Farage Wins UKIP Leadership Race

Since many Journo's are on strike, here is the press release.

UKIP Leadership Announcement

Nigel Farage MEP has been re-elected as Leader of the UK Independence Party.

Mr Farage, 46, was elected by UKIP members with a total vote of 6,085 or 60.5% of the 10,073 votes cast.
The unsuccessful candidates and their voting tallies were:

Tim Congdon 2,037 (20.2%)
David Campbell Bannerman 1,404 (14%)
Winston McKenzie 530 (5.3%)

It is his second term as leader, his first came to an end after he had stood down before the last General Election to fight Speaker John Bercow for his seat of Buckingham.

Here is his acceptance speech in full:

I would firstly like to thank the UKIP electorate once more for putting their faith in me. I would also like to give thanks for being alive, for being here and for having the chance to take on this role again. I really did have the most miraculous escape from that plane crash. I must also give thanks to my family who, once again, will have to pay the price for me doing this job.

I note with delight that today is November 5th, a symbolic day of an attempt to overthrow the political class, although I promise our methods will be peaceful.

Being leader of UKIP is a job I have done before and I led the party in the European Elections of 2009 to second place across the entire United Kingdom. If I was bold before the accident, I'm fearless now.

And this is the time to be fearless; to be strong and decisive and to push for what we believe in. For never have the political classes been more out of touch with public opinion.

Patriotic Old Labour voters have known this for a long time. The Traditional Liberals are also finding it hard to recognise what the Liberal Democrats have become.

But for millions of Tory voters, the last few months have been something of a shock.

For years I was told 'The Tories are playing a very clever game' and 'Just wait until David gets in'.

Well, David is in. And his international policy is simple:

Surrender, Surrender, Surrender.

Patriotic Eurosceptic Tories are beginning to realise that under David Cameron and William Hague their party has ceased to exist. Quite simply, they've given up. Remember the cast-iron pledge of a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty? They turned their back on it and now only UKIP are prepared to put the question to the British people.

In no single area does our national interest come first.

Look at the economy, with cuts made in almost all areas of public life except the EU budget. In December I will lead the UKIP MEPs in voting against not only the 6% rise proposed by the European Parliament but also the 2.9% rise we think is an insult to British tax payers and Mr Cameron thinks is some sort of victory.

And their defence policy reads like the script of a Gilbert and Sullivan farce. Carriers without planes and 50 year treaties with France; troop numbers at risk when we are facing the hardest fighting since the Second World War. Our Armed Forces should be completely at the command of the British government: they take an oath to The Queen as their Commander in Chief not Nicolas Sarkozy. We must take back full control of our defence forces.

As for immigration, well every single assurance the Tory Party has made has proved to be valueless. Now we don't just have an open door to the Bulgarian criminals gangs but a million Moldavians have been given EU passports and a new trade deal with India is being negotiated which proposes not just trade but an open door to the entire Indian work force into the United Kingdom. Every assurance on immigration caps is meaningless. The only people who should decide who comes to live, work and settle in this country should be the British people themselves through their own parliament.

But the acceptance by the coalition of the EU Foreign Policy and the formation of an EU External Action Service under the ludicrous Baroness Ashton is a policy which should make the Tories hang their head in shame. The woman that no one dares to criticise, a woman who has never been elected to anything apart from her successful position as treasurer of CND. Well I dare. Closing British embassies and replacing them with EU ones doesn't give the UK a bigger influence in the world.

And despite receiving millions of pounds from city sources, Mr Cameron has given away total control of the UK's biggest industry to three EU regulators. It is now an irrelevance who forms the British government now if you work in financial services. In all areas of our public life, UKIP is the only party saying let's take back control.

Sadly, there isn't time to mention the £8.7 billion being spent on dubious foreign aid or giving the vote to rapists and murderers; the wasted billions on useless windfarms and the closing down of British industry because of carbon credits.

In 'defending' the national interest, David Cameron has let the country down like a cheap pair of braces.

Britain needs a party that puts British interests first.

UKIP is that party, but it needs to up its game.

I'm appealing to people who believe in the UKIP message that the best people to govern Britain are the British people themselves; not to just agree with us, or lend us their vote at European Elections.

I'm appealing for them to join us, to get involved in this battle against our political classes. When David Cameron talked about the 'Big Society' I had no idea what he was talking about. Well, here's my version of it. Let's create the Big Society of law abiding, tax paying, patriotic people and urge them to join us in this battle against our gutless political classes.

Help us to make UKIP a force to be reckoned with.

Thank you.

Where To Go Now?

Well it’s all over and done with and we are stuck with a hung Parliament. It seems the only way to break the deadlock is to win the Lib Dems over with a promise to change the voting system to one that will almost always ensure a coalition is needed. The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats are similar enough that they could probably find enough common ground to govern for a time.

I hope that FPTP can be preserved for the Commons, but there needs to be an urgent review of the constituency sizes and perhaps even boundaries which have benefitted Labour so greatly. This is not this first election in recent history where Labour has benefitted from the status quo. Cameron has got about the same share of the vote as Blair in 2005 and has fallen short in term seats; all parties and candidates should be on a level playing field; the electoral commission has some questions to answer on why it has not moved to take more corrective action.  We only need to look to this election where the third party is now dictating to the winner about what they want for there to be a functioning government to get a sense of how all future governments under PR would be formed.

For Cameron perhaps a wholly elected Lords using PR will allow him to seal the deal with the Lib Dems?

I am left wondering where I personally should go now? As regulars will know I am one of those disgruntled Tories who no longer wishes to support them because of the direction Mr Cameron is taking them. My objection is mostly on the Conservative position on continued membership of the EU. I do not believe the UK is benefitting from membership, in my heart I loathe the fact that 85% of our laws are made in a fashion I believe to be undemocratic. Furthermore I am tired of more and more powers being handed over.

I describe the EU as undemocratic but the truth is it is more anti-democratic in nature. One only has to look at how the EU is set up to be undemocratic despite the presence of a “parliament” which is unable to propose or initiate laws; it is a facade conceived so as to give the appearance of a democratic centre. The ruthless pursuit of it’s agenda and it’s willingness to break it’s own laws when it suits the Euro project makes the EU project a dangerous one for freedom loving democrats like myself. It is a totalitarian construct. It has achieved, or is still working to achieve every single aim it has set out for; you cannot defeat the will of the EU ruling classes; rare defeats in the past has been temporary as the EU ALWAYS eventually gets it way.

So which party does somebody of a right wing political agenda but it dead set in the idea that we must no longer participate in the EU but leave amicably but with great expedience? Well realistically the Conservatives are not an option. David Cameron will never give us a referendum on the EU, and he will likely re-ratify the Lisbon Treaty this year; he see’s Britain’s future in the EU but like all the others will not give that direction the democratic legitimacy and extend to us the voters a referendum. Had David Cameron not gone back on his Lisbon Referendum pledge last year he would likely have a majority today. A commenter on the DT Site has helpfully compiled this list showing what Dr North would describe as the UKIP effect. That is, these are the seats the Conservatives lost, where the UKIP vote is greater than the Tory losing margin.

Telford
Somerton and Frome
Plymouth Moor View
Morley & Outward
Newcastle-Under-Lyme
Bolton West
Great Grimsby
Walsall North
Walsall South
Southampton Itchen
Dorset Mid & Poole North
Wirral South
Solihull
Wells (LD gain from Con)
St Austell & Newquay
Derby North
Middlesbrough South & Cleveland East
St Ives
Dudley North

( Note: Most of this post was written yesterday, Dr North today lists 41 seats where the anti-EU vote cost the Tories )

I was one of those voices on the internet that warned that that the UKIP vote would in some seats cost the Conservatives; and it has done more it has denied them an Parliamentary majority. UKIP stood down in seats where the incumbent candidates were sufficiently vocal about the need for an EU referendum; I believe that with a commitment to a referendum on EU membership UKIP would have stood down in many more seats. When most Conservatives when polled tend to agree to either a referendum on membership or a degree of return of powers (unclear how that would happen) why have Cameron, Clarke and Osborne denied us this option?

So, I voted UKIP, but it would seem that I am one of only 3% or so that did. I have no regrets as I voted with my conscience and on the issues that I most care about; UKIP was the only option for me; in this election at least.

However, it is a little disappointing that UKIP were fairly disorganised in some areas; it seems there is little central help and candidates were left to fend for themselves – or at least that would be my assessment. Financially this is a big commitment to take on for UKIP candidates, if it were me I simply could not afford to stand. Despite some good policies and a compelling line that the three big parties are conspiring not to discuss openly how bad our debt crisis really is, it was clear that UKIP are really still a single issue party and that if only the blue team would accept that UKIP are right about EU membership they and the Tories could go back down the pub and get along together again. UKIP would probably disband if the EU membership question was finally settled. The entire UKIP campaign really came down to Buckingham with Nigel Farage being their star performer on TV not really coming close in the end to unseating the Speaker.

In my opinion, I hope UKIP do a little bit of soul searching and maybe take a look at a few things. There is a very real vacuum now on the right of the modern Conservative Party. And though the formula has clearly worked for them in terms of the EU elections, the UKIP formula does not work for UK elections; and a bigger presence in Westminster is exactly what they need to achieve their ultimate aim. I must also declare that I think their £ sign logo makes their literature and sites look dated, and reinforces the idea that they are a single issue party.

I want a party to fill this vacuum and I want that party to be able to win seats in Westminster. If UKIP in their hearts only see themselves as existing until the Conservatives change their point of view then I say we need another party in that void to cater for disenchanted Tories. If UKIP can recognise that for some they now represent more than they initially set themselves up to deliver and recognise that some minor tweaks would help sell them as an alternative to the conservatives on so much more than just Europe then I really truly believe that there is success to be had, and many, many more votes to be won.

Where exactly is my party of the right? In the next five years which party is going to raise the debate and fight for an end to the BBC tax? How about cutting welfare and socialist payments which create dependency and arguing that work should always be more rewarding than welfare? Who will speak out against the encroachment upon our civil liberties? Who on the right is advocating personal tax cuts for the coping classes? Who is going to cut through the bureaucracy and health and safety regulations which are stiffling small business start ups? Who is advocating Parliamentary oversight of judges? Where is the opposition to the new Supreme Court for the UK which cannot rule on devolved matters? Where on the right is advocating more Private Schools and Grammar schools which would allow more kids to get a better standard of education? Who is pointing out how illiberal it is to be a member of the CAP or to tell people how many hours they may work in a week? Who on the right dare question if we should continue as the United Kingdom or separate back to the component nations? Who is going to cut the cost and reach of the state? Who is arguing to an end to QUANGO’s and a minister in Parliament responsible for every penny that is spent of taxpayer’s money? I want a party who agree that life in prison means life in prison for people who commit the most vicious and serious of crimes.

The next few days it will be interesting and I will cheer from the very moment Gordon Brown is finally dragged out of Downing Street. However I am completely disenfranchised now by the major parties and struggling to find a political home and I don’t think I am alone. So what are we going to do?

Pre Election Feelings

If it were me, my poster would say, "People of Europe, WAKE UP!"

Doomsday beckons, the Germans know it.  The Greeks ran up debts which they could not afford by creating a State that demands massively more money than it can raise in taxes. 

So it borrowed from the markets until they said enough.

Now they are now borrowing from the EU, in the form of tax payer loans.  We bailed out the Rock and RBS, the Germans are about to bail our Greece.  At present there is no real plan to cut the Greeks budget deficit sufficiently so as to bring them into a sustainable budget cycle; they are essentially on welfare now.

Through this Greek tragedy has been locked into the Eurozone rules so has not been able to take preemptive corrective actions to limit its problems and worse still is unable to reduce the cost of the state because protesters will set fire to anyone who dares.  Greece, in short, is economically f****d.

Today Angela Merkel has signalled that the success of the EURO and the Greek recovery are intrinsically linked both to the future of the EU and in particular Germany's role within the EU.  The same is true of the UK.

The UK rightly stayed out of the EURO, but once the ink is dry on this Greek loan and once we know how Parliament will look next week the agenda is going to have to turn to matters European.  It is my belief that very soon (perhaps days if not weeks) Germany and France will demand that the UK will need to begin proceedings to join the EURO; it is the currency of the European Union to which we are members.  They will argue that in the meantime we in the UK will need to meet the cost of supporting Greece and it's bloated public sector.  It looks like we will have to endure another round of the Lisbon Treaty.  Were they not content with rubbing our noses in it once?

Germany is still feeling the heavy financial costs of reunification to a single nation; Germans will instinctively know that the cost of uniting a continent will run massively deeper.  The project will need to be sown up with a single federal government or abandoned; with national governments replaced with the regional assemblies already in place to help balance the books.  Too much effort has been invested from the Federalists to simply give up and they will argue too much of our tax payer money.  We have been defecated on from a great height before by the EU's cheerleaders; and it is coming again.

It was said at the 2005 election that we were not voting on Europe.  The truth is we should have and could have.  All of the parties said there would be a referendum on the Constitutional Treaty through Westminster collusion and dramatics we were denied that vote.  We gave LIB/LAB/CON our votes because they collectively promised to do what was in our best interests; and they fooled us all in spectacular fashion.  The EU costs us more than ever before and makes more of our laws than ever before.  Soon we will lose our embassy's, our currency, our national identity.  England is already broken into regions ready to be split forever. 

Now in 2010 do you really believe that your Westminster vote will have no affect on Europe as well?  That who we put in Parliament will not affect our relationship and absorption into the EU Federal Superstate?

So, it is vital that today and tomorrow we think about our role in the EU; that we look at the real economic problem ahead for the UK and how unaffordable it is going to be for us not only to prop up our own economically initiative; but those of Southern Europe also.  We don't really get too much of a say on matters as citizens here in the UK and really the best say we do get is when a General Election comes around twice a decade.  The political leaders may not be talking about what REALLY lies ahead but here on the blogosphere we have spelt out what we can see; and the MSM have made similar, but less audible grumbles.

We need a government on Friday that is going to cut the debt, and we need MP's who are prepared to put the United Kingdoms interests ahead of Party Politics and their whips.  We need democratic discourse, through debate and through the ballot box.  This might be the last chance for you to tie your vote to Lisbon and to EU membership; so please bare this in mind when considering who to vote for.  For what it is worth, once again here is the link to the Albion Alliance where you can find the list of candidates who have been willing to say up front that they will pledge to work in your interests and for a referendum on your behalf regardless of what their party leadership, the whips and the EU have to say.  There is UKIP, there are many independents who would work in your interests and really listen to what you want rather than dolling out what the EU has dictated to them needs to be done.

Don't be fooled into thinking that a vote for a smaller party or an independent is "wasted" there is no such thing as a wasted vote on a completed ballot paper.  We all must vote with our conscience, we must vote with how we feel, we must vote for the person or party who shares our ideals and when we do we have participated in democracy.  When people don't do this and are convinced to lend their vote to a big party they don't really agree with, or fail to vote at all - that is when we have been manipulated by politics. 

More From Mr Condell

If you liked the last video, you will probably enjoy this one as well

He's Not Wrong

Farage here filmed after Irelands second referendum taking questions on the EU. 



H/T: Fausty.

Farage Needs Some Cash

If you want to see Speaker Bercow unseated, or, if you want to help UKIP in the seat where they are presently most likely to win, then click HERE to donate.

UKIP Threaten BBC With Judicial Review

Leader's Office

United Kingdom Independence Party

Room 230

10 Greycoat Place

London

SW1P 1SB

020 7960 6773

Mark Thompson, Esq.,
Director-General,
British Broadcasting Corporation,
White City,
201 Wood Lane,
LONDON,
W12 7TS.

27 April 2010

By email to markthompsonandpa@bbc.co.uk

Dear Mark,

Proposed claim for judicial review

I wrote to Sir Michael Lyons at the BBC Trust on 22 December, asking that UKIP should be allowed to participate in the televised debates between party leaders. Sir Michael wrote explaining that you rather than the Trust were the appropriate point of contact, and you wrote to me on 15 January 2010, conveying to me your decision and that of the BBC to reject my request on the following grounds:

"The basis on which judgements are made about relative levels of coverage rests on past and current electoral support. For the election to the House of Commons in 2010, the starting point is the last General Election, in 2005. Similarly, the starting point for coverage of the 2009 European election was the previous European election of 2004. This means that UKIP - on the basis of its strong performance in 2004 - was given the same level of coverage in the 2009 election as the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties. In 2005, however, at the last General Election (notwithstanding its performance at the European election less than a year before), UKIP attracted just over 2% of the vote and won no representation at Westminster.

"It is, therefore, appropriate and consistent for the BBC - and other broadcasters - to offer the opportunity to take part in the Prime Ministerial debates only to those parties which have substantial electoral support in the context of Westminster. There will be additional opportunities across the BBC for other parties to receive appropriate coverage responding to the Prime Ministerial debate."

We have been given no adequate opportunity to respond to the first two debates. What arrangements is the BBC making to address this? How can the coverage be "appropriate" if we cannot reach the leaders' audience?

The first two of the party leaders' debates have been held and, as I feared, have given spectacular prominence to the three parties whom you, ITV and Sky TV allowed to take part. The unfairness in our being excluded from the party leaders' debates is now all too evident.

Most recently, I wrote to you on 23 April, sending you my recent correspondence with Sky TV, and inviting you to rectify the lack of impartiality which broadcasters have demonstrated in refusing to allow UKIP to participate in the televised leaders' debates. I have not had a reply to my letter to you. The final leaders' debate is in just two days' time. The matter is now urgent, and I have done my best to pursue it timeously.

Since time is now short, I have taken advice, in the light of which I should like to draw your attention to the following provisions in the BBC's own election guidelines:

"3. Due Impartiality in coverage of parties and issues

"3.1 Coverage of the Parties

"To achieve due impartiality, each bulletin, programme or programme strand, as well as online and interactive services, for each election, must ensure that the parties are covered proportionately over an appropriate period, normally across a week. This means taking into account levels of past and current electoral support.

"Due impartiality must be achieved within these categories:

 "clips;
 "interviews/discussions of up to 10 minutes;
 "longer-form programmes.

"Previous electoral support in equivalent elections is the starting-point for making judgments about the proportionate level of coverage between parties.

"However, other factors can be taken into account where appropriate, including evidence of variation in levels of support in more recent elections, changed political circumstances (e.g. new parties or party splits) as well as other evidence of current support. The number of candidates a party is standing may also be a factor."

These election guidelines - as you may know - were approved by Jenny Watson, the chairman of the Electoral Commission, in a letter dated 11 January 2010 to Ric Bailey, the BBC's Chief Adviser for Politics (Editorial Policy), as follows:

"In addition we are satisfied with the draft Election Guidelines, and the approach taken regarding the participation of candidates in constituency items during the election period."

In the last "equivalent" election, the 2005 General Election, UKIP won 2.2% of the national vote, as you have pointed out. However, in the more recent European Election of last year, UKIP came second in the UK, with 16.5% of the national vote, compared with 15.7% for Labour and 13.7% for the Liberal Democrats. This surely constitutes compelling "evidence of variation in levels of support in more recent elections". In the circumstances, I should have expected your correspondence to have referred to this provision within your election guidelines. You have allowed Labour and the Liberal Democrats to participate in the leaders' debates, though they received smaller shares of the vote than UKIP in the most recent test of national opinion, which was the European Election of last year. Yet you have denied UKIP the chance to participate.

Furthermore, UKIP - as of today - is fielding 560 candidates, a number not far short of those fielded by the three parties whom you are allowing to participate in the leaders' debate. As your own guidelines say, "The number of candidates a party is standing may also be a factor." I should have expected your correspondence to have referred to this provision of your electoral guidelines too. Certainly, UKIP - in the number of candidates we are fielding in this General Election - is close to parity with those parties whom you are allowing to participate.

Both these circumstances are directly relevant to any decision whether to allow UKIP to participate in the leaders' debates. Yet you do not seem to have taken account of them in your decision as conveyed to me, or in any of our subsequent discussions.

There is also the question of the BBC's obligations under its charter, which has been the subject of correspondence between us on many previous occasions. In the leaders' debate so far, the question of our EU membership, its lack of democratic accountability and its heavy financial and constitutional cost has not been debated at all. Mr. Brown has been allowed to get away with saying, unchallenged, that three million jobs depend on our membership of the European Union. Nor has there been any discussion of our proposal to introduce binding initiative referenda at local as well as national level, which is the only effective way to allow us, the people, to rule once more, as well as to address the issue of corruption in Parliament, to say nothing of the increasing gulf between government and the governed.

It is reasonable and proportionate, having regard to the election guidelines as cited above, and having regard to the absence of UKIP from the first two leaders' debates, that UKIP should be allowed to participate fairly and fully in the final leaders' debate.

Since you did not adopt my original suggestion that UKIP should at least be allowed to participate in some part of each debate, and since all other avenues available to me have been exhausted, and since UKIP has been denied the opportunity to participate at all in either of the first two debates, and since time is running out, I must now ask you to reconsider your refusal to allow UKIP to participate in the third and final leaders' debate, to be aired on Thursday evening, 29 April 2010.

Should you and the BBC fail to accede to this request by noon tomorrow, Wednesday, 28 April, 2010, please take this letter as notice, in terms of the pre-action protocol in judicial review proceedings under the Civil Procedure Rules, that the United Kingdom Independence Party, of PO Box 480, Newton Abbot, Devon, TQ12 9BG, and I as UKIP's leader, as claimants, will apply to the Administrative Court at or as soon as practicable after 2 pm tomorrow afternoon for judicial review of your decision and that of the BBC, as defendants, expressed in your letter to me of 15 January 2010, to refuse to allow UKIP to participate in the third and final leaders' debate, and for an injunction requiring you and the BBC to permit me, as UKIP's leader, to participate in that debate on an equal footing with all others whom you and the BBC shall have permitted to participate.

I regret that the notice is very short, but time is pressing and I have not had an answer to my letter to you of 23 April.

Details of our legal advisers will be notified to you in due course. In the meantime, any reply and any court documents should be sent to me at the address below:

The Lord Pearson of Rannoch,
Leader's Office,
United Kingdom Independence Party,
Room 230,
10 Greycoat Place,
LONDON,
SW1P 1SB.


Yours sincerely,


[signed] Malcolm


Lord Pearson of Rannoch

UKIP Back SNP Action

UKIP support SNP action

Statement from UKIP re Alex Salmond (SNP) legal action.

Leader of UKIP, Lord Pearson said:

"UKIP support the stance of the SNP on this issue.

"We came second in the last national test of public opinion - at the Euro elections last year.

"Therefore, we should have a place in the debates also.

"Many people say they are becoming increasingly disinterested in the three failed old parties, and are less inclined to vote than ever before.

"The refusal to allow parties like UKIP and the SNP a place on the platforms only acts to perpetuate this disinterest further, and add to the problem of low voter turn-out.

"The public have the right to be informed of the choices open to them, and as a public service broadcaster, the BBC is honour-bound to provide licence fee payers with that information.

"We call on the BBC to give UKIP a place in the debates."

Lord Pearson Interview

The BBC are saying that Lord Pearson has recorded an interview to be shown over the weekend for BBC's Hardtalk programme with Brillo, and have revealled that UKIP will not be standing against Conservatives Philip Davies, Doug Carswell & Phillip Hollobone and "at least" one unnammed Labour MP who are all well know EU Sceptic MP's.

Lord Pearson is also quoted as saying that if David Cameron wins a working majority at the election it "is certainly the end of this country".

I will have to do my best to catch this interview as this is the stuff I have been writing about for some time now. 

Congratulations to UKIP for putting country before party by not running against MP's of similar conviction who wish to see the people of the UK be granted a referendum on EU membership.

Unfinished Business

Lifted from: Sue

Least Worst Option

I have been looking forward to this election for a long, long time.  I have been yearning for the simple pleasure of watching Gordon Brown issue a concession speech on the early hours of 7th May when it becomes clear that his beloved Labour Party has been completely wiped out in the polls with the Great British People having issued a stinging and lasting rebuke to kick the Socialists into the long grass for a decade or so.

But as time has rolled on by and as the election has drawn closer the reality of the situation and that of our politics has become more and more clear.  The three "main" Parties have all set themselves out on a course over the past year that in many ways is spectacularly similar.  Elections are no longer about people voting for what they want their MPs to do, and elections no longer provide for a democratically charged change of direction.  Elections are now used, here in this country of ours as a mandate for Governing in a way that the overwhelming majority of people do not agree with.  Manifestos are no longer adhered to, the policies are largely the same; our function as voters is reduced to changing a few of the main characters every five years or so and even then we are not exactly torn by the selection on offer, we seldom regret not electing certain individuals do we?  We are continuously picking and actively screening for the least worst candidate.  Those who are eventually deselected via ballot go on to lucrative and unelected positions either in the House of Lords or in Europe. 

Why are the political parties in the UK all offering much the same?  The answer is simple, they all must operate within the guidelines of what the EU lets them govern.  In other words, the EU makes the laws for us in the areas in which it chooses, then our Parliament and our political parties operate in the waste land that the EU does not deem important enough to already legislate on.  This election is worse, because post-Lisbon the EU controls so much more and is building the framework to seize control of our markets and our diplomatic service.  Do not kid yourselves that this decreasing sphere of legislative freedom will not get smaller and smaller as the EU expandes again in the coming years.

Look at what according to the House of Lords the EU has sole control over.

Look also at some more seized EU broad controls:

And, they were good enough to share these, though don't forget that EU law has primacy in the UK, so by "share" they mean that they are prepared to and empowered to over rule with anything they disagree with.  You will hear our home grown parties talking about these policies, but run down the list and you will understand that their similarities are based upon the extent in which they think they can manoeuvre without being over ruled by the EU.

And lastly, the these are things the EU likes to control some funding and will be seizing overall control over at a later date.

So with so much hanging in the control of the EU, and with the people we put in Westminster the only ones who can both speak up for us, and maybe, just maybe work to bring control and decision making back to our shores and place it back into the hands of voters it really does matter who we vote for - but don't let any candidate or any party tell you that this election is not about Europe or the EU because it really is.  There are Euro ID Cards, Policing, Harmonised and Centrally Collected Taxes (probably VAT), all to come from the EU before the next UK Election on top of the surrendered competencies.

The only mechanism available to us in the Post Lisbon world is a referendum of the people of the United Kingdom asking for consent to remain in the EU with our present relationship.  There is no other mandate now for withdrawal - even repeal of the 1972 European Communities  Act probably won't do now we have signed into Lisbon as it formalises a drawn out and difficult divorce scenario, one which is designed to deter exit - in keeping with the "progressive" style legislation enacted by the EU which always points in one direction.

If you, like me are completely sick of this scenario, we have one month to make our voices heard.  There are options.  Firstly, there is UKIP who are preparing to fight this election with a promise to provide a referendum on EU Membership.  UKIP are not everybodies cup of tea, but if you are voting with the EU in mind, then UKIP must be considered.  They are clearly a compatible vote for disgruntled Tories. 

There is Jury Team who are a Party of Independents, who have an over-reaching set of shared aims, and at the top of that list is a referendum on continued EU Membership.

A lot of people though will want to still consider the main parties, and for them I would recommend they take a look at the Albion Alliance Pledge Pages, and see just which candidates are prepared to undertake this very simple pledge:

I pledge to work tirelessly to give the voters of my constituency a democratic and direct voice in the United Kingdom’s continued relationship with the EU.

I pledge that I will sponsor a Private Members Bill, written in clear concise terms, calling for a referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union – and/or support any motion for such a referendum – and to vote positively for any Bill that may call for such a referendum, irrespective of Party Whip, with a view to the successful outcome of this pledge within 1 year of a new Parliament or sooner.

I simply can't imagine voting for anybody who would not address this most pressing of issues. If your preferred candidate has no and will not sign up to this, can you trust them to act in your best interests in Parliament?

You can help, even though there is still time for candidates to declare there are 1,004 candidates that have yet to be contacted to see if they will pledge and a further 2,156 who have been contacted but have as yet not stated if they will or will not pledge.  The Albion Alliance is not a political party, it is a cross-party initiative that is open to all candidates - and all they have to do is sign their name up to the above pledge which is hardly asking much of them given how important and how widely popular such action would be.

There is also another option, as I mentioned there is still time to become a candidate.  Most of the seats targeted by the main parties are done and as good as closed.  This country is almost singularly brilliant in its inclusion of independent candidates in our elections, and they are often the most colourful and interesting candidates.  Independents essentially say to the main candidates that you cannot run in my constituency if you will not speak to my issues and I hope that Independent Candidates up and down the country take the fight to the LIB/LAB/CON Alliance of government only so far as the EU prescribes.

Lastly I hope what I am hearing that the new batch of Conservative Candidates being more EU Sceptic than the present bunch is true, but I hope they if elected to a majority government are prepared to act on those instincts.  [They can obviously start by signing the Albion Alliance Pledge!]  The Conservatives are driving people into the hands of UKIP and despite the threat of a Hung Parliament; they seem instead to prefer a hung parliament with a greatly reduced anti-EU vote, than an outright victory with an anti-EU membership vote.  Why is this?  I am one of those people who used to think the Conservatives were right about "being in Europe, but not run by Europe" and that "we can reform from within" but I was a sucker and more importantly I was wrong.  I want the Conservative Party to speak to Conservative issues, and at present it is not really doing that; I hope that this is a short term development and it will soon mend its ways.  But if David Cameron is to issue his "referendum lock" and if he is to renegotiate some powers back to the UK, perhaps he would be so good as to publish the legislation he intends to introduce for this referendum lock, and perhaps he will tell us how he intends to do the impossible and get certain controls back, because until he does I don't believe the Conservatives can make any claims to represent in any way the EU Sceptic and democracy loving millions of voters who still do not know for sure who they are going to vote for.

UKIP Are Ready To Fight The Election

I see UKIP have beaten the pack and got their manifesto released.  Good idea, not only are Labour and the Tories fumbling over theirs, leaving UKIP to look focused and agreed on their policies, it also gives them the opportunity to brag that other parties are copying them should they replicate any of UKIPs policies.  I think I am also right in saying that they are the only major party to release before the Chancellors Budget, showing proving that in UKIPs eyes, Darlings words are pretty meaningless tomorrow.

I have had a look, there is much I agree with and regular readers will find no surprise in me writing this.  But there is also quite a bit I disagree with.  I certainly would not look forward to a 31% flat tax though I certainly think the tax system could be simplified and reformed.  There is a whole lot of policy and proposal here, and certainly UKIP cannot be accused of fighting this election on a single issue.  I still have not decided how to vote, but UKIP will factor in my thinking.

I also reproduce the text of Lord Pearson's* speech to the UKIP Spring Conference, potential UKIP voters will like it, and a few wavering Tories will too.  You may have noticed by the way that Labour didn't have a spring conference, it's because that with Gordon Brown in charge of their finances they could not afford to hold one, I am told this is a source of great embarrassment to Labour MP's in case you should encounter any of them and fancy mentioning it.

The full text of Lord Pearson’s speech is below:

I have a quote for you.

“The Government believes that our membership of the European Union has brought real benefits to the United Kingdom through jobs, peace and security. Through our membership, we belong to the world’s largest trading bloc. Over half of the United Kingdom’s trade is with the EU, with an estimated 3.5 million British jobs linked to it. Our membership allows us to live, work and travel across Europe”.

Those words, Ladies and Gentlemen, are the best the Government can do to defend our membership of the European Union, and were spoken against me in the Lords six weeks ago. They are words which will have been honed by dozens of clever bureaucrats over a long period of time, and which were repeated often during the passage of the Lisbon Treaty the summer before last. They have an optional extra sentence, and it goes like this: “Our EU membership gives us a seat at the top table of world affairs. We increase our influence by giving up our sovereignty”. By that, they mean your sovereignty of course.

Now Ladies and Gentlemen, you and I can see through all this. We can see it for what it is; the self-serving dishonesty of the political class. In fact there isn’t a word of simple truth in any of it, and I don’t need to tell you why. But the trouble is that our political class do believe it; they really do. I suppose they have to, because our EU membership gives so many of them their comfortable way of life, at our expense. But they have a problem. The British people are not fools, and they are beginning to understand that over the last 40 years they have been steadily deceived and betrayed into what is now almost total subservience to Brussels. “The slow-motion coup d’état”, as Christopher Booker has so aptly described it.

The British people have other reasons to be angry. If you don’t mind I will quote what I said in the Lords over two years ago, when I was trying to warn of the growing gulf between the political class and real people: 

“Over the past 50 years, we have brought this country pretty low: 40% of our children leave primary school, and 15% leave school, unable to read and write properly; our whole health service is in crisis; our police are overwhelmed; our prisons are bursting with the mentally ill and the illiterate; our transport system is inadequate; our Armed Forces are underfunded, overstretched and undervalued, and even their morale is beginning to crack; our border controls have been deliberately abandoned, so that our inner cities are increasingly uncomfortable and explosive places; and, most worryingly of all, Islamist terrorists are on the march, many of whom are home grown”. 

That was before the credit crunch and the Parliamentary expense scandal, which have turned the people’s feelings from disdain to anger, and now, amongst many, to hatred. Indeed, the focus groups we have recently commissioned show that there is one deep common attitude, shared by nearly everyone we consulted, and that is anger and distrust of the political class. To these feelings we must add frustration; frustration because the British people feel that there is nothing they can do to make any difference; that whatever they do, they can’t change the system. And, of course, they are right about that too, which may be why some 40% of them no longer bother to vote in General Elections. Modern Governments are elected by 40% of the 60% who do bother to vote, or 24% of the electorate, and those Governments now make only some 20% of our national law. The rest is made is Brussels, where the Government has some 9% of the votes, in a secretive system which renders the House of Commons – for which the people are allowed to vote- wholly irrelevant.

Ladies and Gentlemen, I trust you will agree that that is a fair description of where we stand today, that I haven’t exaggerated anything, or made it sound more gloomy than it really is. If anything, the disastrous state of our public finances should make us even more fearful of the future.

I think we can take it that the two most important subjects in the forthcoming General Election will be the economy and immigration. We are told that the voters aren’t really interested in Europe, that UKIP is a single-issue party, and that a vote for UKIP is a wasted vote, and that a hung Parliament would be a disaster. What are the answers to these suggestions? Well, we’re no longer a single-issue party and the plain fact is that the easiest way, perhaps the only way, to solve the problems of our economy and immigration is to leave the EU. Yet all the three main parties are determined not even to talk about doing so, so the field is clear for us. 

What about the “wasted vote”? The answer to that is that if you want more of the same, more of the Lib.Lab.Con., if you want to make absolutely sure that nothing changes, then you must vote for one of them. If, on the other hand, you want to start the forces of change, then the only sensible thing to do is to vote UKIP. 

What about the voters not being interested in Europe? Well, they will be, if we can get them to see that getting out of it is really the only way to control our own borders and save our economy. 

What about the disaster of a hung Parliament? The answer is that it would be infinitely preferable to another five years of any of the rest of them. I can’t believe the people will return to a Labour Government, which would of course be very bad news, but hardly much worse than a Conservative Government with a big enough majority to last five years. I say this because David Cameron has ruled out any sort of referendum on our relationship with Brussels for five years; five more years of ever-deeper integration. After that it may be very difficult to escape; we will no longer be enmeshed on every side in the tentacles of the corrupt octopus, as we are today; we will be in its belly. So whatever the doubts about a hung Parliament, a Conservative victory would be an absolutely certain disaster, just as bad as Labour. It would be the final extinction of what millions of our forebears have died for over hundreds of years. We must not let it happen.

When the true extent of our national financial disaster is finally revealed after the election, a hung Parliament is unlikely to last very long, perhaps not even a year. Then there will be another election and UKIP must be able to show the main parties, perhaps particularly the Conservatives, that they cannot form a Government unless they promise a referendum on whether we want to stay in the EU or leave it. We have to do well enough in this election to make that clear and unavoidable. 

The pointlessness of voting for the main parties is easily exposed. They say they want to start doing something very timid about immigration, yet they all agree they want to let 70 million Turks into the EU, and so into this country.

They are talking about cutting £7 or £8 billion in public expenditure, but what is the figure we send in cash to Brussels every year? £16 billion. If we look beyond straight cash, the Tax Payers’ Alliance estimates that our EU membership may be costing around 120 billion a year, the equivalent of £2000 per person per annum.

When you look at it like this, our membership of the EU is really a no-brainer. 

So this, Ladies and Gentlemen, is the political mould which we are now setting out to break. We must do so by trying to tell the truth about many controversial issues. Straight talking. For instance, we must question the whole theory of man-made climate change. We are about to spend £18 billion a year for the next 40 years on renewable energy, on 10,000 pointless windmills and so on. But what if the planet has started cooling, as a great many scientists believe? What if man’s activity doesn’t contribute to climate change either way? Wouldn’t it be better to wait and see before committing such ruinous figures to the atmosphere? Of course it would, and that is why we’re calling for a Royal Commission, chaired by a High Court judge, to test the alarmists’ theories in the cool light of day.

We must also be prepared to talk openly about the advance of Sharia Law in this country, and the huge problem of Islamism world-wide. Like it or not, when we talk of “terrorism” nowadays we are nearly always talking about a problem which comes from within Islam. We are not talking about a threat which comes from the Buddhists, the Hindus, the Sikhs, the Jews or Christians; not even Irish Catholics; we are talking about Islam. We must do what we can to encourage the vast majority of the Muslim community, who are our peace-loving friends, to end their silence and speak out against their violent co-religionists. We must ask them to join us in saying that their preachers and teachers of hate have no place in this country, and must be thrown out.

And we must be prepared to break the failed political consensus wherever we find it. Take for instance education. There is no point just going on throwing more money at it. Vouchers and grammar schools are obvious. Of course we must take power away from the failed education establishment and give it to parents. Even the Conservatives are saying that. But we must look deeper. We must look at the soil in which the roots of our education system feed, and that soil is not our primary schools; it is teacher training. I spent 10 years validating the former Polytechnics in the 80s and 90s, and there is still far too much emphasis on training future teachers how to –and I quote- “permeate the whole curriculum with issues of gender, race and class”. Does that ring a bell about the roots of political correctness?

University budget cuts are in the news nowadays. If I was cutting university spending, I would start by looking at the Humanities departments of the former Polytechnics. I say this because the Polytechnics were created by bolting new Humanities departments onto the excellent former Technical colleges, and it was in those Humanities departments that the “gender, race and class” agenda took hold. There is not much point in them if their students are unemployable. It’s unfair to students, not to mention the taxpayer.

There is one other big idea whose time has come. Direct democracy – something like the Swiss system of binding national and local referendums. Of course our political class hates it, but I see it as perhaps the only way now for power to be returned to the people. Even when we get out sovereignty back from the EU, we will still be faced with armies of Sir Humphrey’s calling their departmental tunes, to which our wretched ministers can do nothing but dance. So I think this is an idea we should strongly promote throughout the campaign. Many of the 40% of our people who have given up bothering to vote will actually do so if they can see that their vote matters, that it will make a difference. It’s time we started telling their politicians and bureaucrats what to do. They are, after all, supposed to be our servants.

Ladies and Gentlemen, to conclude on a perhaps more controversial note, I fear we have to face up to some of our own internal prejudices. We must remember the prime object of our exercise, which is to get this country out of the EU. The easiest way to do that is of course to win a binding referendum. But, in the absence of that, we must also do what we can to get people into the House of Commons who will really fight for our freedom. We must not stop them doing so by standing against them if we are unlikely to win the seat. To do so would be to defeat our own greater purpose; it would be to put our party and our local enthusiasms before our country. The Conservatives have done that, as you know, but we must not do it. I am not talking about candidates who just say they think we would be better off out of the EU. I am talking about candidates, and they are very few, perhaps 7 or 8, who I am convinced will force questions and debates in and outside the Commons, and who will if necessary defy their whips. And of course it has to be clear that if we stood against them, we really could prevent them from being elected.

I know this is not an easy concept for many of you. But it doesn’t help to say that they should simply cross the floor and join us. That would not take us any nearer to our goal. It would not advance our cause. Of course I will be talking to our candidates personally, and to their chairmen, and I hope I can persuade them to see that if they stand down and fight elsewhere, they really will be breaking the mould of British politics. They will in fact be making history, and so will we. I imagine it will be national news, and so I believe it will help to convince the electorate everywhere that we really are different, that we are not just another political party pursuing our own selfish interest. 

So there it is, Ladies and Gentlemen, straight talking again, I’m afraid. There will be much more of it in the weeks ahead. We are indeed very different from the other political parties. As I said when you did me the honour of making me your leader, UKIP is not for lemmings; it is not for sheep. UKIP is for independent thinkers who share a common passion for their country, and who do their best to mould themselves into a cohesive political force to achieve its salvation.

I end by reminding you of the words of my friend Alexander Solzhenitsyn spoke from the depths of his Soviet prison camp, “One word of truth outweighs the whole world”.

Ladies and Gentlemen, let us now put those words to the test.

Thank you.

Great Minds, etc...

If the Conservative Party were on solid ground I would wager that two of the big thinkers at the forefront of the Party would be Lord Tebbit and Daniel Hannan. They are not, and neither is the Conservtaive Party.  It was somewhat endearing to have had a quick look over on the Telegraphs today and see these two basically agreeing with me on some points I have recently tried to make, but they of course being much smarter and better writers put things across much better that I ever could.

Lord Tebbit first. He is saying today that basically people as individuals will generally not understand every facet of every issue in the run up to a General Election, but invariably the British public, irrespective of party political associations have usually returned the right decision in elections, including on four occasions since World War 2 a Parliament that is reliant on coalitions. In fact here is what Lord Tebbit says:

The thought of that brought back to my mind some of the studies by animal behavioural scientists of bees and ants. The brain power of a bee is pretty small and that of an ant even less, yet the hive or the nest seems to be capable of taking far more complex decisions than any of its members. The behaviourists call it “swarm intelligence” and I often wonder if electorates enjoy the same ability.

Not very many individual electors understand quantitative easing, the risks and benefits of early cuts in public expenditure or increases in taxation, or the merits of Blair’s wars. Some may say the same of Members of Parliament, of course – but, whatever the arguments, we ask the electorate to take a decision comprised of judgments on a mass of matters outside their individual competence, and time and time again that electorate delivers a reasonably sensible judgement. Looking back over the last 65 years and 17 general elections, it would be hard to say that any of those results were irrational however much one might have wished that they had gone the other way. On four occasions, 1950, 1964, February ‘74, and October ‘74, the elections led to an indecisive outcome, and it could be well argued that so too would the election of 1951, but for the quirkiness of our system.

Looking at those indecisive results, it seems to me that the swarm intelligence of the electorate was in fact telling the politicians that the choice they were being offered was not one they could be reasonably asked to make. A good example was Heath’s February 1974 question: “Who governs?”

I had said THIS about a week ago:

And it all leads up to what I have written in the past and have more polling on today that people are looking to engineer a hung Parliament because we ain't happy with what's on offer and do not wish to grant any party 5 years.

As implied, this is a recurring theme; People are not happy with what Labour has done and just as importantly the wisdom of crowds seems to me in my conversations to be pointing to the desire for a more traditional Conservative offering. On the economy people actually do want big cuts, they are fed up of paying for a bloated public sector, and want some tax relief. On the EU people are actually taking notice of what is going on, but my take is there is generally no agreed mechanism that everyone sees for which to issue a protest, other that the token offering of the EU elections which even if there were an all UKIP return to the E U Parliament would not really affect the course of how the EU controls us. And more recently I am not detecting any support for the Union and Cabin Crew actions at BA, and I work quite close to Heathrow.

The feeling is that the Private Sector (to which I earn my salary from) is that we took our medicine and made the cost savings needed over a year ago when the credit crunched. The highly Unionised Sectors have been slow and have not had to make the same cuts. The Public Sector has since grown on increased borrowing and low tax yields. So, as far as me and my chums in the productive sector are concerned, were paying for the public sector and want it reduced massively in size, because we are sick of paying for it and as far as the Cabin Crew of BA goes, it seems that you were on a very cushy deal especially looking at your industry, grow up and accept that you are damaging your company to protect an overly generous set up. If a business cannot operate in profit then there will no jobs because the company will fold. Cuts must be spread.

If Mr Tebbit were a little younger I think there would be calls for his inclusion in a Conservative or Coalition cabinet.
Then I moved along and Daniel Hannan has posted a response to his UKIP supporting readers about why he remains in the Conservative Party.

What I’d ideally like – and what I assume my UKIP readers also aspire to – is a situation where UKIP no longer needs to exist: where it can award itself a medal and retire with honour, job done. Obviously, we’re not at that point yet. But I worry that every activist who deserts the Tories for UKIP is retarding the prospects of a Euro-sceptic Conservative Party without taking his or her energies to an alternative party of government.

I realise that I won’t have convinced my UKIP critics with one short post. But I would urge you to ponder one thing. Eventually, the issue will have to be settled in a referendum. If we are to win that referendum, we shall need the support of people on the Left, people on the Right and people in the Centre. UKIP won’t win on its own. So when you come across people in other parties who believe in British independence, don’t snarl at them, or tell them that their support is worthless unless they join UKIP. Encourage them.

Which neatly brings me to… and don’t groan… the Albion Alliance.

Daniel Hannan is of course right that UKIP will not be winning this election, and that UKIP are generally a good bunch who have been driven to UKIP generally because of their understanding of the EU situation. I have been to a few marches and rallies where the turnout is predominantly UKIP, and this is a knowledgeable collection of people who hold a frankly stunning amount of EU Legalese in their heads ready to quote in any conversation. UKIP are a party borne out of an intellectual argument rather than reactionary urges. Thus UKIPers are generally quite polite and open to others opinions. I have never met a UKIPer how was not armed with wealth of information and ready to politely debate policy on any issue to help win over others to their position.

We need a referendum to exit the EU now, and with Lisbon we have passed the point where an “amicable divorce” would be available. By supporting people of others parties who are prepared to say before an election that they too will support that referendum effort we can urge people to vote for people who share the same aim on what many of us consider the greatest of electoral issues and by doing this we can get people into Parliament who are not afraid to make the EU the debate.

Hannan and Tebbit may not have said exactly what I am saying, but we would appear to be of a similar mind in terms of direction. So I only hope their views can resonate more clearly through the halls of the Tory headquarters.

Anyway. Back to the football.

Lord Pearson In The Express

Bloody hell, a national newspaper gives over a column to UKIP - I can hardly believe it.  It is not bad either and worthy of repition, and as such that is exactly what I shall do.  Reproduced below is Lord Pearson's article for the Daily Express.



INDULGE me for a moment. Imagine an election ­campaign that actually talked about the things that really concern the British people rather than what the wives of the party leaders think about their ­husbands. What are the issues that should be tackled? What should the election be about?


I ask because this election will not be about the issues that really concern us: mass immigration, massive waste in the public services, crime, the European Union and our very democracy. These things will be avoided like the plague.


Why is this? Why is there no straight talking from those who fill our TV screens?


The simple reason is that the power over these and so many other issues no longer resides in Westminster, it has moved to Brussels. The promises of the establishment political ­parties melt away like the grin on the Cheshire cat once this stark reality shines upon them.


That’s why they won’t talk about immigration. The fact that 5,000 people a week are moving to this country to live, a city the size of Southampton every year. Last week all three establishment parties sang in harmony: Turkey must join the European Union, they said. You heard that right, not content with throwing our doors open to all European countries with the result that millions have moved here they want Turkey to join as well.


David Miliband, ­William Hague and the Lib Dems are all ­backing Turkish membership. Oh how pleased they are to be able to agree with each other. “Remarkable,” they said and of course they are right. It is remarkable that they all want to give 70million Turks the right to move to the UK. Madness might be another word, or more like arrogance in the face of the wishes of the British public.


We should be discussing our public finances. The political class has brought our country to its knees. We look in pity at the Greeks humming and ­hawing about whether to apply to the IMF to bail them out. In Greece they are freezing ­public- sector wages (including for the highest paid politicians and the like), cutting social security spending by 10 per cent, closing down bulging aspects of the state and yet still the markets look with a wary eye.


Britain’s deficit is similar but nobody is facing up to it. There is no mention of the £45million a day going to Brussels in cash, part of the £120billion a year cost of our EU membership, according to the Taxpayers’ Alliance. No talk of a public- sector wage freeze across the board. Cosmetic gestures ­targeting the top 10 per cent just will not do.


The public ­sector has been deliberately expanded at the expense of the productive ­private sector. ­Public-sector pensions now cost each of us £516 a year while most private- sector workers struggle by without proper retirement ­provision. This ­iniquity will grow as time moves on and trouble will out.


The rise of the undemocratic quango industry must also be stopped. If ministers believe that a service should be ­provided it should be provided by the ministry. It would then be accountable and easily cut when no longer required.


Jobs and wealth creation should be on the agenda. Every­body knows most jobs in the private sector are created by small firms yet nobody is setting entrepreneurs free from the oceans of red tape which drown them. Instead we get more and deeper problems with forms, bureaucracy and cost. Our post offices close, our waste is not collected. We get equality laws that drive firms SDHpaway from employing women and lifestyle laws that penalise legal behaviour and destroy our pub culture.


We should be ­talking about the rise of political Islam. The attempted takeover of Tower Hamlets in East London by a radical Muslim organisation should be a wake-up to us all.


In a few years this country will be suffering from serious power shortages. Yet there are no plans to address this as the Establishment refuses to see reality, blinded by impossible dreams of carbon neutrality and the relentless swishing of 10,000 pointless windmills.


We should be discussing the horrifying rise in violent crime and why our legal system puts the rights of the criminal ahead of the wishes of the decent majority. Above all we should be talking about a serious ­devolution of power to the ­people and away from the ­political class with binding national and local referendums to make politicians do what real people want. The Swiss have been doing this for years and it is surely an idea whose time has come.


We do not talk about these things and more for one very simple reason: our political class is unanimous in its ­subservience to “Europe”. Immigration? The EU controls our borders. Job creation? Business regulations are ­created in Brussels. The looming energy crisis? Environmental policy is dictated by Eurocrats. Why can’t we treat criminals as criminals and ­protect our ­people? Because of European Human Rights ­legislation.


So why on earth are we not talking honestly about the very simple, very central argument in all this: our relationship with Europe?


This election should be about who governs Britain. Should it be politicians elected by the people of Britain? Politicians whom we can fire if they do not perform or prove themselves corrupt and dishonest? Or should it be run by ranks of ­foreign bureaucrats, unelected, unaccountable and immovable? Why shouldn’t it be the people themselves who have the power to govern? To ask the question is to answer it. To answer it is to vote UKIP.



A duff of the cap to Witterings, who in turn winks at Richard.

Daily Politics - Will Bercow Be Unseated?

Clearly I am a sucker for Nigel Farage videos, but this one is interesting as it is from the BBC.  They focus a little less on Farage and a little more on the possibility of the Speaker of the House being unseated in a usually uncontested seat by convention.



Farage would be an interesting MP and most people who read my blog will have seen his speeches in the EU Parliament and know that he would be someone who could draw attention back to Westminster.  I hope that Farage wins the seat, and that Mr Hannan who is also a star speaker in Brussels decides to run for Westminster also.

Where To Cast The EU Sceptic Vote?

I see over the weekend whist I was busy that the debate has got going over Conservative’s potentially voting UKIP and how that potentially will benefit Labour. I am picking up on Steve Green’s post from The Daily Referendum Blog which has not unsurprisingly started a lively debate in the comments field of that particular post.

This deserves some thought, for long-time EU Sceptic Conservative voters it is not an ideal position to be in.

Here is the dilemma, (as I see it). If, as described I am a long time Conservative voter in General Elections, the question is do UKIP now more closely represent political position and views? If so, then logically I should now vote UKIP. However, because so many EU Sceptics are considering this, and because the electoral system is now weighted so much in favour of Labour do I give my vote to UKIP and leave the door open for Labour to clinch a hung Parliament and retain power?

The argument is that if I vote UKIP, I vote Gordon Brown through the back door, and bring with it 5 more years of socialist rule and even more EU. The notion of joining the EURO was mooted by Mandelson not long ago, the EU is still seeking to reduce the UK working week, and whatever happens there will be no consultation or referendum on EU membership under Labour. In five years the economy will have further crumbled and the full extent of Lisbon will be felt and the exit-the-EU movement could stall. However, there is a train of thought in the anti-EU movement that the worst possible scenario has already happened, and that because Lisbon is already ratified a Cameron Conservative Government, which is unwilling to visit the argument on the UK’s overall membership will be unwilling and unable to address many, if any of the EU Sceptics concerns. As such, a Cameron Conservative vote is not one which will improve our situation regarding the EU. Additionally Cameron seems keen to alienate anti-EU voters, who are in other fields being courted, why should a person vote for a party that is making it clear that they do not want them?

For EU Sceptic voters that have listened to the Conservative Party of late they will heard that the Conservative Party is for staying in the EU in the post Lisbon world, and seen the leadership move towards their traditional role of picking certain fights on certain issues - fighting to be "In Europe, but not run by Europe".. The leading EU Sceptic voices in the Conservatives such as Daniel Hannan are no longer maintaining the pretence that David Cameron is a closet EU Sceptic who is just waiting to grab power before revealing a radical shift in the party's position. The EU sceptics in the Conservative Party do not sound confident that their party will answer the big questions on the EU, and are cautious to concede that they understand how little that can truly be done to redress the erosion of sovereignty.

Looking long term and with a dire economy to manage, it seems pretty inconceivable that if a second term were granted to David Cameron that EU membership would be any more likely to make the main debate. The Conservatives stated position is to stay in the EU, and work from within the EU. We are no longer in an association of countries; the EU is the foetus of the Federal European Republic.

It is a tough choice for those of us who have traditionally voted Conservative but who have tired of to the notion that the EU can be reformed from within, or that the EU is of greater benefit to us than we can immediately see. The truth of the matter is that the EU has not pulled the wool over our eyes, we did it to ourselves. Those within the UK who sought this union have lied and cajoled us to where we are today and not once have we sufficiently found enough of a voice to insist that enough is enough. The EU in its various guises have always been the Federalist club, it is the forces inside the UK who pretend there is a third way on this that have fooled so many. It is the rotation of successive EU embracing parties to Government that both Labour & Conservative Parties have held a monopoly over and take sole account for that have led us to where we are today. When they have lied, which they have we have simply replaced a governing EU accepting party with another. If we do not break this cycle will history not judge us poorly for being so complacent? When their lies are held up for all to see, they sneer and jeer for they know that as long as the power stays in the main parties there is only one direction for the UK to follow on the EU, our vote just decides at what speed.

Despite my better judgement, I do still believe there are people in elected positions and seeking elected positions within the Conservative Party that do wish an end to our membership of the EU and see how membership is incompatible with The Conservative Party’s true core beliefs. It is certainly true that at the grass-roots, the core membership is still much more EU Sceptic than the other Westminster Parties. It is unfortunately not the direction of the leadership. Those EU Sceptic Conservatives who would bring us out of the EU, and who are willing to discuss the EU in the open are truly worth the consideration of people's support, even if the Party has abandoned the rest of us. Likewise, as UKIP’s David Samuel-Camps put it to me

"UKIP's raison-d'etra has always been that of an amicable divorce from the European Union. It continues to be our position"

So if you are stuck on whether to vote UKIP or Tory, or if you are traditionally of another party but want to ensure an EU Sceptic vote - and if you are open to a suggestion, here is mine. There is still time before the election to seek out the answers to the nagging questions in your mind. Email or write a letter to your MP and the Parliamentary Candidates in your constituency and ask them to sign up to the Albion Alliance Pledge. Ask them to put our country above their party. Insist that the candidate that you vote for, regardless of their party allegiance is able to openly and publically declare the following.

I pledge to work tirelessly to give the voters of my constituency a democratic and direct voice in the United Kingdom’s continued relationship with the EU.

I pledge that I will sponsor a Private Members Bill, written in clear concise terms, calling for a referendum on Britain’s membership of the European Union – and/or support any motion for such a referendum – and to vote positively for any Bill that may call for such a referendum, irrespective of Party Whip, with a view to the successful outcome of this pledge within 1 year of a new Parliament or sooner.

It is a very simple pledge, and one that any EU Sceptic candidate from any party should have absoilutely no problem whatsoever in signing up to. If they unwilling or unable to pledge, then you can really consider, regardless of yours and their party allegiance whether or not they are the best candidate for you to vote for. I would suggest they are not.

It is after all not a lot to ask that our elected representative respect our wishes and desires. The EU question is not going to resolve itself, and it serves only the Federalists to see the EU Sceptic vote arguing amongst itself. We need to likewise put country above Party and insist that the people we vote for are going to do as we ask, not as they prescribe. We need to show them the way and put in our efforts now because they have been and will be quick to turn the tables back on to us if we don’t. Let’s make sure that if you, like me care about the UK and want a vote then we make sure that we know every candidates mindset so that we can make an informed decision about the people we are electing.

For those that may be wondering, I have emailed my MP and the two known other prospective candidates in my Constituency, and I am as yet to get an answer, but I have signed the Albion Alliance’s voter pledge, so unless I get a pledge they will not get the consideration of my vote.  Simple really.  I would urge others who are feeling in the middle here to also give this some consideration.

For the benefit of the UKIP and Conservative split, here are the UKIP and Conservative Candidates who have already taken the pledge:

Bermondsey & Old Southwark     Loanna Morrison     Conservative
Glasgow Central Ramsey     Ewan Urquhart     UKIP
Horsham     Harry Aldridge     UKIP
Rochfield & Southeast     James Moyies     UKIP
Selby & Ainsty     Darren Haley     UKIP
Vale of Clwyd     Matt Wright     Conservative
Wentworth & Dearne     John Wilkinson     UKIP
Witney      Nikolai Tolstoy     UKIP
Wythenshawe & Sale East     Christopher Cassidy     UKIP

And to be fair, here are the others who have taken the Albion Alliance Pledge:

Devizes     Nic Coombe     Libertarian Party UK
Gillingham & Rainham     Dean Lacey     English Democrats
Hastings & Rye     Rod Bridger     English Democrats
Sevenoakes     Alan Bullion     Liberal Democrat
Torfaen     Ian Parker-Joseph     Libertarian Party UK
Wirral West     David Kirwan     Independent
Witney     Paul Wesson     Independent

With a number of candidates as yet to receive an email and with many more who have and are yet to respond the above are the only Candidates who have stepped up and taken a pledge to guarantee they will work for a referendum on EU membership if elected to Parliament, and they are all deserving of your voting considerations.

To follow soon… Some examples of who has failed to pledge so far. These are the people who have replied to the Albion Alliance, and the people who have refused, for one reason or another to pledge to put country before party. In some cases these are candidates who believe in the EU, and in some cases these are people who claim to be EU Sceptic or want a referendum, but who refuse to pledge in any event. They are the people that the EU Sceptics should focus on unseating in place of EU Sceptic candidates who are not afraid to pledge.