Why vote UKIP?

I notice that Jackart is wondering why people vote UKIP

I am bored of commentators and bloggers lazily trotting out the line that "the boy Dave is just another Tony Blair and we might as well go and vote UKIP", just because he refuses to promise Tax-cuts, and has worked out that making people like you makes them more likely to vote for you. The Line that "Europe makes most of our laws ERGO Westminster is irrelevant therefore we must vote UKIP" is just as dull. This is just as silly as "It's all about oil". Any comment using the phrase "Blu Labour" will be deleted - it's pathetic.

I don't think that many commentators do. I for one like to scatter facts throughout my arguments of why I will not be voting for David Cameron and instead will be giving my support to UKIP.
I also question if it is indeed the work of 'Dave' which has put the Tories up in the polls, or the complete failure of our Labour government. The Tories aren't in the magic 40% target in the polls, despite many efforts by Cameron to use 'Words that Work'. Like 'Blue Labour'.

There is more to policy than tax-cuts and Europe, and no-one can get everything they want out of a Party, if they're prepared make the compromises necessary to be part of a Governing movement.

Yes, to a point. But bearing in mind that the EU make 75% of our laws, including our international trade policy, transport policy, are interfering in health and education, control immigration, whether or not we can deport foreign criminals, are trying to bankrupt the City of London, employment legislation including how many hours a week someone can work, and are even having an effect on how often rubbish is collected, then I suspect that some people would class it as a 'big' issue. And tax is also another vital issue, because fiscal policy is effective, especially on a microeconomic level. And Government doesn't work unless people pay tax into the coffers for their public services.

If you're prepared to look like ridiculous lefties (revolutionary Trotskyite alliance, Socialist Peoples' party, Communist Party of Great Britain, Socialist Workers party etc... ad infinitum) each with their own religious belief in their solution to societies ills, then go ahead. Stick to your principles to the letter. Or you can grow up.

Yes, this comment did rather confuse me. Why on earth would I not want to vote for a party which represented my views? How does wanting the people who make the decisions governing the way that I and my friends and family live be accountable to the very same in any way extreme? And more to the point, how is that 'leftie'? Whilst I understand the author is of the political right, surely hurling around insults should be a little more accurate?

Dave is not the same as Tony.

Although I notice that you are calling them both 'Dave' and 'Tony' as they both decided to alter what they were known as to appeal more broadly to the masses. Anyway, I'll just pop this amusing little link in to this section

Yes he's a moderate - radical reformers do not do well when everyone's doing basically OK (by basically OK, I mean "Has a job"), but his instincts are against state intervention, and pro individual responsibility.

But people aren't doing well. People are monumentally pissed off, which is why voter turnout is down, minority parties are getting more votes and, importantly, huge numbers of British people are leaving because they are sick of the way the country is being run, and the direction is being taken in. Cameron has not reached the magic 40% in the polls, which, with this government, he really should be doing.

He will cut taxes, eventually (Thatcher took her time too).

How do you know that? The Shadow Chancellor has made it perfectly evident that he doesn't get the link between expansionary fiscal policy and economic growth. They think that the state can spend money better than the people who earn it, and they don't want to cut funding on public services, despite it being perfectly evident that chucking money at the problem really doesn't work. Also, Cameron has broken the only policy he ever made when he was running to be leader; namely to withdraw his MEPs from the federalist EPP group in the European Parliament.

He will reduce regulation, a bit. He will be better at standing up to Brussels than Tony. Individual policies may not be much cop, but add them up and there's a world of difference between Cameron and his party and the largely unreconstructed Dave and Dierdrie Sparts led by a power-grubbing one-eyed thief and a spivvy ambulance-chasing lawyer who currently "govern" us.

He will find it very difficult, given that at least 70% of Britain's regulatory burden comes shrink wrapped from Brussels, where we only have a 1 in 27 vote at the Council of Ministers, 78 MEPs out of 785 and in an organisation where the European Commission propose the laws. Given the last attempt to deregulate by the European Union, I suspect this is just another red herring. There was an immense amount of publicity surrounding the claims by Siim Kallas that the Commission were going to scrap 56 regulations and directives. In actual fact, about half were defunct, because they referred to enlargement countries that were now part of the EU. At least 10 have been challenged in the court by the relevant head of the DGs, leaving a few small directives that, rather than being abolished, have been amended to existing regulations. And then you have the Sir Humphrey's of this world.

We've had one day shy of 10 years of this nonsense and it's time for it to end. The local government elections are an opportunity to thrust a knife into Blair, Brown and all the other bastards who have comprehensively ruined this country's once elegant constitution and once powerful economy.

We;ve had 1 day shy of ten years of a Labour government, and this Thursday is the local elections and the Welsh and Scottish Elections. Of the latter two, isn't it interesting that the Conservative Party have decided that the extra layer of bureaucracy in these Euro-Regions is now rather a good thing, now that they can get more money from it, even though it's a blatant example of regionalisation, which the Tories say they oppose.

If you're right of centre, and you want a new government, vote Conservative on Thursday.

Well, not really. Because this Thursday is the voting on local elections, and you decide a government in a General Election.

If you're a swivel-eyed monomaniac with adolescent fantasies of self-importance, vote UKIP especially if you want 5 years of Gordon Brown (hey, at least he's Eurosceptic). If there's no UKIP standing, you can always vote BNP.

I am sure that Timothy Congdon, former 'Wise Man' in the Treasury in the 1980s would be delighted at you calling him such names. As would Lord Pearson of Rannoch, who was given a life peerage by the Conservatives, and is chairman of the Pearson Webb Springbett (PWS) Group of reinsurance brokers, which he founded in 1964. Or, indeed, Lord Willoughby de Broke. Since 1992, Lord Willoughby de Broke has been governor of the Royal Shakespeare Theatre and since 2002 president of the Warwickshire branch of the Campaign to Protect Rural England (CPRE). He is a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts (FRSA) and of the Royal Geographical Society (FRGS).

And here is a small list of why I will always be voting UKIP, which was a reply to a post similar to Mr J's by Caroline Hunt, once again wondering why people voted UKIP:

I don't want another Labour government. I want a UKIP government. And if I can't have that, I at least want UKIP MPs. I'm not going to get that by not voting for them, am I?

If you can't understand why people would vote UKIP then it may be time to compare their manifesto with that of the Tory party.

I, for example, vote UKIP because firstly I want the UK to withdraw from the EU and replace membership with a free trade agreement. Once we have control of our own trade policy we can, either multilaterally, bilaterally or unilaterally embrace free trade. This has the benefits of increasing global parity.

I also understand that the way to stimulate economic growth is to cut taxes, as an increased marginal propensity to consume and invest increases the money multiplier. This is NOT the policy of the Conservatives, who seem to have abandoned any logical economic policy, and who also want to keep state spending at this unsustainable and damaging level.

I also believe in selection for schools and think that the reintroduction of grammar schools and support for existing grammar schools is vital for improving education in this country. I think that Head teachers should be freed up from being controlled by the government and should have control of their own school. This is not the policy of the Conservatives.

I don't think that environmental taxes are necessary. Indeed, I think they are a convenient way for our Westminster politicians to raise taxes without any political opposition from within Parliament. I certainly don't think that we should be so preoccupied with an unproven theory, which this fandango with climate change is.

I think we should have nuclear power. I think we should build more prisons.

As for Helmer and Hannan. Well, the fact that Helmer was thrown out of the EPP for doing what he was elected to do is illustrative of the true feelings in the Tory party towards anyone with EUsceptic leanings.

Helmer was given the whip back after he wrote a letter to Cameron saying he would join UKIP unless the whip was restored, so clearly he thinks that there is a reason to vote UKIP.

People vote UKIP because they represent the views of many, many people. And as it is their democratic right to vote for who they wish to, why should they not vote for a party which represents their views? It's not a case of only being able to vote for Tories or Labour. I actually think that Gordon Brown is more EUsceptic than David Cameron, and having heard him address the European Parliament Economic and Monetary Affairs committee, I certainly heard more statements from him to convince me of that than I ever heard or saw in 2 years of following that committee and seeing the true beliefs of the Tory MEPs on that committee.

As a last point Caroline, what do you think about the Tory MEPs helping to fund the 'yes' propaganda for the EU Constitution? Because they did....

Your comment that UKIP cannot and will not win seats in Westminster is rather confusing. Do you know something you're not letting on? Are all UKIP votes going to be destroyed? Is there a ban on UKIP entering Parliament? Or are you just copying rhetoric from your leadership who don't exactly have a perfect record when it comes to speaking honestly about any matters linked with the EU.

Withdrawing from the CFP and Social Chapter, anyone?

The Budget

My short analysis of the budget.

The poor are worse off.

Incentives for workers on benefits to get out and get a job are diminished further

I will have to go abroad more often to buy cigarettes

Regardless of pennies here and there off the various rates of taxation, the tax system is still too complicated.

Gordon Brown has been pushed into a corner when it comes to international competitiveness and has made some cosmetic alterations. But it's really nothing more than that. If we want more FDI then we need to slash corporation taxes. And we need to simplify the tax system, which is why UKIP advocates a Flat Tax Policy.

And why do spirits never have duty increased on them? Is it because our dour Scots gobblemuncher is partial to a wee dram?

oh, and another thing. Am just listening to a broadcast by the gobblemuncher and he reminded me of another thing I am irritated by.

I don't approve of child benefits. I certainly don't agree that they should be increased.

Having children is not a right, and if you do decide to have them it's up to you and your partner should make sure you can afford them. Why should I have to pay more for your child when as a single, childless woman my taxes already go to paying its education. And because I am single, getting on the property ladder is a nightmare, so quite frankly I need every penny I can get.

kicking the smallest boy in the playground

Am a little bit sick of all these 'UKIP finance' stories, but I thought this timeline in The Times today was rather illustrative of the motivations here:

Peaks and troughs

1993 The United Kingdom Independence Party is founded by Alan Sked and other members of the AntiFederalist League

1997 The party fails to win any seats in the general election. Mr Sked resigns as leader and leaves the party

1999 UKIP wins three seats in the European Parliament with 7 per cent of the vote

2000 Michael Holmes is ousted as leader in a power struggle and leaves the party

2002 The former Conservative minister Roger Knapman is elected leader

2004 Robert Kilroy-Silk joins UKIP. The party wins 12 seats in the European election with 16.8 per cent of vote

2005 Mr Kilroy-Silk resigns after failing to become leader

2006 Nigel Farage MEP is elected as leader

2007 UKIP gets its first foothold in Parliament when two peers defect

2007 The Electoral Commission demands the return of £367,697 donations

Translation: Oh, fuck; they're in Westminster. We never thought they'd do that.I know, we'll close them down! That way we can keep this wonderful status quo of useless, traitor politicians.

And for those of you who weren't aware of the other delight handed out by the Electoral Commission to UKIP:

The UK Independence Party's plight deepened yesterday when election watchdogs signalled that they would veto its plans to rebrand itself.

Which is odd, because when it was bounced around as an idea, lots of people seemed to think it was a rather good one. Someone who wrote such an article (which I am not going to link to as I am rather keen on keeping my contacts) said that he had had four calls from CCHQ asking why he wrote such a positive article on the name change, as it was the biggest fear of the Tory party that UKIP do that.

Well, they can't. But I hope that they will have a new logo, though, and get a better website and engage with the new media because I personally think that it's vital in the 21st century.

The reason why they weren't allowed to change the name? Because some people might get confused between The Independence Party and an Independent candidate.

The Electoral Commission: Bolstering rock bottom standards in education since 2000.

Stop the world, I want to get off.

Latest YouGov poll

Shows that under the leadership of Nigel Farage, UKIP have doubled the number of people who are planning on voting for us in the next general election. Whilst there is still a long way to go, of course, it is incredibly encouraging to see.

I am most pleased about the Midlands and Wales score, which shows UK Independence on 7% and bodes well for our Welsh campaign where we are the only party who want to stop the hideous waste that is yet another regional assembly stuffed to the brim with people who may have trouble with their own shoe laces.

The squeeze question this time was about voting intention apart from the three main parties, which shows that despite many in the media, leaders of the opposition etc. trying to discredit UK Independence by ridiculing their sensible policies such as cutting tax and free trade, many people do support us and what we stand for:



So there.

Much work still to do, but it's all moving in the right direction.

At least they are honest

A story I read about a while ago, but just didn't get round to writing about:

Barroso addressed the Hague last Monday (12th Februrary) and told the Dutch government they had "a responsibility to present a good solution" after the Dutch people said Nee to the EU Constitution. To me, this just indicates that the EU will not be happy until they have a new treaty transferring more powers to the EU, and that the Dutch people have clearly done something wrong by voting No.

He refused to say the Constitution was 'dead' and said "we must continue the institutional reforms as we will not save the EU with instruments of the 1980s'. (the Treaty of Amsterdam was signed in 2002 I think, so not quite the 1980s)

The Dutch agree with London and Paris that a mini treaty would be better, as then they don't think that they would need a referendum. This is even though a mini treaty would at the very least include an EU president and an EU foreign minister.

Barroso said: "Referendums make the process of approval of European treaties much more complicated and less predictable." He said that any government considering a referendum on any new treaty should "think twice" about holding one, just incase one country said no.

When he was Portuguese PM he was pro referenda (knowing that the Portuguese would say yes and he would look democratic, I presume) but since 2005 he has been against them.

"I was in favour of a referendum as Prime Minister, but it does make our lives (sic) with 27 member states in the EU more difficult. If a referendum had been held on the creation of the European Community or the introduction of the Euro, do you think these things would have passed?"

He added, "If you have signed a treaty, you should also ratify it." thus throwing democracy to the wind.

Excuse me whilst I have a short rant..

It seems to me that because JMB realises that some countries will vote no to the treaty, they should not have the opportunity to. He realises that the EC and the Euro are unpopular and that people do not want them, so they should not have the option of having a democratic opinion as it ruins the EU plans. He also is against unanimity in the Council, which is required now, as it means there is less chance of radical transfers of power going to the EU, as happened with Justice and Home Affairs, which would have seen police forces from other countries and EuroPol, who report to the Commission, having powers in other countries.

It's a single minded bureaucratic machine which wants to power on to a political superstate without the inconvenience of asking what the people who pay them think. I tell you, if this goes ahead, I'm emigrating!

As a colleague wrote to me:

"In Denmark, it will be politically impossible to avoid a referendum, but if we vote wrong we are used to being asked to vote again."

That's the tough this about democracy. In referendums, the ballot contains both "yes" and "no" and it is tricky to limit the possibilities on the ballot paper to "yes" and "yes please".

I'm sure they'll manage it, though...maybe by having a Head of State dinner in Brussels where it will be decided whether all 27 heads of state have to sign the Berlin Declaration, or whether the European Commission President, the European Parliament President and the Council President can do it. That means that our future would be decided by a Portuguese Kilroy and two Germans.

I guess we'll just have to wait and see. Well, I will know before you, but I'll make sure I pass the news on...

See also:

Brussels Journal

Expatica

EU-Serf

Camer-bis 'not a happy bunny'

Oh dear. Poor Davie-Boy. I don't normally think that someone's past life should play any part in whether or not they can do their job 25 years later, and I don't actually think that what Cameron did as a 15-year-old boy really matters at this point in time.

However, I find him such a smug, insufferable bastard that I did actually laugh at his misfortune. I suppose I was more likely to on a day when his worker-bees were trying to stick the knife into UKIP for no other reason than too many people were defecting away from the Boy Blunder...

Hope he's not huffing and 'puffing' about it all....

UKIP finances: setting the record straight

Poor Trixy was woken up this morning by someone informing her that the Sunday Telegraph had written that UKIP was being investigated for dodgy finances. I knew they were writing a piece; my contacts in the party had told me how shocked they were at how little the journalist actually knew about the funding of political parties. For example, he didn't actually realise that parties with MPs in Westminster are already on the public slush fund and have been for many years.

So, to set the record straight:

1) UKIP filed the accounts 6 months late, with the permission of the Electoral Commission, as the position of party treasurer changed hands a few months ago, during which time it became the end of the financial year. Both men were part time working for the party and full time chartered accountants. The new party treasurer had to not only file the accounts, but catch up with the party records from the previous administration in a very short space of time and run his business during the busiest time.

2) Most of the financing for UKIP, particularly during elections, comes from individials. As the paper admits, a party does not have to register donations from individuals to the party if they are under £5000 or to regional offices if they are under £1000. UKIP is a grass roots party. People give us whatever they can afford, whether it be £5 or £100 or £10000. They do this because they genuinely believe in what the party stands for. The only personal gain they stand to make that there will be a political party in this country who believes in Independence.

There is the incentive in larger parties for people to give huge amounts of money because, as we have seen with the 'loans for peerages', they could stand to benefit on a personal level. That is not a view people take with UKIP. They give what they can to free Britain from the constraints of the EU and our statist government. The journalists should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves for attacking those well meaning people for doing something they believe in.

For instance, Ukip's south-east office received donations of £291,000 in 2004, more than twice as much as the party's head office. Yet some £280,000 did not need to be declared because it consisted of individual donations of less than £1,000 each.

Notice that? They didn't need to. That's not UKIP making up the rules, or breaking the rules. That's the party following the rules and being different from others because it has the support of normal, everyday people.

2004: European Election time. If you want out of the EU, who would you donate some money to? Labour, Lib Dems? The Tories?

No, you'd donate it to UKIP because they are the only party who wants to restore Independence to Britain. And they did, in their thousands because they wanted to, and they felt they needed to and consequently, we beat the Lib Dems into third place.

The Sunday Cameron may not like that (they did, after all, censure Booker who is the paper's best journalist) but it's true. UKIP doesn't have lobotomised, tribal followers. It is supported by people who care deeply and passionately about this country and if the Sunday Cameron thinks this is some kind of financial irregularity, then that says far more about them than it does about UKIP.

3) Investigations by the Electoral Commission.

Yes, these were things like 'can you clarify the post code of x as we don't have them registered at that address.

oooOOOOOOOOhhhhhhhh

Honestly.

Put the kettle on

Oh, no, don't bother. I can't have a cup of Earl Grey anymore...

For almost 200 years, it has been the preferred drink of British polite society. But now the distinct taste of Earl Grey tea is under threat from meddling Brussels bureaucrats. Producers of the citrus fruit bergamot, which gives the blend its unique flavour, say they cannot afford to obey health and safety rules which will become law this year.

Under the regulations, bergamot oil, which is mainly produced for perfume, is classified as potentially dangerous and must be tested and resisted with the European Chemicals Agency. But owners of the small family-run farms in southern Italy, where the fruit is almost exclusively produced, say they will be ruined by the extra £35,000 cost, so will grow something else instead.

That would be the fantastic REACh Directive, which is supposed to ensure that us poor 'EU citizens' don't get killed by them nasty chemicals companies? The same directive which stopped someone in the West Midlands using pepper as a pesticide because it hadn't been tested to make sure it was safe for humans?

BIRMINGHAM MEP Mike Nattrass is determined to prove there are no flies on him by rallying against a "barmy" EU directive outlawing pepper from insect traps.

And the UKIP MEP is determined to show that the issue is not one to be sneezed at claiming that jobs could be lost if the pepper problem is not addressed.

Milled pepper is used in traps to prevent insects from clinging to a smooth surface, so that they fall into a catchment area.

The process is non-toxic to humans but small companies wanting to use pepper in several industrial products will now have to fork out £89,000 to get the age old powder passed by EU safety inspectors.

The Aston businesss-man said: "The EU should have kept their traps shut about this because it amounts to an assault on pepper for no reason."

"Small companies in Birmingham and throughout the country will suffer and it is just barmy.

"When humans eat pepper it is ok but when its used in insect traps it has to be pass safety regulations costing an arm and a leg which plays into the hands of multi-nationals who can pay for tests on their chemicals."

Of course, it actually has nothing to do with protecting people from dangerous chemicals, and everything to do with ensuring that large pharm. companies have less and less competition from small businesses and therefore keep supporting the EU.

It's also the typical law of unintended consequences: the minor metals used to make plasma screen TVs for example, will be far more costly to produce, and thus the cost of your nice TV goes up.

Should we be suprised, therefore, that the Boy Blunder ordered his MEPs to change their stance and vote for it?

David Cameron pressurised his party's representatives in the European Parliament to vote in favour of sweeping new environmental regulations, despite the MEPs' concerns about the impact on British business and jobs.

Several Tory MEPs were worried about the effects of an incoming law to crack down on dangerous chemicals. Their concern about the legislation, known as REACH, was that it could put too onerous a burden on companies, forcing them to move to countries such as India.

Yet in a vote on October 10, Tory MEPs backed a crucial part of REACH, which obliges companies to replace dangerous chemicals with safer ones where they exist. It is understood the change of position came after members of Mr Cameron's staff discussed REACH with the MEPs at the party conference.

I guess not. After all, one of the organisations lobbying massively for a hard core piece of legislation was the WWF, who, of course, organised Cameron's trip to that bloody iceberg...

Why vote UKIP?

Martin over at The Kitchen makes a very good point about why people can and should vote for the UK Independence Party.

Good enough for me, and it should be good enough for every Tory like me who ever trooped into a booth in Labour's heartland provinces and voted Tory in the full knowledge their guy wouldn't win.

Such a good point. Carrot-brained fools like the 56th best Tory blogger Caroline Hunt say people shouldn't vote UKIP as it will mean Labour get it, and obviously, even though we don't support the Conservative Party, we should do and we should vote for them.

Yet there are endless seats up and down the country where tactical voting comes into play in a three party system. Where voting Tory could have let the Lib Dems in, or vice versa. Do you think this stopped Tories voting Tory? Like buggery it did. And why should they? For whether Labour or the Lib Dems got in, it mattered not to them as neither were parties they supported.

Getting the link yet?