leader.  If he fails, the Eurosceptic cause will fail.  Hoping no one will notice the failings by keeping quiet about them is not the way to get the problems addressed.  In speaking out I am not trying to ‘do down’ or undermine UKIP.  I am trying to draw attention to what needs to be improved in the hope more people will apply pressure for change.

And Witterings From Witney too:

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

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

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

And Richard North:

But it was just as badly "fixed" in 2004 and then again in 2009, when Nattrass was a beneficiary of the system that made him an MEP. Only now, though, when he has fallen out with The Great Leader, and become a victim of a rigged system that also brought in Farage's drinking mate, Godfrey Bloom, does Nattrass go public and complain.

This desperately weakens the power of Nattrass's complaint, and the UKIP cult members have been quick to point this out. But this is the standard fare of the cult, which specialises in blackening the names of detractors. They will do anything but concede the truth and admit that, even though Nattrass is not the most sympathetic of characters, he is not necessarily wrong.

In fact, we don't really need to rehearse the issues, once more. Most recently, it was Will Gilpin and before him many more, all saying roughly the same thing. Again and again, we see the same charge: Nigel Farage "only wants people in the party who agree with him". More particularly, he surrounds himself with sycophants and, from Sked onward, levers out those who present a challenge to him.

That is probably the way it is going to be for as long as Farage has a grip on the reins of power within the tiny pond that is UKIP, but it also typifies small party politics, which get caught up in the grip of a single individual – as with the BNP and Nick Griffin. The test will be whether UKIP can survive the demise of Farage, and rebuild itself without falling prey to the cult of The Great Leader.

And we come back to Tim Stanley who believes the party needs a "chill pill" (an ungainly phrase):

Believe it or not, Ukip needs to lighten up

It's not a "chill pill" UKIP needs, instead it's grown up policies, detail, strategy and above all maturity - the recognition that politics is a very rough game where criticism comes with the territory, and not all of it is unfriendly or malicious. However in the absence of this we see a cult in the form of Nigel Farage's UKIP, not too disimilar to the 'cult' of some in the media who have a "love affair" with Cameron:

In a very unhealthy way, party politics in the UK is beginning to develop a feel not dissimilar to that of North Korea where, amongst the faithful, only expressions of the most abject adoration are permitted.

Sadly, though, with the cult of the leader also comes the cult of the follower. The lumpen masses, mindless and inert, demand leadership before they can begin to exert themselves. Gone is the initiative, independence and assertiveness that once made our nation great. We whinge and whine that we have no leaders, and then demand absolute fealty to our anointed ones, whom we are expected to follow over the edge of a cliff if demanded.

Thus those not in awe of the "Great Leader" become a 'Suppressive Person'. This is no way to exit the EU.

Revolution?

With membership of the EU comes the free movement of people. This is a fundamental principle of the EU. So when we see apparent regrets over immigration from former Labour Minister Jack Straw, who like many in Labour supports membership, we can only conclude his real regret was not to delay the influx for seven years which would have conveniently dumped the problem on Cameron’s lap:

"Other existing EU members, notably France and Germany, decided to stick to the general rule which prevented migrants from these new states from working until 2011. But we thought that it would be good for Britain if these folk could come and work here from 2004”.

This 'blame the Tories' mentality is illustrated neatly by David Blunkett:

[Blunkett] also accused the government of "burying their head in the sand" over the scale of Roma settlement in the UK.

It’s irrelevant whether they came here in 2004 or in 2011. It’s just a question of time, it doesn’t alter the fact we have lost control of our borders, which is completely in line with EU law. Losing control of borders is both Labour and Tory policy. (Incidentally one notes the more sympathetic treatment Blunkett gets over potentially inflammatory language in contrast with Farage on the issue of immigration).

Thus with the opening of our borders in a few weeks time to Romanian and Bulgarian immigrants (the EU seven year limit expires) we get small-minded Westminster squabbling trying desperately to hide the EU elephant in the room. But squabbling is all it is, nothing will be done, no action taken. Our impotency laid bare. Whether we as a country agree with mass immigration or multi-culturalism is not relevant, the crucial point is we weren’t asked.

But that politicians can get away with this is because our so-called fourth estate fails to scrutinise our Parliament properly. Nothing illustrates this better than Peter Oborne in the Telegraph who writes one of the most stupid bone-headed comments I've read in a long time. A man who has been privately educated, went to Cambridge and gloated over his “predictions” of the failure of the Euro in his "Guilty Men" pamphlet writes the following without any sense of irony: 

The decision will be enforced by anonymous officials and jurists. Without intending to, the European Union is turning into the enemy of democracy

Without intending to? How can such stupidity exist? From a paid journalist? One is inclined to bash the bloke over the head with a copy of the Treaty of Rome or better still batter him with a hardback copy of the Great Deception.

What the immigration question highlights though with great clarity is those at the coal face of everyday life have to suffer the consequences of decisions made by those with the money and means to make themselves immune from those very same consequences.

Our system is broken, it's in desperate need of repair.

Shooting Oneself In The Foot

It was easily foreseeable, with the 'positive' coverage over the Rotherham scandal and the recent good news over Ukip's standing in the polls that come with it would be ever more scrutiny. Once you start knocking on the door of the establishment with a view to changing it, then 'the Empire is going to strike back'.

Ukip candidates up and down the land are going to come under far more scrutiny, as are Ukip policies. So it doesn't help when for one reason or another Ukip don't do themselves any favours:

A UKIP candidate has been blasted after calling for the compulsory abortion of any foetus with Down's syndrome or spina bifida.

Which indeed he has:

"...compulsory abortion when the foetus is detected as having Downs, Spina Bifida or similar syndrome which, if it is born, could render the child a burden on the state as well as on the family. "

The 'personal manifesto' released as a Ukip council candidate is an amateurish ranting tour de force that contains a goldmine of quotes for the media eager to shoot the Ukip fox, whether one agrees with his points or not. Thus it's simply not good enough to then state this:

CLARIFICATION TO AVOID CONFUSION AND MISREPRESENTATION: I do not, and UKIP does not, endorse any of these ideas: they are suggestions of matters for the review body to properly consider in light of the stated desire of all political parties to reduce the national debt.

Ukip will be damaged by association, it's inevitable and obvious, and it undoes a lot of work by hard working Ukip members. Ironically he states:

We are far too sqeamish [sic] about attacking our opponents. We must attack them mercilessly, remorselessly and harshly.

Well he's about to find out what it's like to be on the receiving end. And Ukip wonder why they have no MP's?

Details...

Nigel Farage appeared on today's Sunday Politics show, questioned by the formidable Andrew Neil...He appears circa 12:20 in...

As Ukip improve in polls ratings the scrutiny will intensify...power will protect its own. Farage made some good points about trade, but he has to up his game when it comes to details on Ukip policies.

Ken Livingstone Agrees With UKIP

From UKK41 is this interview on Sky between Ken Livingstone and Nigel Farage on the Euro. It's notable that Ken almost turns into a recruiting agent for UKIP, agreeing as he does with Nigel on many points.



One should be always careful with all things Ken and motives, although it's worth noting that Labour have historically had a better history of Euroscepticism than the Tories. What certainly seems true is momentum is building for at least one of the main parties to offer a referendum of sorts on our membership.

The only question left therefore is what's going to come first? A UK referendum or the collapse of the Euro?

What Isn't Said

The Spectator has an interview with Nigel Farage, on a subject that I commented on a previous post. However note another article in the same magazine and bear in mind the following quote taken from it when reading the post in full...

James Forsyth also provides an insight into his interview with Nigel Farage — who was keener to go the pub than eat — and his offer to run joint UKIP-Tory candidates at the next general election.

Irony On Stilts

The main purpose of the EU, from the very beginning, has been to abolish the nation state and to destroy democracy. The founding fathers have always made this very clear. And partly to achieve this, with significant irony, the EU has adopted all the trappings of a country in all but name. This is aptly demonstrated by the shameless lack of democracy, involving Nigel Farage shown in the clip below (1:40 mins in)



The President of the EU Parliament, Martin Schulz, says:

Nationalism is propagated, in this house, by those who wear flags on their desk and nationalism on their sleeve.

So says Schulz, a member of the EU, an institution which thinks that the solution to try to destroy any kind of national identity needs a flag, a national anthem, effectively a capital, and a European identity.

Presumably when the EU gets around to producing its own dictionary, the phrase 'self-awareness' will be noticeably absent.

hattip: Ironies Too

Compare And Contrast

Compare the interview that Ken Livingstone gets on Andrew Marr (circa 25:00 mins in - also worth watching Jon Simpson on the paper reviews earlier - being biased and then trying to deny it) and what Nigel Farage endures on the Politics Show later (circa 8:00 mins in, with an intro that is less than ...erm... balanced).

Going by this interview presenter Jon Sopel's own views are obvious - his line of questioning is clearly seen to be less to do with holding a politician to account on his policies but more to do with expressing his personal views. I know this is "do bears shit in the woods" stuff but it really is a disgrace.

Contagion

A word that has up to now only applied to the mounting Euro crisis, is more and more being used to describe the growing political EU disobedience, It's becoming pretty clear that the EU political class is running scared. As an example here's the Guardian on the Slovakian 'no' (my emphasis):

As the dust settled after Slovakia's rejection of the euro bailout, politicians all over Europe were trying to figure out how a tiny party with just 22 MPs and only 300 members had managed to put such a spanner in the works – a feat that had eluded far bigger eurosceptic parties in the other 16 eurozone countries.

The soon-to-be-ex-prime minister, Iveta Radicova, was in no doubt that it was the fringe Freedom and Solidarity (SaS) party, a member of her own ruling coalition, that had sabotaged the bill and caused the government to collapse. In an ill-tempered press conference following Tuesday night's vote, she railed at the "irresponsible" and "populist" politics of the SaS, which she said had failed to realise that "we are a small and export-oriented economy, and we need partners around us".

Slovakia will undoubtedly pass the bailout measure eventually, as predicted, but what is significant is one by one democratic EU countries, such as; Finland, Germany and Slovakia are starting to say no to Europe:

Slovakia’s cry of defiance has not been entirely pointless. Richard Sulik – the speaker of parliament – has caught a mood of popular disgust that goes far beyond his own country.

The flawed EU 'not even God can sink this' ship has hit the democratic iceberg.

Stupid

Nigel Farage and Shami Chakrabarti were on BBC's Andrew Marr this morning reviewing the papers. Naturally the subject of the EU was broached, over Milly Dowler and capital punishment, the Greek crisis and the Olympic ticket farce. This prompted Chakrabarti to comment (from memory, the transcript's not yet up):

"It's amazing how you manged to get the EU into every subject".

Now I wonder why that would be? You would hope that eventually Miss Chakrabarti might work out the answer for herself, but probably not.