In spite of the Monroe Doctrine, by 1900 Britain had more influence in Argentina than it did with its own self governing dominions. The dormant claim to the Falkland Islands was there of course, but was gathering dust in a Buenos Aires archive. A windswept outcrop and coaling station were not worth jeopardizing the friendship with the globe’s pre-eminent economic and military power.

So what changed? Geopolitics changed, big time.

Exhausted by two world wars, Britain had to be far more selective about exerting its imperial will. It simply couldn’t maintain its influence everywhere. South America, it was decided, was destined to fall under the sway of the United States.
The American eagle would replace the British lion, but a least it wasn’t the Russian bear.

The Cold War threw the region into sharp relief for the US. Any wannabe coup leader who could spell ‘anti-communism’ was showered with money and implicit CIA backing. South America became a by-word for military junta’s, complete with death squads, corruption, and leaders in garish uniforms and aviator glasses.
An unforeseen result of the militarization of South American politics was the nationalism it unleashed. For Argentina that manifested itself in rivalry with Brazil, and long forgotten claims to the Falklands.

General Leopold Galtieri had considered an attack on the Falklands in 1978. However Britain at that time still possessed a proper aircraft carrier fleet. The deterrence worked. But by 1982, emboldened by seemingly disinterested Britain cutting its defence budget, and twitchy about growing economic troubles at home and, the ill fated invasion was launched.

Today, President Kirchner finds herself in a similar position. Britain is again paring back the Royal Navy, and for the first time since their inception, we do not operate an aircraft carrier. Combine this with a stumbling Argentinean economy, and omens are poor.

Many of Argentina’s economics woes are shared by its neighbours, but many are self inflicted. Pension pots have been raided and banks wrung for extra cash for spending sprees. When that ran out, the Spanish YBF oil company became fair game for nationalisation. Kirchner accuses YBF of under investing in Argentinean oil fields. But clumsy price controls imposed by the government kept prices artificially low. This kept voters happy, but starved the company of the funds needed for exploration and investment.

If the YBF action was meant to boost the economy and government coffers, it was short-sighted in the extreme. The affair may have boosted Kirchner’s nationalist credentials, but has had two regrettable and completely foreseeable side effects. Firstly, it will have scared off any potential big investors in Argentina. Why pour millions into starting an enterprise if a fickle government can snap it up once it’s successful? Secondly, by enraging Spain, Argentina has lost its closest thing it had to a friend in Europe. In solidarity with Spain, the EU has imposed tariffs and restrictions on Argentinean goods.

So what does this mean for Britain and the islanders?

The financial strains on Argentina are unlikely to improve anytime soon. Although this may lead to an ever more desperate Kirchner, the president has very few cards to play. Militarily, the Falklands Islands are better defended than they have ever been. Four Typhoons, an infantry company and a Rapier SAM battery are a far cry from handful of Royal Marines who stood guard in 1982. By comparison, Argentina’s military is smaller than thirty years ago, but use much of the same equipment. The timely deployment of HMS Daring further emphasises the gulf in the military technologies of Britain and Argentina.

Legally, the situation is not much better for the would-be liberator of the Malvinas. Britain claimed the islands before Argentina was even a country. In addition, the UN Charter on Self Determination clearly and resounding back Britain’s position.

Argentina’s best hope is her regional allies. In an effort to make the British ownership untenable, Kirchner is trying for death by slow economic strangulation. Ships bearing the Falklands flag are being denied access to ports. No doubt other actions will follow. But this is a dangerous game to play. Tit-for-tat restrictions on trade hurt everybody. They also depend on the fickle favour of fellow leaders. Lofty talk of Bolivarian solidarity make for great joint press releases, but regional leaders answer to their own voters, not Argentinean ones.

Argentina had a weak hand and played it poorly. Britain’s response has been the correct one. Our calm and (mostly) measured statements are a mature juxtaposition to the hot headed screeching emanating from Buenos Aires. We have resisted the obvious trap and declined the invitation to match Argentina’s tone. Belligerent speeches and jingoism from London would have been counterproductive. They would have backed Kirchner into a corner, forcing her to pick between lashing out and a humiliating climb down. Moreover, they would have put Britain on a par with Argentina. We are not. We have the legal, moral and military high ground.

President Kirchner is doing a very good job of tarnishing her and her country’s credibility all by herself. The economy and her domestic rivals will be her downfall, not British arms.

Reassuringly boring and staid though our actions are, they will prevail.
Never underestimate the latent power of diplomatic inactivity…

Lee Jenkins is hounslow born and raised, now residing in the wilds of Bolton. 
Socially liberal, fiscally conservative, International politics and military affairs are his passion.
He is unapologectic about his advocate of zero-sum power politics. ‘It’s better to be the hammer than the anvil.’

He tweets at @lee_t_jenkins

The BBC has also been quiet on UKIP’s surge. A brief mention on Newsnight that UKIP had become the third party was all that was given – as Michael Heaver notes, ‘If the Green Party were outpolling the Liberal Democrats nationally, I think that the BBC would be absolutely all over the story.’  The BBC did, however, put Nigel Farage on Question Time on the 26^th April as they are required to do – he is an elected representative of the people, and even then UKIP don’t get featured anywhere as much as they should despite coming 2^nd in a National Election with 16.5% of the vote. Nigel showed why the three old failed parties are falling away and UKIP are on the rise – you couldn’t put a cigarette paper between them. He was the only person pointing our that there are no cuts and that spending is rising across the board. Despite the desperate need for austerity we still send £50m a day to the EU, spend £11bn a year on foreign aid including to countries like India who has its own Foreign Aid and Space programs, and spend £18bn a year on the Climate Change Act with wind turbines that do not work.

Nigel was further proved right on housing, despite the BBC attempting to let an audience member practically lie that immigrants cannot come to Britain and claim social housing (the man later admitted to Nigel that migrants could indeed claim social housing ‘fairly quickly). As Milton Friedman once said, you cannot have open borders and a welfare state, and UKIP certainly do not believe on pulling away the safety net from the poorest members of society.

But back to UKIP’s surge. Why is this rise happening? Certainly some can be attributed to anti-establishment feeling with the Lib Dems losing their ability to receive protest votes, but interestingly this is a UKIP only rise. Minor parties like the Greens or the BNP have seen no rise in support, this is a UKIP surge alone.

So why have UKIP done so well and have broken into becoming a mainstream party, whilst other minor parties haven’t? Well, since 2010 UKIP has done a much better job of advocating its common sense policy package. Much criticism has come at UKIP that it is a single issue party, but now UKIP have shed that label, and are managing much more successfully to explain our views on other areas apart from just the EU.

UKIP advocates policies that resonate with the people of Britain. It wants no tax on minimum wage to help make work pay for the poorest in our society.  It wants to cut the devastating tax on jobs that is National Insurance and roll it into a single flat tax rate of 31%. Combined with an increase in the personal allowance, this means a tax cut for everyone. UKIP is also the only party with a credible plan for growth in our economy. By cutting the taxes and regulations that choke our small businesses – the firms that collectively employ the most workers in our economy – we will allow them to grow and expand. By cutting useless administrative positions in the public sector that benefit no one, cutting the pay of Council chief executives (not frontline services), and cutting back-room managers in the NHS that outweigh frontline staff 2 to 1, we will allow doctors and nurses to take charge and spend their time treating patients, not filling forms.

On education UKIP is the only party calling for a return to grammar schools – the only educational system that allows the poorest in society to compete with the education the wealthiest can afford. We are also calling for no tuition fees, scrapping the target for 50% of young people to go to university, as well as offering a return to vocational training and alternate education instead of just academia.

UKIP is the only party that takes serious the idea of immigration, and wants an Australian style points based system for the UK to ensure that immigration works for Britain.

UKIP is the only party that wants to make devolution fair, by bringing in an English Parliament so that England is not the only nation in the union without one, so that the views of English people are properly heard and represented, something that over 70% of people want but the three old parties ignore.

Crucially UKIP want to change the whole way politics works in our country. They want to bring in Swiss style local and national referenda. If 5% of voters in a constituency sign a petition then that constituency will hold a referendum on that subject should it be a local issue. Similarly if 5% of the electorate sign a petition a binding referendum is called and the Government must abide by the result. This means that no longer can the Government ignore the people of Britain. It brings true democracy to Britain, and will prevent ever again British politicians ignoring issues that the people of Britain feel are important.

Britain has woken up to the fact that the three old parties in British politics are now basically one and the same, even on the big issues such as the cuts. Tories cuts were only 0.7% per annum larger than Labour’s proposed cuts. On issues like civil liberties all three have worked together to bring in a CCTV state, with Ministers now proposing to read your emails, and only UKIP in the European Parliament voting against bills such as ACTA and SOPA.

UKIP are the only party that wants to take national sovereignty back from the EU and place it not in the hands of politicians but back into the hands of the British people. Local councils should be able to take more powers fromWestminsterand have more of a say over their local area so people can get real change on a local as well as a national level. Furthermore, UKIP will pull out of the ECHR and institute a British bill of rights that puts victims ahead of criminals. Never again will European judges decide we cannot remove convicted terrorists like Abu Qatada or that criminals require compensation from victims.

For too long the old three parties have treated the British people like mugs, ignoring their concerns with career politicians saying one thing and doing another. Finally, UKIP are breaking through to tell the people there is a difference – that you should be rewarded for success and not punished, that you should run your lives, not bureaucrats in Brussels, Whitehall or even your local council.

To sum up, I would like to quote from a comment left on piece in the Guardian. The piece was a poll asking as to whether you would rather vote for UKIP or the Lib Dems. Amazingly, UKIP won, with 70% of Guardian readers choosing them – this coming from a paper that endorsed the Lib Dems in 2010!

‘Fair play to UKIP. Some of them are most likely nutters, but to be honest I rather suspect things aren’t much better in the big parties… they just have better PR. Some UKIP policies are utterly barmy, but these tend to fall by the wayside as small parties grow. I think they’re right on the EU, I think they’re right on Universities, I think they’re right on civil liberties, I think their tax plans are interesting – especially scrapping NI, I think a controlled immigration system is a must for the UK.

The irony is that a lot of their policies – like scrapping tuition fees and raising the tax threshold – are policies the Lib Dems had in 2010… the difference is, I get the feeling UKIP would stick to them. They give me the impression they couldn’t give a fuck about looking swish, PR and political chicanery and know nothing whatsoever about being modern politicians. That alone is worth something.’

Kindly reproduced with permission from Unite Society - http://www.unitesociety.com/the-rise-of-ukip/info-165.html

Olly Neville is 20 year old Politics, Philosophy and Economics graduate from York University. 

He is the former Young Independence Elections officer and current Social Media Director and Senior Editor of IndHome. 

He tweets at @OllyNeville.

Having been out here back in 2007 and again now in 2012 I have been comparing my thoughts about when I was excited to go back in 2007 and seeing if my opinions had changed about the country and so on. After  looking around and getting a feel for life out here I believe I have an understanding of why some people from the UK, including a lot of young people, feel that there is a better chance of getting the life they want in a country like Australia.

Personally, although I now understand the appeal a bit more, I couldn’t live out here for the rest of my life; having said that, I
could imagine having a holiday home here and citizenship. For myself, I feel my home is the UK and and always will be but that does not mean that I have the famous ‘POM!’ (Prisoner of Mother England) attitude that many in Australia choose to class unsettled people from the UK with.

At least Australia is an independent nation with its own parliament, its own immigration controls and the ability to decide its own future, unlike the UK which is tied to the dead and outdated political and economic EU, falling apart at the seams and dragging us down with it unless we get a grip of the UK and turn direction soon.

The biggest mistake that the UK has made, being the head of the English-speaking world and Commonwealth that Australia is a member of, was in 1973. We turned our backs on our important historical trade links with both Commonwealth members and the world at whole and faced inwards to the then EEC, now the EU. To this day it tells us who we can trade and do business with.

We are told that the idea of leaving the EU is mad and insane for our economic and political needs, yet the EU is sapping the life and needs of the UK away. If those at home really believe the idea that European nations and businesses will stop trading with the UK just because we chose to leave and go our own way in the world,  they clearly need to get a grip on reality and fight to choose what we as a nation should do.

Freedom to trade and befriend whichever nations in the world and with whoever we choose, or let the those in the EU Commission tell us what to do with the UK’s interests? If Australia and the Commonwealth can work and trade well together without being in each others’ pockets, then why can’t the UK?

The UK must decide. The growing English-speaking Commonwealth, or the outdated European Union.

Steve Fowler is the Young Independence Treasurer and a Parish Councillor.

The Cosy Party have no problem attracting scores of young activists who are ever-willing to knock on untold number of doors and make countless canvassing phone calls to potential voters.

Young activists flock to the Cosy Party which uses sound bites such as “social mobility”; “hard working families” and “jobs and growth”.  It matters not that they seem unable to achieve any of them in government or otherwise.

“People on the doorsteps don’t care about the EU!” they state arrogantly.  They do not of course dig deeper with the people on the doorstep – they already have their desired response.

The Cosy Party know that because they are perceived as “the nice guys” they won’t get shouted at or barracked as they go about their canvassing, extolling the virtues of more public spending, bigger government, more regulations and of course, ever more debt.

It doesn’t matter – someone else will pay.

Furthermore the Cosy Party are helpful too – you have a postal vote?  No problem.  We will quite happily send round a collection agent to ensure that your vote reaches the polling station in time.

Nice touch.

Supporters of The Cosy Party are an extremely loyal bunch.  In most cases, regardless of what the Cosy Party do in government or stand for in opposition, they will still put their “x” in the appropriate box.

“I’m not voting for the other lot!” I hear them cry.  “They cannot be trusted!”

Much like the loyalty a football supporter has for their club, likewise supporters of the Cosy Party will back their team through thick and thin (although it’s mostly thin).

But this is no good thing – far from it.

You only have to be a viewer of Sky Sports to have witnessed two recent cases of “blind loyalty gone bad”.  In a recent Premier League football match, some supporters of Chelsea FC chose to boo Fulham defender Anton Ferdinand – his crime?  He was the alleged victim of racial abuse from Chelsea captain John Terry.

How very dare he?

Another example was seen during a game between Liverpool and Manchester United.  The match kicked off whereupon some Liverpool fans chose to sing “There’s only one lying bastard” – this time the abuse was directed at United defender Patrice Evra.  Evra’s heinous crime? He was the recipient of racist abuse from Liverpool striker Luis Suarez in a previous game.

Pretty unpalatable stuff – but it is blind loyalty which breeds this disgusting behaviour.

Returning to politics, the main problem with blind loyalty is that when a party knows that they have your vote no matter what their accountability to the public on the whole is reduced.

The Cosy Party can do whatever they please and still they will receive a large percentage of the vote meaning the governance of the country always rests on a few key marginal seats in the shires.

That is why I would strongly urge all voters, whatever the usual colour of your rosette, to vote for the party whose current manifesto is closest to your beliefs.

Everyone has a right to vote for whomever they choose – I’m not disputing that.

All I am saying is this – come election time, vote for the party you want to – not simply the one you feel obliged to.

Matthew Roach – UKIP Candidate for Ladywood, Birmingham – 3 May 2012

@Roachy77

mattroach-ukip@hotmail.co.uk

www.iagreewithmatt.co.nr

So now we look forward.  Next year we have the county elections; last time around UKIP did well in these, making a net gain of 7 from a standing start.  We must look to make considerably more gains next year.  It was good to hear Nigel on the BBC saying that the search for next years candidates starts now.  We need to establish a mailing list of candidates, get those standing in the same authorities to meet up regularly so they can coordinate strategy and resources, and get them working together to build up local party membership and local activists.  We need to make sure all candidates have direct contact with a local party official, and keep those candidates informed of what forms they have to fill out and when they are due.  We should have as near to a full slate of candidates as possible selected before nominations are open.

On part membership, we still only have about a third the membership of the Lib-Dems, and Young Independence, while growing, is still tiny.  The reality of this years set of elections is that fielding a full slate of candidates would have required somewhere between a quarter and a third of the party’s membership to stand.  We need more members and we need more youth.  Progress on this is already being made, I understand we are close to opening a student society at Hull, and up in Scotland we have socieites at Aberdeen and St Andrews in the works.

Members should also look to attend Parish council meetings, talk to people in pubs, see what they are saying and try to bring those that agree with the UKIP message into the fold.  If their is no branch in your constituency, consider founding one.  One month ago I was the only known UKIP supported in my town, but through a bit of work in my spare time, I now have seven, with hopefully more to follow.  UKIP does not have vast financial resources or a century of mainstream support to get these things done.  Head office can only do such much, the members must be proactive if this party is to grow and establish a national grass roots presence.

Up in Scotland, as well as in Wales, we need real investment from the top of the party.  Membership in Scotland is low and it is now the only part of Britain with no elected UKIP representatives.  I know less about the situation in Wales, but given the poor number of candidates the party is clearly weak there too.  It is evident to everyone that UKIP is on the verge of taking off; if we do so with our membership and voters almost entirely focused in England, we risk falling into the same trap the Tories are currently in, we risk becoming an ‘English party’.

This set of elections where in many ways promising for UKIP, and we have much to celebrate.  Yet the same time they gave clear indications of the work yet to be done.  It has been said repeatedly ovr the past few days, but I’ll say it once more, if we really want to grap headlines, if we really want to ‘breakthrough’ we need to translate increase votes into increased seats.  Unless someone dies tomorrow and leaves the party 10million quid, we cannot rely on money to get us anywhere.  UKIP remains a shoestring operation for a dream, and every member must play their part to keep that dream alive.

Oliver Corbishley is a 21 year old thrid year student at the University of St Andrews studying International Relations. He is a long time supporter and recent new  member of UKIP and is currently working on forming a UKIP society at his  university.

He blogs at http://thethoughtdispatch.blogspot.co.uk/ and tweet @ojcorbs

“I feel disillusioned with the party as well as the direction it is going. I have always been a fan of UKIP but supported the Conservative party as they were the only party in a position to challenge Labour. Since 2009, UKIP have grown to the third largest party in the UK. I feel they are in the best position to take the UK forward and clear up the mess of the past centrist parties.”

Now, “why is this big news?” I hear you ask. Well, I have known Jack personally for some time, he has always been a passionate and dedicated individual, as shown by the fact that he quickly rose to the rank of VP Politics at Brunel CF. When we talk about the ‘politicians of tomorrow’, we talk about people like Jack. The past 24 hours have shown us that the good people of this nation are fed up with the lies and hypocrisy of the so-called “big three”. But this defection shows us something more. This defection shows us that the very fibre, the core support of the Conservative party is starting to crumble. If his own campaigners are starting to doubt his word, how can Cameron expect the public to support him?

The youth branches of our political parties are becoming more and more important with each passing year. They are going to literally define the future of British politics. What makes YI stand out from the others is that it recognises this fact above all else. With every passing week more and more members flock to our banner, forsaken by their old allegiances. Jack Duffin’s decision to join UKIP is a shining example of the fact that passionate, inspired young people who want to make a difference are being abandoned. The future of UK politics is UKIP. The future of UKIP is Young Independence.

With thanks to todays Author Dave Glenwright @OldManGlenners:

It’s no secret that the Conservative Party is quickly losing its own core support to UKIP. No matter how many insults David Cameron or other pro-Cameron stooges insult UKIP and its members, public opinion speaks for itself. I want to examine for a moment some of the things that Conservative members may claim in order to keep support.

Fiction:“The Conservative Party is taking the tough decisions in Government in order re-balance the UK economy.”
Fact: No it isn’t. There is no hiding that there have indeed been cuts to front-line services, but on a whole, Government expenditure is up. While this is happening, Government borrowing is also up too. As David Cameron often says to Ed Milliband, “You can’t spend and borrow your way out of debt.” He’s quite right, so why he doesn’t follow his own advice I’ll never know. (Source: http://www.adamsmith.org/blog/economics/3051-words)

Fiction:“We are committed to a fairer tax system with low taxes.”
Fact: You’ve taken the lowest income out of tax altogether but this is widely claimed to be a Lib-Dem policy. Tax codes are changing which means that some households will indeed be bringing home more money, but with the rise in fuel duty and the fact that millions of families across the country will be losing different tax credits, I don’t see it as enough.

Fiction: “We have presented a strong position on the EU’s changes to fiscal rules with the Prime Minister’s use of the veto.”
Fact: Did you get the safeguards you wanted? No. So the position you presented was all in vain. I do wonder if no real position was presented in order to further David Cameron’s pro-EU agenda while hanging on to the Eurosceptic vote. People aren’t stupid, Dave! Let’s not even get into the argument of a referendum…

Fiction: ”It’s better to stay with the Conservatives because they’re the only right-wing party who can deliver change. Moving would let the Left into power.”
Fact: There are problems with two parts to that. The first is “right-wing” and the second is “deliver change.” The Conservative Party isn’t right-wing anymore at all, it’s a blatant centrist party that has followed the philosophy of Tony Blair, ie, abandoning a party’s core principles in order to get into power. Onto the latter, the Conservatives are not delivering change. They seem to be carrying on Gordon Brown’s policy of over-spending and over-borrowing. Now, boasting about making cuts you aren’t doesn’t help either. It also doesn’t mean that there is change. Only making small, ineffective cuts while telling people that life will be tougher but “we’re all in this together” will have the same effect as making all the cuts necessary in the sense that people will probably be a bit more careful in how they spend. The only difference is the latter isn’t done for vanity and in the end will achieve something. The former will achieve nothing but an even worse economy than you inherited.

Fiction: “Our hands are tied because of the Coalition agreement.”
Fact: Rubbish. Turning your backs on the support of your grassroots has nothing to do with being in a Coalition Government. It’s all to do with the fact that the Conservatives have no viable, realistic strategy for growth and they are making it up as they go along. If you stamp all over your own party’s principles and then blame it on the other Governing party, then you’re not fit to be in any sort of Governing position if you can’t stand up for your own party.

Fiction: ”UKIP are the glorified BNP.”
Fact: Admittedly, even left-wingers will come out with this rubbish (which is ironic consider the BNP largely has left-wing policies…) but it’s a last resort that some Tories have used with me. The BNP wish to close the borders completely and constantly make references to ethnicity and skin colour. UKIP wishes to cap immigration after a 5 year freeze and introduce a points-based system to set a criteria for entry. There is nothing racist about that, it is realistic. Uncontrolled immigration hasn’t worked and none of the two main parties (with the Lib-Dems) have done a thing about it. Now, to current UKIP members this will all be stating the obvious (or it may serve to remind you why you joined UKIP and not the Conservatives.)

To former Tories, I’m sure you will have seen all of this yourself within the party.

To current Tories who are reading and thinking of moving over, don’t listen to the lies of Conservative members and take it from a former Tory. The party isn’t the party it used to be. If you believe in a low tax, Eurosceptic, pro-business party that supports individual freedoms, then leave the Conservative Party and join UKIP.

To current Tories who are reading this and are thinking “Well you’re talking rubbish”, good luck in 2015!

Written by Leon French. Leon is a 17 year old classical musician and UKIP member based in Yorkshire, this is his third post for Indhome!

Follow Leon on Twitter here at @LeonSFrench

How China and the United States interact will shape the next century. They have the potential to lead the world into a new golden age of peace prosperity and security for all, or they could trigger a cataclysmic global war.

The reality, of course, will be somewhere in between. But this is not the first time that the world’s principle power has been challenged. Carthage had to contend with an ambitious Rome, and France replaced Spain as Europe’s dominant force.

However there is one historic precedent that stands out.

At the start of the twentieth century, Britain began to view Germany as more than just another European Power. It was both a trading opportunity and a security threat.

Can we apply the lessons of history to today, or are the common denominators overplayed?

First, let’s look at the map.

Although the United States is not an island like Britain, in strategic terms it might as well be. Canada is arguably Washington’s closest ally. And while Mexico is a headache for drugs and crime, but it’s not likely to annex California any time soon.

China on the other hand is a truly continental power. Like Germany, it has close to a dozen borders, and having Russia and India on its frontiers means it faces the same two-front nightmare Germany faced with France and Russia.

The US battle fleet is the direct inheritor of the Royal Navy place as master of the oceans. Even Britain’s Two-Power Standard seems positively modest when compared to the advantage Washington enjoys in Blue Water capabilities. Conservative estimates say it is larger than the next 15 biggest fleets combined. This is truly preponderance of power.

China, like Germany, is conscious that its continued economic development depends on access to raw materials. To keep these vulnerable lines of communications clear, China is beefing up its own navy. Last year saw it send its first aircraft carrier for trials, though it will be many years before it can deploy a carrier battle group.

Another century straddling comparison is the way China is playing to its advantages to counter US naval dominance. Like Germany did with submarines and torpedo boats, China has adopted an ‘area-denial’ strategy, but instead employing large numbers of rockets and small craft that make the green waters and coast of China a very dangerous place, even for the US Leviathan.

The global commitments of the US may not be as overt and formal as the British Empire, but they are no less extensive. The Pentagon operates a mind boggling number of bases on every continent on the globe. Like the British, the US uses these bases to defend allies, promote stability, gather intelligence, and on occasion embark on punitive strikes.

China lacks even the modest formal overseas possessions that the Kaiser claimed. It can be argued that it has enough trouble holding Tibet and XingXiang provinces. This being said, its commercial expansion is proceeding apace, even in areas the US considered well within its sphere of influence, such as Brazil. This is clearest in Africa where Bejing’s ‘no-stings-attached’ aid and a thirst for minerals, has come as a welcome change for African strongmen who have grown weary of the conditional Western aid and trade arrangements. (See my previous article ‘Better The Devil You Know’)

International trade had helped establish Britain as the principle power the world stage. But its hand was light. Rather than fall into the merchanalist temptation of protectionism, Britain promoted free trade. It may have owned vast swaths of India, but all were free to trade there. Similarly, the US depends on the free movement of goods and services across the globe, and supports integration of national economies.

It’s all looking very good, isn’t it? But what about the differences between 1912 and 2012?

The opposing socio-political views of China and the US are well documented. Britain and Germany by contrast had, comparatively speaking, similar systems of government. Both were monarchies, both had at least some form of suffrage, with directly elected parliament. Both had active trade union movements as well as a deeply ingrained class system. Granted, the press in Germany may have been a little more prone to censorship, but not to the extent of China.

Secondly, Germany had convinced itself that it had an ever diminishing window of opportunity for greatness. It saw Russia modernising to its East, and a vengeful France to its West. If it didn’t sec

ure its position soon, it was doomed. China today has no such existential threat, real or perceived. Neither Russia nor India have designs on China (minor border disputes aside). In fact, they probably fear the reverse. China may fear the effect of a US blockade, but steps are being made to manage it.

Thirdly, China is more invested in the status quo than Germany was. Berlin felt it ‘deserved’ more and was willing to revise the world map, by force if needs be. China today benefits greatly from the global economy the US has created. Its factories hum with activity. Revenue, expertise and technology pour into China and grant the Communist Party a legitimacy through rising living standards and the other benefits of growth.

For a system so lacking in democratic accountability……this is vital.

Finally, the world has changed much since Germany and Britain eyed each other warily over the gloomy North Sea. Power today is not measured in colonies and viceroys. A military presence overseas is seen by most nations as a costly necessity, not source of prestige. In short, empires are passé.

Economies are also much more integrated than a century ago. China and the US are each others biggest single trading partner. Even if that weren’t the case, each needs the other to be strong because each, in turn, supports so many other economies that they each rely on.

I think it’s very easy to see how uncomfortable it is to be a libertarian in the Conservative party. The recent assaults on civil liberties are not something we can blame the Liberal Democrats on, and the only effort to reduce the tax burden has in fact come from their party. I’m not afraid to admit that there are a few things UKIP policies that make me slightly uncomfortable too – for example, I am in full support of David Cameron’s plans to equalise our marriage laws, and my views on immigration differ slightly from UKIP’s in the fact that I am only anti-state handouts for immigrants, and not immigration per say. However, this is far outweighed by good, libertarian policies – for example, a flat-rate tax of 31% including national insurance, along with an increase in the personal tax allowance, would mean a tax cut for every single person in this country. Cutting spending down to 1997 levels is a step in the right direction towards the size of state I would like to see in this country. Farage himself supports the legalisation of drugs and prostitution, allowing individuals to make their own choices about their own bodies. The policy of leaving the European Union, a vile bureaucracy-loving authoritarian institution that now decides 75% of our laws, obviously speaks for itself. Yet it is certainly not the sole or even main reason I defected. When we compare party policy and manifestos, UKIP’s clearly outweigh the Conservatives; they are my natural home.

But why defect now? Quite frankly, it is an absolute waste of my time and energy to be in a party that I criticise more than I defend, that I’m frankly embarrassed to campaign for, and that has gone so far from the Thatcherite principles that made me wish become a member in the first place. I was utterly sick of it. I cannot, in my heart of hearts, go up to a member of the public and tell them to vote Conservative because a majority Conservative government would be the best thing for them to have, because I simply don’t believe that anymore. The latest budget was an utter farce on top of a string of policies that have failed to cut taxation to aid growth and put money back in the pockets of the people the government are so determined to take from. The recent affront on civil liberties in regards to internet privacy is a disgusting U-turn from a party that campaigned so strongly against Labour’s stance on freedom in opposition. Ten billion pounds given to the IMF, a veto that  turned out to be nothing of the sort; the list of left-wing authoritarian tendencies this government has displayed is endless. I would rather be “shouting from the sidelines” than betraying my principles on a daily basis from within. If this is childish, or cowardly, then feel free to label me as such, but I feel that I am doing the right thing. Waiting around for the Conservative party to go back to how it was under the days of Margaret Thatcher has become increasingly pointless when I know that there is a political party out there that believes in the same things that she and I do.

I also know from first-hand experience what a great party UKIP is to be part of. I will miss my friends from the Conservative party, many of whom are good people whose political views mirror mine. My decision to defect certainly is no reflection on the personal calibre of 99% of Conservative party activists. However, I already have many fantastic friends in Young Independence who are down to earth, like a damn good night out, and are exclusively motivated by principles and not career prospects. UKIP have been extremely welcoming to me already and I feel that I can speak out against any policies I disagree with without the constant presence of CCHQ breathing down my back as soon as I waver from the party line. UKIP is a democratic party that knows that it is there solely because of its grassroots members, something which the Conservative party seems to have forgotten. All in all, leaving the Conservative party and joining UKIP feels like a massive weight off my shoulders. I can’t wait to campaign and get involved with a party that I feel I can be proud to be a member of, and stand up for liberty once more.

Christina is the former Chairman of Leeds Conservative Future and current Chairman of Leeds Liberty League. She is currently studying for a BA in History at University of Leeds and lives in London during the rest of the year where she is involved with organisations such as the Freedom Association and the Adam Smith Institute. She tweets at @chrstinadarling (no first i!) and blogs at http://www.politicsandgin.wordpress.com.