The unofficial online home of the UK Independence Party
Archive for October, 2009
Left v Right in EU roles debate
Oct 30th
It seems to me the newspapers are missing something quite key to this whole EU President and High Representative for Foreign Policy debate, and it's this:Many papers are reporting a Left v Right tussle and they're not wrong.
The European People's Party, the biggest grouping in the European Parliament, are centre right. It's been suggested by the Party of European Socialists that they get the Presidency role, which might seem very gracious and diplomatic as they have the most bods. But in fact it's largely because the Socialists are eyeing up the Foreign Porfolio. They have also, unsurprisingly, reiterated the need for the President to come from a smaller member country and to not be a show-stopper, and have increasingly cooled on Blair, who could actually be one of their big hitters.
Why?
Well if Blair was made President, the coveted Foreign Post would go to the centre right. A post that will actually end up wiedling more power than the Presidency and could be used to house a Socialist "evangelist" to continue the global bureaucratic conquest. Obama, who let's not forget ended the American Republican rule, is said to want a strong Europe which can stand alongside China (Communist) Russia (Communist) and the USA (Democratic, i.e. left-wing) in a strong G4. Now is the time for Europe to be an international socialist player and push towards the global vision that underpins left wing politics and has seen Governments throughout the ages attempt political and ideological conquests abroad.
The idea of an ultra-united Europe is undeniably a left-wing vision. The whole concept of a consituted united Europe with increasing powers, and an increasing Global voice delivered by the new role of a Foreign Secretary, is akin to the development of the USSR, but without the tanks and Stalin. Adding more and more countries into a mix where money is collected centrally and then redistributed amongst everyone is Marxism, in the ideological sense. In order to push forward this vision what they need is the Foreign Post, which will look after the diplomatic service, European Foreign and Security Policy and also cover the vice presidency. Simply getting the Presidential role would leave all these goodies to the central right, who are by nature somewhat more warey of the European Dream.
But of course, if the EPP do get to play President, the Socialists don't want him to have much power or international significance, so a relative unknown is surely the best bet.
But why not Blair and why all of a sudden are they ogling Miliband with such interest?David is I'd imagine fundamentally a die-hard Marxist. Son of the late Marxist theorist Ralph Miliband, he even penned a book back in 1994 entitled Reinventing the Left. If anyone can be religiously committed to promoting a Socialist Ideology in Europe and abroad, it is him
Similarly, the Current President of the EC, Barroso, was one of the leaders of the underground Maoist MRPP (Reorganising Movement of the Proletariat Party) later PCTP Communist Party of the Portuguese Workers/Revolutionary Movement of the Portuguese Proletariat. 
Angela Merkel was as a student member of the official, Socialist-led youth movement Free German Youth and it's believed she grew up in Communist East Germany with a father who had strong ties to the Communist rule.
No suprise then that right-wing Sarkozy initially pushed Blair, as did centre right Berlusconi. Blair's shift to the right when his party came into power in order to appease conservative Britian and his later alliance with Republican George Bush disenchanted anyone who saw him as a strong socialist.
So it goes like this.
In the last European Elections the shift moved clearly to the right. The centre right party has the most members. The voting public of various European countries democratically elected them. In Britain it seems inevitable once again that poltics are shifting to the right. But despite public mood being more centre right, it is the Socialists, the marxists and the left wingers who at the end of the day will seize power and wield it by whatever means possible. Mind you, stripping people of their voice and collecting countries like trump cards have always been the main flavours of left wing politics throughout history. Why should The United European Socialist Republic should be any different?
Big UKIP by-election gain
Oct 30th
UKIP achieved another fantastic gain in vote share at yesterday's Huntingdon North By election, reports Eastern Regional Organiser Cllr Peter Reeve.
The by-election was caused by the resignation of the sitting Liberal Democrat Cllr.
UKIP increased its share of the vote from 8.2% in 2008 to 22.3% . (Increase of +14.1%)
The Liberal Democrats held the seat by achieving a small increase in their share of the vote (+2.7%) and the Labour Candidate also achieved a small gain (+1.8%) but came 4th Place being beaten by UKIP.
The Conservatives saw their vote plummet going from 47.2% in 2008 down to 28.5% (Down -18.7%). Despite their candidate being a local sitting County Councillor for the area (Cllr Liane Kadic)
Cllr Reeve, who was elected as a UKIP Councillor on to Huntingdonshire District Council and Cambridgeshire County Council in July this year, said: “This result is typical of what is happening to UKIP right across the country.
"Voters are now deciding to back UKIP in huge numbers because of our commonsense policies and our passion for listening to and representing the man in the street. Though Cllr Kadic is an impressive individual, the Conservatives adopted some desperate measures including delivering an all Polish language election address. It seems that the Conservative Leadership no longer wish to represent traditional British values and as well as being passionately pro-EU and led by a Polish MEP in the European Parliament, they also now seem to be anti-English language.
"We would like to thank the residents of Huntingdon North for voting UKIP and to Peter Ashcroft our Candidate, our hard working local resident, and also thanks to the election agent Robert H Brown and the dedicated team in Huntingdonshire.
The 29th Oct 2009 Results for Huntingdon North were : Lib Dem 32.6% ( up +2.7%); Con 28.5% (down – 18.7%); UKIP 22.3% ( up +14.1%); Lab 16.4% ( up +1.8%)
Zero legitimacy.
Oct 29th
One thing I think people are missing regarding the likely appointment of Tony Blair as the permanent President of the European Union: forget who is going to take the role for a minute, just where is the scrutiny for such a role even existing?
If Blair does get the post as I believe he will, it will have had exactly zero endorsement from the electorate as virtually nobody in the continent, let alone our country, has even had a say on whether there should be a President of the EU.
Even the most rabid europhile who has any interest whatsoever in this thing have even an whiff of democratic legitimacy cannot defend that fact. It blows my mind that we are debating who should be President, and not that it is a national scandal and disgrace that nobody has ever had a say on this post, as is the case with so many other aspects of the EU.
And it is important to remember that the self-amending Lisbon Treaty will also mean that we will never again get a referendum on further power grabs. The EU elite are now perfectly entitled, according to the rules they set, to go now as far as they want because people’s “elected representatives” (read: Gordon Brown) have decided as much.
Power Shower
Oct 29th
While people in the UK are still reeling about MP's expenses it might be worth contextualising our grumbles about the frivolous and greedy use of taxpayer's money with what's been going on over the Channel.Yes, I'm of course going to refer to Sarkozy's Power Shower.
The French President's impulse spending would make flipping a caravan with a castle look somewhat modest.
Reports that Sarkozy spent a quarter of a million pounds of taxpayer's money on a shower he didn't even use have been spreading across the continent. Quite frankly I didn't imagine you could even buy a shower worth that much. Reports have described it as having in-built massagers and surroundDuring France's 6 month term as EU leaders, Sarkozy spent a whopping £160m in expenses. Now every Government likes to put on a bit of a show when the circus comes to town. And every time a new member state takes on the role of being leader for 6 months, the EU kindly tops up National funds to help afford all the summits, and the dinners, and the conferences, and the tours. So how come in 1995, France managed on only £12m, which works out as less than 10% of Sarko's Presidential Ents Bill.
It's even been reported that the French Premier gets out of bed for nobody. On one occasion Sarko cancelled an entire EU event he was set to host in Evian because he wanted to sleep in his own bed in Paris. Hundreds of disgruntled journalists, delegates and EU officials had to be sent home, grumbling and braying for even more cash to come out of the Presidential Bill by way of compensation.
For a Mediterranean Union Summit at The Grand Palace in Paris, Sarko summoned more than five hundred workers a day to spruce up the venue, with another 300 more doing the night shift. Perhaps the Grand Palace was somewhat of a misnomer to Sarko, who's shopping list also included 194,900 euros for potted plants, 653,703 euros for air con and 301,208 euros for a conference podium (with built in booster pedestal, one would imagine). The end of summit dinner itslef cost a staggering 1,010,256 euros -- more than 5,000 euros per head. 90 grand was even forked out for a red carpet.
Wales YouGov Polling
Oct 28th
A YouGov opinion poll undertaken for the University of Aberystwyth is showing some interesting polling figures.
Excluding Don’t Know/Wouldn’t Vote
Lab 34
Con 31
Plaid 15
Lib-Dem 12
Other 7Others
UKIP 4
BNP 2
Green 1
Respect 0
Other 1
The poll also shows that Welsh voters would vote 42% to 37% in favour of giving the Welsh Assembly more law-making powers. This yet again highlights the need for UKIP to resolve issues in its devolution policy.
The poll also shows just 8% of voters think the EU has the most affect over the way Wales is run, while 55% say the UK government. Interestingly, however, when asked which SHOULD have the most power just 1% say the EU, while 55% say the Welsh Assembly and just 27% say the UK government. This would appear to account for UKIP support in the European elections leading to our first Welsh MEP.
8% want a Wales independent from both UK and EU.
6% want a Wales independent from the UK but part of the EU
34% want a Wales with own Parliament, law-making and tax raising powers
27% want a Wales with elected Assembly with limited law-making powers
17% want to be part of the UK without an elected Assembly
The poll makes fascinating reading.
PRESIDENT BLAIR & THE UNITED STATES OF EUROPE
Oct 26th
It could have been the title of a horror movie, or at least a Sun headline, were it released at the same time as Blair's media driven fall from favour. But now the storm has calmed it seems somehow, despite everything, he could be back in charge, via the backdoor! Where have we seen this before? Oh that's right, Gordon Brown.
If someone had said after Blair's departure that Britain would effectively become a part of a "United States of Europe" with Tony Blair as President, you could imagine the backlash. But, in the words of former French President Valery Giscard D'Estaing (2007) "Public opinion will be led - without knowing it - to adopt the policies we would never dare present to them directly. All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden or disguised in some way."
In the UK I think the average person doesn't really have a concrete idea as to what extent the EU already controls us. They certainly don't have a concrete idea of what The Lisbon Treaty would mean, as quite deliberately, nobody has ever told them. If they were told, however, that over time the Treaty would allow the bureaucratic creation of a superstate, they may start to protest. That in effect it would eventually render the law making autonomy of each country akin to that of an individual state in America. That "Europe's nations should be guided towards a super state without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation."
It seems in recent times, the voice of Euroscepticism in the media has become suspiciously quiet. All the front page potential of the Lisbon Treaty saga has instead been squandered in comment columns. No doubt it is in the current Government's interests to play down any sort of Euroscepticism. As for the EU it's pretty much essential to get this wrapped up before our General Election, after which a Conservative Government could bring back that very British trend of Euroscepticism. Winston Churchill, who coined the term "The United States of Europe" in a famous speech in 1946 at The University of Zurich said of it "We see nothing but good and hope in a richer, freer, more contented European commonality. But we have our own dream and our own task. We are with Europe, but not of it. We are linked but not compromised. We are interested and associated but not absorbed."
I think to this day Brits maintain that island mentality.
So what could be done to encourage us to get on board? Well as suggested above, stripping us of our voice, keeping the public in ignorance and allowing the slow, invisible take-over of the EU are already ploys being employed in Brussels. But they think they have another trick up their sleeves.
There's been a lot of discussion this weekend as to why Blair should be in charge. Well one clear incentive is the hope that as a recognisable figure, parachuting Blair into top dog position would put an end to the British tendency to ask "What's in it for us?" But why would anyone in Britain feel like that when back on 20th April 2004 Blair himself promised us a Referendum, and five year's later he's the one in line to run the show?!
How do we give the British people a chance to choose, when what we are trying to battle is a 21st Century Iron Curtain?
If someone had said after Blair's departure that Britain would effectively become a part of a "United States of Europe" with Tony Blair as President, you could imagine the backlash. But, in the words of former French President Valery Giscard D'Estaing (2007) "Public opinion will be led - without knowing it - to adopt the policies we would never dare present to them directly. All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden or disguised in some way."
In the UK I think the average person doesn't really have a concrete idea as to what extent the EU already controls us. They certainly don't have a concrete idea of what The Lisbon Treaty would mean, as quite deliberately, nobody has ever told them. If they were told, however, that over time the Treaty would allow the bureaucratic creation of a superstate, they may start to protest. That in effect it would eventually render the law making autonomy of each country akin to that of an individual state in America. That "Europe's nations should be guided towards a super state without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation."
It seems in recent times, the voice of Euroscepticism in the media has become suspiciously quiet. All the front page potential of the Lisbon Treaty saga has instead been squandered in comment columns. No doubt it is in the current Government's interests to play down any sort of Euroscepticism. As for the EU it's pretty much essential to get this wrapped up before our General Election, after which a Conservative Government could bring back that very British trend of Euroscepticism. Winston Churchill, who coined the term "The United States of Europe" in a famous speech in 1946 at The University of Zurich said of it "We see nothing but good and hope in a richer, freer, more contented European commonality. But we have our own dream and our own task. We are with Europe, but not of it. We are linked but not compromised. We are interested and associated but not absorbed."I think to this day Brits maintain that island mentality.
So what could be done to encourage us to get on board? Well as suggested above, stripping us of our voice, keeping the public in ignorance and allowing the slow, invisible take-over of the EU are already ploys being employed in Brussels. But they think they have another trick up their sleeves.
There's been a lot of discussion this weekend as to why Blair should be in charge. Well one clear incentive is the hope that as a recognisable figure, parachuting Blair into top dog position would put an end to the British tendency to ask "What's in it for us?" But why would anyone in Britain feel like that when back on 20th April 2004 Blair himself promised us a Referendum, and five year's later he's the one in line to run the show?!
How do we give the British people a chance to choose, when what we are trying to battle is a 21st Century Iron Curtain?
UKIP May Cost Tories 50 Seats
Oct 25th
An article in the Observer suggests that UKIP could slash a Conservative majority at the general election, blocking them in 50 or 60 seats.
A private analysis by Labour strategists suggests that in marginal constituencies, even a few hundred extra votes for Ukip could frustrate Tory challengers trying to take the seats. One cabinet minister cited Ukip as among the most important factors in the battle for a hung parliament, telling the Observer it could “cost the Tories 50 to 60 seats”.
Labour’s figures are based on 100 “supermarginal” seats where its MPs are holding on with majorities of less than 2,000. These are the seats Cameron must win to form a majority. While Ukip will not win these seats, the minister said that if the party maintained its momentum and took about two-thirds of its support from Conservative-inclined rather than Labour-inclined voters, it could split the opposition vote sufficiently to keep the Tories out in around 50 seats.
The important point here is where UKIP takes support from. The analysis suggests UKIP takes more Tory votes than Labour votes, but polls differ and have shown the balance to be far more even than this.
There is no doubt that in the general election the votes that will be up for grabs will be disaffected Labour votes, and UKIP does perform very well in Labour areas. It is also the case that many Conservatives, especially in marginal seats, will want to see Brown ousted at all costs and for their blue rosetted donkeys to grace the government benches. This is likely to make it a tough fight in marginal seats.
Mike Smithson has some analysis over at Political Betting, although I don’t agree with it entirely.
It is entirely possible, due to “blue team” factor, that in some other marginal seats UKIP could hoover up more Labour votes than Conservative votes – enough to see a Conservative victory in those seats.
So how will UKIP do at the election? In 2005 we took 600,000 votes. We averaged 3.5% in the constituencies we stood in (496). Will we increase this at the election?
Well interestingly in the Eruopean Election, while we broadly held stead on our vote share, increasing it a smidgen, the big story was local election results, where our vote share rocketed. It showed more of our “Euro” voters were also voting for us domestically in local elections. This has big implications.
While local elections and Euro elections are different to Westminster elections, the fact that more people were translating their support in the Euros into the locals suggests UKIP could pick up a fair few more votes in the general election.
My prediction is that UKIP will touch if not surpass the 1m vote barrier (0.9m – 1.1m). If this is the case UKIP could have a significant affect on the outcome of the election, but it might not all be bad news for the Tories. Labour better be taking note also.
Expensive French EU Presidency
Oct 24th
By J Conway, occasional Independence Home contributor…
French EU Presidency was Twice the Price and Half the Value
Reuters is reporting today (with a suspiciously small amount of media attention) that the French Presidency of the EU last year cost twice as much as the average presidency due to poor management and an excessively ambitious programme according to the head of the Senate finance committee speaking to a French newspaper.
It cost 151 million euros (138 million pounds), compared to an EU average of around 70 million euros. The head of the committee however went on to praise the French success, which was based on two or three events like the handling of the financial crisis or war in Georgia’.
Is France justified in having spent so much money? Of course not, again this is Brussels managing to outdo the wastefulness of our parliamentarians here at home. The French presidency had nothing to be proud of and how one could point to the handling of the financial crisis or the 2008 South Ossetia War is perplexing. The Georgian conflict was ended after Mr Sarkozy’s peace treaty which has led to an extremely tense situation where checkpoints have been set up across South Ossetia and another conflict seems almost inevitable.
And it’s probably best not to even think about the financial crisis. Mr Sarkozy’s wife has not only forced him to exercise so excessively that he collapsed whilst out jogging, but also encouraged him to take on board her champagne socialist views so much that when France realises his legacy of debt he will have no doubt another cause for a heart attack.
The TrEUth about Immigration
Oct 23rd
Yet again it's at the forefront of topical discussion. Well it's always been at the forefront of our discussion, yet like every other relevent political discourse, it has often been marginalised and the parties that comment on the issue are marginalised themselves. There has developed this tendency in recent years to confuse criticising immigration with a xenophobic attack. Even though at the moment everyone is blaming uncontrolled immigration in recent years for the rise in popularity of the BNP. Well instead of banging on about it, shouldn't we instead finally be acting on it?(Even if we try to avoid the EU's common immigration policy the Lisbon Treaty will see that we relinquish any say on the matter.)
The EU decided that the allocation of asylum seekers is to be based on the population of each member state. Great. This means Britain will have to take on proportionately more immigrants than other countries because we already have a very large population. Well Britain’s already oversized population is to a large part due to immigration to date.
This is a country that already has the same population as France, despite geographically being four times smaller. In effect - we are four times more crowded.Rather than allowing us to state the bleedin' obvious – that we are speeding headlong towards extreme over-capacity – this fact will now used as the main reason for us to have to take in more! It's like distributing food based on what your BMI is. Undernourished people would get a grain of rice, whereas those who are morbidly obese would get platefuls. The word is "nonsensical".
Britain is known all over the world. Our pop music, the English language, films, TV programmes and The Premier League. This makes us a highly desirable country to live in. You probably don't hear many people with aspirations of fleeing their countries saying "I know, I'll try to get to Lithuania" or "I hear Bulgaria would be a great place to live". Now I'm not saying these countries are unpopular or people wouldn't want to live there. It's more basic than that. They are not very well known.Open border policy in Europe disregards the 1951 Convention of Refugees that states someone must claim asylum in the first safe country they arrive in. Funny then that lots seem to end up in the UK as if there is an Armada of ships queing outside our ports.
We have also received European migrants in their thousands and no doubt are set to receive even more as the EU considers more membership applications.
Sadly the immigration debate has now become related to matters of acceptance and to state the simple fact that the country is full to bursting is often translated into xenophobia.
Britain had good reasons to be one of only two EU members not to sign the 1990 Schengen Convention. (Some interesting arguments are laid out by Civitas)
We are an island, and by sheer logic, we have a limited capacity.
A Long Day’s Journey Into Night and Bunny Boiling
Oct 22nd
This morning I got into Parliament at 8:00am (GMT+1) which is pretty normal. The days are long and it's quite an intense week. After four days in Strasbourg I'll be glad to get home. MEPs from France and Belgium probably don't appreciate how fortunate they are to face a much smaller commute. It'll be more like Friday morning before I actually arrive back via the wonders of the TGV and Eurostar. At least travelling by train I can get on with a bit of work in relatively comfortable surroundings, make phone calls if need be, kick back and try to relax as the landscape rushes past. Not only would regular air travel do nothing for my carbon footprint, I am sure it would do nothing for the soul either. 
Train travel should be the obvious choice for getting from A to B. The first railways were laid in India in 1853. Now the trains transport 18 million people across the subcontinent a day. At the turn of the last century the Trans-Siberian railway was constructed. This amazing feat of engineering, almost six thousand miles long, cost Russia as much as Soviet involvement in WWI, and opened up travel for the first time for many people, from East to West and vice versa, without having to forego everyday comforts. A century on and the rail network in the UK is still lagging so incredibly far behind. Especially when you consider the MagLev in Shanghai, the Bullet in Japan...
"Come on guys it's home time"
"Come on guys it's home time"I must admit I do think it's a ridiculous situation that everyone ups and leaves for Strasbourg one week a month. It's absolutely nuts when the hottest topic for discussion is climate change, and the key players are trying to thrash out sensible, achievable targets and objectives, when every three weeks, a huge chunk of EU staff all migrate South to Strasbourg by road, rail and air. It's a case of "do as I say" rather than "do as I do" when it comes to the EU. When I close my office door later today it will remain closed for a month - and the whole Parliament building will be evacuated, waiting for the next mass migration. You just could not make this up. It's a given that the MEPs travel from across the continent anyway, why make things even more complicated than they already are?
And on the subject of Carbon Footprints, I came across an EU funded initiative that may make our nation of animal lovers recoil. Stockholm is annually faced with a huge explosion in the population of rabbits. Many are the offspring of the domestic bunny which have over time escaped into the city and bred, well, like rabbits. Now they are said to be destroying the city's parks. Last year six thousand were culled. But what happened to the bodies? Not given to Felix or Whiskas, I assure you. This year the bodies are being frozen and transported one hundred and fifty miles to a Biofuel plant in Karlskoga, where they are boiled down and turned into central heating for the city's residents. That certainly puts a new take on the term bunny boiler!
Blair not europhile enough to be EU President?
Oct 22nd
Yes you heard it here first; there are moves underway by several MEPs to block a Tony Blair EU Presidency because the man just isn’t committed to the EU as they are.
Five MEPs, Jorgo Chatzimarkakis, Robert Goebbels, Jo Leinen, Klaus-Heiner Lehne and Herbert Reul don’t want Blair as the President of 27 countries because Blair is from a country that “is not part of the eurozone, is not a member of Schengen and has opted out of the charter of fundamental rights.”
So, there you have it. Blair is not the most nutty, hardcore europhile out there. He is simply the tip of the iceberg. Whudda thunk it?
Anyone but Pearson
Oct 22nd
I am beginning to worry now. Out of the candidates standing I find myself at best apathetic and at wort antipathetic towards them.
I have been contemplating abstaining completely from the vote, but this has pulled me back into the fold very abruptly!…
But the horrified “not in my name” brigade have no need to fear, for the BNP will not last – and here’s why.It’s inevitable, as long as the demographic revolution continues, that an anti-immigration party will become a major force in British politics…
It’s inevitable, and it may happen sooner than we think. Yesterday I spoke to Lord Pearson, the UKIP life peer responsible for inviting Geert Wilders to London, and favourite to become the next leader of the party. Under Nigel Farage the party has continued to campaign almost entirely on the issue of Europe, but Lord Pearson told me that, if elected, he will make the threat of radical Islam the major focus.
What?
Now I have much respect for Lord Pearson. He does some excellent work on the Lords and is a genuine, honest and principled guy. However he has an obsession with Islam. We are about to elect a leader to take us into the General Election not the f****** crusades!!
Pearson invited Geert Wildres to the HoL to show his film Fitna. I am comfortable supporting the liberty of Wilders or anybody else to come and debate issues, although I suspect Pearson was not an unbiased party seeking only to have a discussion. No doubt, as evidenced above, he has deeper support for Wilders’ message.
I notice Ed West uses the words”radical Islam”. As it is not a direct quote we don’t know whether Lord Pearson caveatted his message in this way. Naturally I support any opposition against forces that pose a threat to liberty. Thankfully the Christian church has been put in its place over the years, but did and could pose serious threats to individual freedom.
Yes, “radical Islamic” threats need to be countered, of course they do. They give ordinary law abiding Muslims a bad name. However I do not believe Lord Pearson has the subtlety to raise the issue in the most un-emotive and non-anti-Islam way. What is more, Pearson strikes me as somebody who is unable to understand why they might be perceived as anti-Islam – a flaw in judgment for anybody let alone a politician.
And that is a shame, because as Ed West points out in the rest of his article, Pearson has excellent democratic credentials as a supporter of referenda and localism which, along with his standing as a UKIP Peer and widespread respect, make him a good choice for UKIP Leader in any other circumstance.
So I feel compelled to use my vote, and it will be for “Anyone But Pearson”, whomsoever that candidate might be!
UKIP on 4%?
Oct 22nd
A new opinion poll by Political Betting is showing UKIP registering 4 and 5% for voting intention.
It is their first poll commissioned by PB, and from a new pollster whose methodologies and accuracy has yet to be tested against real world results. However, the detailed tables of past votes show a 2% 2005 UKIP vote. UKIP achieved 2.2% of the national vote so the sample would seems to be fairly representative in this poll.
These polling figures suggest UKIP is running close to double its 2005 vote share, and if carried through to a General Election should see UKIP touch, if not pass the 1m vote barrier.
It is not enough to see a fresh faced contingent of UKIP MPs at Westminster, but it would be enough to clear the 5% threshold in many constituencies. In 2005 UKIP cleared the 5% threshold in 38 seats out of 496 contested. These polling results would suggest the deposit would be saved in a further 200 seats, saving the party and its candidates £100k!
It could also be enough to see UKIP surpass 10% in our top 20 seats, another significant threshold.
Don’t crack open the champers yet, but it is looking likely UKIP will surpass its 2005 result and register a further progression into domestic politics.
Election Watch
Oct 22nd
UKIP candidates contested 3 by elections last week. None were ones in which we had stood the previous time, making them all new territory the party is establishing itself in.
In the first, for the Hanworth and Birch Hill Ward of Bracknell Forest Borough Council, Jeff Newbold took 139 votes in a six way contest, with over 9% of the vote, beating the Greens and the BNP. The election was a Conservative hold with a reduced majority. The Tories also held in a simultaneous Town Council by election which we didn’t contest, but in which all three of the “big parties” stood the same candidate as the Borough Council election.
Full result
Mark Phillips Conservatives 640 42.41%
Janet Keene Labour Party 377 24.98%
Larraine de Laune Liberal Democrats 206 13.65%
Jeff Newbold UK Independence Party 139 9.21%
Steven Martin Gabb Green Party 77 5.10%
David Anthony Penson British National Party 70 4.64%
In the Heath Hayes & Wimblebury Ward of Cannock Chase District Council, Sean Gleeson scored 51 votes in a seat narrowly taken by the Lib Dems after the incumbent Labour councillor moved to Italy. The seat has become something of a three way marginal:
Lib Dem 314
Conservative 300
Labour 267
BNP 116
UKIP 51
Lastly, in the St Helens Ward of Barnsley MBC, a ward that by some miracle Labour managed to hold (goodness knows whose still voting for them!), Neil Robinson scored 94 votes, beating both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats! Well done to him.
Full Result
Lab 1520
BNP 590
Ind 171
UKIP 94
Con 89
LD 78
A by election we didn’t contest in North Norfolk furnished a less promising result for Labour.
Con 524
LD 454
Green 14
Lab 14
What a shame!
Looking to this week, we have two contests where a UKIP victory is a real possibility. In the first, for the Eriswell and The Rows of Forest Heath District Council, we scored 304 votes in 2007 while the two Tories who were elected attained 716 and 562 respectively. The incumbent Conservative resigned when the Adjudication Panel looked into his alleged involvement in a planning application lodged by his son, who was in turn selected by the local Tories to fight this by election. Apparently, some locals are not overly impressed by this development. Hopefully, they will show their dissatisfaction at the ballot box and get our candidate David Chandler elected.
Mean while, the Jubliee Ward of Wyre Borough Council is an even more exciting prospect for UKIP. Two Conservatives were elected in 2007 with 501 and 482 votes, while our candidates got 465 and 408. On that basis, our candidate Roy Hopwood has a real shot at being the latest in a long line of recently elected UKIP councillors.
Good luck to both of them and I’ll be back with the results later in the week!
Response to Chris Davies MEP
Oct 21st
Chris Davies has been getting hot and bothered because a resolution in the European Parliament was voted down by just 1 vote thanks, so he says, to Conservative and UKIP MEPs.
The resolution apparently called for the European Parliament “denounce pressure and intimidation against Italian and European newspapers by the Italian government”, and also for “‘investigation into the risks posed by the concentration of media”.
Well Chris, press freedom is indeed a vital liberty. Freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of thought. All these must be defended rigorously. However, just because these might be issues we should be prepared to die for does not mean they are issues on which MEPs should vote.
Firstly any issues to do with the Italian press should be dealt with in Italy and not at an EU level. Secondly what is “denouncing” going to achieve, bar make you look like a good freedom-championing MEP?
Parliaments exist to protect liberty against the executive branch of government, ensuring laws are properly and fairly crafted and intended. As a Lib-Dem who supports the EU and federalism, you would think Chris might understand about keeping issues confined to their appropriate level of administration. But instead we see the danger of power creep by well intentioned politicians, who relentlessly seek to accumulate powers centrally under their influence.
Baa Baa Barroso!
Oct 21st
We are used to the witty exchange of banter flying across the Chamber in Westminster. Whether the heckling is highbrow, or the humour deliciously lowbrow, the energy in the House of Commons is the envy of many political institutions globally.
Not surprising then that the EC thought they could liven up Plenary in Strasbourg by adopting President's Question Time, modeled on PM's Questions in The Commons. Afterall, the European Parliament is a huge, overly bureaucratic, political quagmire of an organisation.
So during Jose's first QT, I saw the opportunity to throw at him a question that matters greatly to my Welsh constituents.
The Subject: EID (Electronic Sheep Tagging)
Basically the EC want to introduce a system whereby farmers microchip every single sheep in a flock to trace their every movement. The proposal was cooked up after the last foot and mouth crisis, but has met with fierce opposition.
Basically the EC want to introduce a system whereby farmers microchip every single sheep in a flock to trace their every movement. The proposal was cooked up after the last foot and mouth crisis, but has met with fierce opposition.
It's now due to be pushed through in January 2010, despite the fact that the equipment doesn't work
(only a 75% success rate, with malfunctioning especially common in cold and wet conditions - hardly ideal for Welsh Mountain Sheep Farmers )
It's going to cost our farmers lots of time and money when the industry is already battling recession, and will expose Welsh farmers to penalties if they do not comply with the system (or when the system fails them.)
So I ask Barroso about why the EC is so adamant about pushing through the legislation in the New Year.
I drew comparison with the issue of immigration in the UK.
( Take a look at today's revelation by the ONS that our population could soar to 71.6m by 2033, with more than two thirds of that rise due to immigration. )
It would be bizarre if the UK knew the exact whereabouts of every single sheep in the land when we hardly know who is coming to live in here and where they're planning to go.
Sadly Barroso missed the point, and didn't like my supposed comparison of humans and sheep.
It would be bizarre if the UK knew the exact whereabouts of every single sheep in the land when we hardly know who is coming to live in here and where they're planning to go.
Sadly Barroso missed the point, and didn't like my supposed comparison of humans and sheep.
It seems we have a long way to go. Thankfully we have Nigel to show him how it's done...
