Thursday, December 30, 2004
Monday, December 27, 2004
The following is an extract from the blog of Richard Corbett MEP for 14th December:-
In the afternoon we learn who has been elected as the new leader of the Tory MEPs - they are changing yet again - and it is our very own Yorkshire MEP Tim Kirkhope. He is pro-European and fended off a challenge from Chris Heaton-Harris, a eurosceptic. But to get into the final ballot, after a tie with Giles Chichester MEP in the first ballot, he had to win a cut of a deck of cards in which he came up with the Ace! What a way to decide a leader!
Anyway, I wish him well when I bump into him, saying "This will keep you busy and out of mischief in Yorkshire!"
In the evening I go to the mince pie and drink offered by UKREP - the UK Embassy to the EU - to which all British MEPs and officials are invited. This is one of the few cross-party social occasions, though only one UKIP MEP turns up, and even then briefly.
What are the eurosceptic Conservative MEPs such as Daniel Hannan, Roger Helmer and Christopher Heaton-Harris still doing within the EPP group one must ask - as they all made commitments before the last election not to continue therein?
Saturday, December 25, 2004
Tuesday, December 21, 2004
According to the Evening Standard, linked here, the following Tories were among those who voted against the Bill:-
"nine Tories, including former frontbenchers Damian Green and David Curry, defying the whip."
According to the same newspaper:-
"The Tory rebellion appeared to stretch to the senior ranks of the shadow cabinet, with at least six members failing to appear on the frontbench.
They included John Redwood, Tim Yeo, Nicholas Soames and David Cameron. Their absence may have been for another reason, but the lack of frontbench support is a blow to Mr Howard.
Other senior Tories absent included David Willetts, George Osborne, Alan Duncan, and Gerald Howarth."
The linked Opinion column by Stephen Robinson, clearly a natural conservative supporter, which may be read by clicking here, pretty much provides a fitting obituary on Michael Howard's leadership and the conservative party's hopes for the next general election.
It discusses the vote last night by Howard's front bench misfits for the introduction of ID cards and concludes as follows:-
In selfish terms, I was relieved to see Michael Howard take the easy way out and endorse ID cards, because it freed me of any sense that I should have to vote for his party. No longer will I have to profess enthusiasm about Tory policies, or pretend that I see the green shoots of a Conservative revival.
For the first time I shall vote for the Liberal Democrats, because they do understand that the identity card debate is about the just role of government, and I suspect tens of thousands of instinctive Conservatives will do the same next year.
Sunday, December 19, 2004
Thursday, December 16, 2004
I found this interesting blog item while researching the new Home Secretaries reumoured Communist Party membership. The full item is linked here of which the following is a direct quote:-
Born in Nottingham, Clarke was educated at the private Nottingham High School and went on to study law at Gonville and Caius College, Cambridge. He was called to the bar in 1963 and married Gillian Edwards in November 1964. He had joined the Conservatives while at university, where he was chairman of the Cambridge University Conservative Association for an eight week term. He first gained notoriety in this post when he invited the fascist leader Oswald Mosley to speak, twice. This forced some Jewish students, including his future succesor at the Home Office, Michael Howard to resign in protest at the seeming anti-semitism of Mosley’s two invitations. This almost certainly led to Clarke’s surprise defeat for the presidency of the Cambridge Union by, Michael Howard. It is not, however, Mosley’s anti-semitism that made a mark on Ken Clarke, but his ground breaking advocacy of a European Union. Mosley was the first politician of any standing to call for British participation in building up a federal state, and his call for Europe a Nation has found echoes in much of Clarke’s rhetoric. (emphasis mine)
Wednesday, December 15, 2004
The question must be of even more concern to any who saw the treacherously deposed ex-Leader Iain Duncan -Smith expose the Blair Government's non-democratic bent in the Commons last evening.
Who are the Tory Traitors who dumped this man for a totally hopeless and ineffectual, deeply distrusted has-been such as Michael Howard?????????????????????????????
Sunday, December 12, 2004
Read the following excerpt from an item in the Independent on Sunday today, linked here:
Mr Howard, who is 63, is expected to stay in office for two or three years after the next election even if the Tories are heavily defeated, instead of precipitating the party into an immediate leadership contest as did John Major in 1997, and William Hague in 2001.
One leading Tory said: "One effect of the recent polls is to repress expectations so much that if we come back with anything over 200 MPs, Michael will have been seen to have done rather well. He won't be under any pressure to go early. If we are within striking distance, he may even want to stay the full Parliament."
I find the whole article quite remarkable, first because of the underlying assumption of the whole piece that the leadership of the main opposition party is within the gift of the incumbent leader or his coterie, something I belived they had tried to get away from following the rise of Sir Alec Douglas-Home. Secondly, and more importantly perhaps is the apparent calm acceptance of the Tory's coming massacre in the General Election.
The country badly needs an opposition that offers the voters a real opportunity to rid the country of the failed Blair administration whenever the election comes. Five more years of the same increasingly authoritarian rule is not an option, even if 200 prospective and sitting conservative MPs choose to believe that it is.
Monday, December 06, 2004
The crisis in the Conservative Party is now hitting their revenues, as the impossibilty of electoral success dawns on even the most faithful of supporters and former donors. Read The Times report from here.
A public row illustrating how the party is now even unable to agree on presentation of a once underlying tenet of toryism - tax cuts is reported in The Scotsman from here, here and was reported on in depth on the World at One radio programme today, when the Shadow Chancellor's absence was pointedly noted.
Monday, November 29, 2004
The interview with IDS appears in this morning's The Independent following right along from yesterday;s disastrous poll. This quote contains what must appear a very chilling assurance from the ousted and betrayed leader:
Mr Howard is persona non grata at the White House for criticising Mr Blair over Iraq. Karl Rove, the President's chief of staff, left a message for Mr Howard telling his office not even to bother trying to see the President.
Mr Duncan Smith, a highly respected friend of the Bush family, has had two recent meetings with Condoleezza Rice, who is about to become the first black female US Secretary of State, and long conversations with Mr Bush. But Mr Duncan Smith is not a man to gloat. He told The Independent: "I am absolutely determined the Conservatives will back Michael all the way through. As long as he wants to do this job, he has my full support."
Sunday, November 28, 2004
The poll published in the Independent on Sunday today, linked here, clearly sets the start of the real descent this blog always predicted would follow the non-democratic ousting of Iain Duncan Smith and his replacement with the clear no-hoper Michael Howard!
Now that our obvious predictions as to this likely end-result must soon be conceded, even by those who stubbornly refused to previously accept the obvious, perhaps this blog might soon be required to propose some intelligent options for one-time or still hopeful Conservatives to debate. First the poll and the commentaryfrom the story headlined:-
So now the burning question has become what will be the swing from the already slaughtered and subjugated Conservatives TO the Labour or LibDems at the next General Election????
Bravo Michael, how are things going to look in Folkestone even if your schemes and conspiracies with Nigel Farage do work out....all OK in West Dorset Ollie?
Now the actual quote:-
If the changes in vote share reflected in our poll were repeated uniformly across the country next May, Mr Blair would actually increase his majority in the House of Commons to 168.
Enough said? If not go back a year and start reading this blog again from scratch.
Friday, November 26, 2004
The following paragraph opens the Daily Telegraph commentary on the latest YouGov opinion poll, linked here:
Conservatives these days must envy Sisyphus. That poor fellow was doomed to spend all eternity rolling an enormous boulder up a hill only to see it roll back down again as soon as it approached the summit. Today's Tories are even worse off. They seem unable to push their boulder within sight of the summit.
In fact of course things are far worse than the present polls even begin to suggest. There is presently no opposition to the three main parties who the electorate are increasingly aware are the cause of their loss of both national sovereignty and democracy.
The turmoil in the UK Independence Party, long a mere plaything of the establishment, Nigel Farage, Tory Peers and sundry others within what seems to be the EU-federalist cause, is poised to come to an early resolution with Robert Kilroy-Silk either emerging victorious or free to move away from the disgraced UKIP party organisation to form a powerful rallying point for Eurorealists presently scattered in a multitude of small pressure groups or previously powerless small parties.
The Tories are poised to very soon cease their Teetering and thereafter start to Topple! Democracy is a powerful cause too long ignored!
Thursday, November 25, 2004
An wide ranging review of the electoral situation highlights the amazing nature of the UKIP achievement last June and contains clearl warnings about the uncertainties that now lie ahead. It is recommended to be read in full from here, but the following is a sample:
In the last nationwide test of public opinion before the general election, Labour were soundly beaten by the Conservative party, 27 MEPs to 19. Not only that, but the UK Independence Party (UKIP), a marginal party at best, polled a massive 16% of the vote, only 6% behind Labour and forcing the Liberal Democrats into fourth place. This should have sounded a warning bell about a rise of parties on the right of the political spectrum. Yet no change in the Labour position seems to have been forthcoming.
It is surprising then to see that the Government still has so much support, even when most of these issues go against the grain of the public at large as well as against the beliefs of the ‘traditional’ Labour voter.
In May, Tony Blair is expected to win his third term of office with a comfortable majority of between 30 and 75 seats. This view seems to have been strengthened given the Bush victory and the recent result from Australia.
The question remains: how can such a range of unpopular decisions lead to another parliamentary majority? Well first we have to consider the strength of the opposition.
The Conservative party should be the main challengers in this election, but they are a party in disarray. They lack confidence, ability and a proven winner. At the end of the day, Michael Howard will always be remembered as a loser who went down with the Major government.
So we look further afield to the Liberal Democrats, the up and coming political party with the popular view of the war in Iraq, and the choice of the young professional. Well, that’s how they would like to be seen, but it’s not really the case. Although they will make the largest gains at the next election, and could possibly become the official opposition, they will not make the gains they require to affect Labour’s majority. The minor parties may pick up seats here and there, but the lack of cohesion in all of these organisations will undoubtedly be their downfall.
However, the most important factor will be the voices of the voters we have yet to hear. These are not the protesters or the politically motivated, but the silent majority who have had enough of pandering to the most vocal minorities. This group has been the deciding factors in both the Australian and American elections and they are cautious centre-right voters. This is a much-maligned group, especially in Britain, but we will certainly hear their voice at the next election. They voted for Blair in 1997 and have supported him since. They are unhappy, but they have not abandoned the Labour party just yet.
Tuesday, November 23, 2004
Monday, November 22, 2004
"There will not be a blueprint for a federal Europe" - Edward Heath, as Prime Minister, House of Commons, 25th February 1970
Presenter (Peter Sissons): "The single currency; a United States of Europe; was that in your mind when you took Britain in?" Edward Heath: "Of course, yes" - BBC Question Time 1st November 1991.
(With thanks to Raymond ... for research and circulation)
Sunday, November 21, 2004
This report from The Independent on Sunday, linked here, once again reveals the question marks that continually arise regarding Michael Howard's judgement. The following quote gives a flavour of the type of people he now employs, his secretiveness over their appointment providing proof of his knowledge of their likely tactics.
The Conservative leader engaged the services of Mark Textor, a market research expert, two months ago but did not publicise the appointment. His reticence may be explained by Mr Textor's colourful career as a controversial adviser to right-wing politicians in his native Australia.
Among the more serious allegations made against him is that he helped to distribute a damaging questionnaire falsely claiming an opponent supported the right to abortion at nine months.
Mr Textor and others apologised and paid out damages of around £34,000 to settle a court action brought by the Labor candidate who lost the 1995 Canberra by-election.It is difficult to believe that the Conservative Party was once deemed a respectable political choice - Can it ever be again, under such as Howard? Where is IDS? - Some clues in the Sunday Telegraph by Matthew d'Ancona, linked here, which opens as follows:-
For my money, the most intriguing MP of the moment is Iain Duncan Smith. The former Tory leader, I am told, has done some serious schmoozing in Washington recently, including two audiences with Condoleezza Rice, before her elevation to Secretary of State, and informal conversations with the President himself. Mr Duncan Smith may have been sacked by Tory MPs a year ago but - unlike the man they put in his place - he is still very welcome in the White House.
No less interesting will be IDS's response to the ban on hunting with hounds when it comes into force on February 18. I well recall a conversation with him some years ago when he told me that such a measure might force him into acts of civil disobedience. Whatever else is said about Mr Duncan Smith, he is a man who treats the law - and parliamentary statute in particular - with the utmost reverence.
What a difference a year makes!!!!!
Thursday, November 18, 2004
The following is an excerpt from a report in the Yorkshire Post of 15th November:-
YORKSHIRE POST 15-11-2004
In a separate development, Paul Sykes, who pulled out as UKIP's main backer last month, has revealed to the Yorkshire Post that senior Tories have failed in their attempts to win him over.
The Tories had hoped that the Yorkshireman, who has given an estimated £6m to anti-EU causes, would turn some of his financial firepower to their side.
They have succeeded in prizing him away from UKIP, thanks to a toughening-up of the Tories' Europe policy and the return of leading Tory eurosceptic John Redwood to the shadow cabinet, but no further.
Mr Sykes, who has turned down an invitation for personal talks with Michael Howard, said: "I will be voting Conservative at the next general election but that's all I'm doing.
"I'm not coming back to join the Conservative Party. I can't and won't fund the Tory policy at present. It's misleading.
"I don't agree with their policy over the EU, but they're the best of a bad bunch."
He added that he would give assistance to any candidate, of any party, who agreed with him over the EU.
"I will consider helping anybody who's prepared to tell the truth," he said.
"If they're on message, I'll support them. Tory, Labour or Lib Dem.
"I do have lots of fellow travellers in the Labour Party too.
"I'll campaign with anyone who's in favour of self-government for Britain."
Mr Sykes has a chequered history with the Tory Party, having quit them twice before.
Saturday, November 13, 2004
Friday, November 12, 2004
I listened to Radio 4's 'Any Questions' this evening. It was broadcast from Chichester.
It had a Chairman, one of the Dimblebys clearly a BBC Clone, Clare Short ( of reason) and David Willets ( rumoured to be nicknamed the 'Brain" in the Tory Party) whose answers proved conclusively the absence of such that now clearly exists in the Conservative Party.
Only the audience that voted for a ban on smoking were more appalling!
Thank goodness the typical person in the country has probably never heard of 'Any Questions'
Willets would choose Socrates as a mentor, we learned at the programme's close - proving he has never passed beyond the first steps of anything perhaps?
Monday, November 08, 2004
The Daily Telegraph has a column on the above topic linked from here. This quote was the most telling for me:-
So one of Britain's biggest political parties is the Don't Know Party. And if you ring up a Dunno person, they usually say: "I voted Labour last time but I don't think I can support Blair again. I can't stick him. He's weak. Labour have lied over everything, not just the war. But I don't know about the others either. The Conservatives don't seem to stand for anything. Well, I dunno." The Dunnos hold the key to the next election.
A wise observer of British politics tells me he thinks the Dunnos actually want a hung Parliament and will subconsciously self-organise and vote tactically to achieve that end....
Unless something better is finally offered!
Sunday, November 07, 2004
What a mess! Anybody recall if he ever answered this letter from the normally politically inept Denis Macshane?
Rt Hon Michael Howard MP
Leader, The Conservative Party
As the European Peoples Party congress takes place in Brussels this week I hope you
will take this opportunity to clarify your party’s position as members of the EPP, on a
number of key issues:
1. As you know many in the EPP support the removal of all national vetoes
within the proposed European constitution and call for a single EU income tax.
EPP parties also want Britain and France to surrender their permanent seats on the
UN Security Council.
2. How do you reconcile the majority EPP positions with the Conservative Party
position? Your predecessor Iain Duncan Smith, made his plans to take the
Conservatives out of the EPP clear. Are you committed to this pledge? The
Conservative Party now has a clear decision to make. You can confirm your
party’s membership of the EPP, and endorse its federalist beliefs, or you can
continue with plans to leave the EPP and face the difficult questions of who the
Conservative Party would then join forces with in the European parliament.
3. Can you make clear that the Conservative Party is opposed to the anti-Turkish
rhetoric from the CSU and CDU parties in Germany as well as conservative
politicians in France. Mr Pottering, the leader of the EPP has said that Turkey will
be a “hot theme” in the European Parliament elections. The last thing we need in
Europe is an anti-Turkish campaign whipping up fears and hate in Germany. Will
you ask EPP colleagues to make clear that no democratic politician in Europe
should seek to make the issue of Turkey’s relations with the EU an election issue?
4. In The Times last Friday, Conservative MEPs were quoted as calling for all
European Parliament money currently given to support the the EPP’s work to be
paid directly to Central Office and the headquarters of national right-wing parties.
This policy if implemented would not only mean EU taxpayers’ money going to
extremist parties like the French National Front, it would also be a direct subsidy
from Brussels to national political parties. Do you support your fellow
Conservative MEPs and MPs in advocating Brussels funding of national parties?
Denis MacShane MP
Minister for Europe
Saturday, November 06, 2004
Dr Alan Sked is revealed in a report in today's The Guardian, titled 'Friends in High Places' by Andy Beckett, linked here, as a member of a very peculiar group of partularly influential individuals, all at a first glance seemingly totally devoted to Britain's total immersion into the EU.
This report also appears on Ironies and UKIP Uncovered.
Thursday, November 04, 2004
Visit the Conservative Party web-site and read the full report from this link to a speech to the Welsh Assembly by a Mr Bourne, that appears under a photograph of the 'not to be trusted' Tory party leader Michael Howard. History would argue that Mr Bourne is correct - no-one could be a stronger supporter of the European Union than the Conservative Party which means its lies, its totalitarianism, its destruction of democratic process, its corruption, its corporatism, its nepotism....need I go on!
Nothing good has ever emerged from the EU - NOTHING WHATEVER!
Wednesday, November 03, 2004
Lord Pearson, whose excellent paper on the EU has recently been published on the Bruges Group site is reported to be dining with the embattled leaders of UKIP this evening.
It will be recalled that Lord Pearson was one of several peers who lost the Conservative Party Whip in the Lords for recommending a vote for UKIP in the June European elections.
Kerry has conceded the election in the USA. Congratulations to George W. Bush and a REAL conservative party, that of the Republiacans in the USA!
Nothing Michael Howard attempts works out well.
What a disaster he has been for low tax, liberty loving, free market supporters who might normally consider themselves of a conservative bent within Britain. What a contrast with the stunning victory achieved by George W. Bush's Republicans in the Senate, House and the Presidential race now certainly his. Shock top issue revealed by the exit poles (NB so called Tory Reformers - traditional values!)
Michael Howard who has been rightly ostracised by George Bush faces more years of being ignored. His party needs to think again or Britain needs a new party
Sunday, October 31, 2004
My Conservative MEP (Mole Valley Constituency) still writes for the Sunday Telegraph.
He still draws all the expenses and salaries due an MEP.
AND contrary to his promise before the June elections - he still belongs to the ultra-EU federalist EPP group in the European Parliament as do his similarly unreliable colleagues Roger Helmer MEP and Christopher Heaton-Harris MEP!
Is that why he still has not answered my letters. Pity my most logical alternative recourse is the appalling Nigel Farage MEP for the South East for UKIP..... or Ashley Mote perhaps!
Friday, October 29, 2004
Please visit Ironies for a very important analysis of the possible consequences of the pomp, circumstance and destruction of democracy and liberties that took place today in Rome.
Part I of Anthony Coughland's hugely important pamphlet, click here.
Part II of the paper please click here.
The following is an extract from this morning's Leading Article (linked here) in the 'Tory House Journal' the Daily Telegraph:-
Unfortunately for the Conservatives, the public sees almost no likelihood that they would be any more "honest and trustworthy" than Labour. Michael Howard's personal rating is now a full 10 points behind the Prime Minister's, and the Conservative Party's support has fallen to its lowest level since Mr Howard became leader.
The 'YouGov' poll on which the comment is based may be read from here. Some low lights if you still believe that the Tory Party, under its present leadership, has anything to offer the country:
Per cent believing a future Conservative Government would be trustworthy.....19 ( 6 behind)
Confidence in Blair to take right decisions over Iraq 35 pct ... Michael Howard 29 pct. (Even Kennedy beats Howard on that one at 30 pct)
Can anything more really be said?
Tuesday, October 26, 2004
Read the Conservative Party web page report on yesterdays visit linked here. A quote:-
'I want to put on record my tribute to the RUC and its record of sacrifice.
'For nearly thirty years it was the RUC that stood in the front line against vicious, cowardly and evil terrorism.
Read any extract from the Patten report linked here, prepared by his former Cabinet Colleague, whose recent 'fat' and worthless lifestyle as an EU Commissioner is almost entirely due to the selling out of these brave men, the memory of whom his Conservative Party leader praises above.
Conservative Party senior politicians - don't you just love them! UGGGHHHHHHHHH!
Sunday, October 24, 2004
The Frost TV programme, linked here, drug up the Maastricht perpetrator to talk about saving Britain from the EU this morning. Shameful and degrading stuff for the country as Blair prepares for Rome next Friday and the ultimate treachery.
Have these establishment figures absolutely no shame nor conscience whatsoever? It seems not -
THAT WAS YOUR COUNTRY THAT WAS!
Mr Robert Kilroy-Silk told GMTV this morning that :-
......................he had considered forming an alternative party to UKIP.
“We think the unthinkable, we think the stupid, because often what you think is stupid and impossible actually you think ’hang on, this might be quite a good idea’,” he said.
“Of course I think about those things and other people do too...people from all different kind of politics.”
The broadcast which mainly concerned the apparently stalemated leadership dispute within UKIP is also of great interest to all those concerned at Britain's lost sovereignty and democracy, that once were considered important matters to members of the Conservative Party. A report on the interview, from which the above quote is taken, may be read by following this link, to The Scotsman.
Saturday, October 23, 2004
Clearly not - given his dispatch of Boris to Merseyside last week. The question was tellingly put by Kirsty Buchanan in the Western Mail this morning. I quote from her article "Conservative leader Michael Howard seemed to forget the whole concept of freedom of the press by ordering Boris Johnson to Liverpool this week."
As poor Howard has now resorted to Australian advice to save his electoral chances this link to an Australian radio report of his latest misjudgement might prove of interest. This is a taste:-
But as one newspaper later reported, Liverpudlians who'd been stung by the severity of the comments were split between those who loathed Boris Johnson and wished he'd go home, and those who loathed him and wished he'd never come in the first place.
It has been difficult to judge who comes out the worse from this incident. I thought at first Boris for so desperately wishing to cling to a Shadow Minister's title (albeit for the arts) when there were zero prospects of the job ever becoming substantial. Now however I believe it has damaged Howard even more - if it is possible to further damage the reputation of this battered, hopeless and increasingly obnoxious appearing aspirant PMl. Just think what must have gone through his mind before sending Boris north - what could he have hoped to achieve and what bullying threats or bluster must he have used to bring it to pass. Nasty business - not funny at all really.
Friday, October 22, 2004
The EU Referendum blog linked here, sets forth various ideas about how the reassertion of British rule over our own - UN and Internationally delineated - seas might operate.
I presume that these ideas might eventually turn up in conservative party policy, bearing in mind the author of this posting recently accompanied the shadow fisheries minister onto the cold North Sea and movingly wrote of the experience on that same blog.
The posting referenced is linked from here. The following quotes were what alarmed me:-
The actual point is that, while the intention is to repatriate the policy, this does not necessarily mean excluding fishing vessels from EU member states from British waters....
Fishing vessels from other states have had access to our waters long before the EEC was even dreamed of, and have acquired rights which transcend the current EU arrangements.
(Such an argument did not cut much ice during the Icelandic cod wars when they first extended their exclusive area to first 50 and then 200 miles offshore!)
Finally the paragraph that is just plain wrong and epitomises the problem of EU re-negotiation absent withdrawal:
It would be unlikely, therefore, that the UK would seek to exclude these vessels and, for the time that it took to sort out new arrangements, the status quo in terms of access would almost certainly continue, not least because British vessels also have rights in waters outside our own exclusive economic zone – which must also be protected.
(WRONG, WRONG, WRONG, WRONG , WRONG - to recover what is ours requires an element of toughness. We must be prepared to look at all aspects of recent agreements afresh, with the clear knowledge that if we cannot regain our true INDEPENDENCE by negotiation, then we will not shirk from confrontation, whether over fisheries, the eurofighter, women's rights or whatever else it takes to restore Sovereign Rule (the power to periodically remove our rulers back in the hands of the British people.)
There will be no 'Grandfather Rights' from any 'EU Treaty' in a withdrawal 'process' undertaken by a rejuvenated, Kilroy led UKIP!
Was nobody listening in Wokingham?
Wednesday, October 20, 2004
Was it really wise to send Boris Johnson to Liverpool to apologise for something that occurred outside his political life?
Does Michael Howard have any political 'feel' whatever? This latest incident tells us the answer as convincingly as all else that has taken place during his disastrous first year at the helm. Read the report from the Scotsman, linked here.
Cringe if you heard the attacks on poor Boris from the broadcast media.
Michael Howard has called on Lynton Crosby to run his general election campaign. My view, predictable to members of this blog, is that even the great Houdini himself could not extract this Howard from this mess. Can he retain his own seat seems the only major question in doubt!
Monday, October 18, 2004
As trailered in this morning's Daily Telegraph, linked here, Mr Robert Kilroy-Silk is to take the challenge of the Tory duplicity over Europe straight to the home constituency of the Shadow Minister for Deregulation Mr John Redwood.
The press release with details of the meeting is as follows:-
ROBERT KILROY-SILK M.E.P.
European Parliament Member for the East Midlands Region
Derbyshire, Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire, Northamptonshire, Lincolnshire and Rutland
MEDIA ADVICE: Monday 18 October 2004, 1pm
KILROY-SILK AT WOKINGHAM - WEDNESDAY:
CHALLENGE TO JOHN REDWOOD: “Will the Conservatives stay in the E.U., or come out?”
CANTLEY HOUSE HOTEL, MILTON ROAD, WOKINGHAM - 8pm
Robert Kilroy-Silk, East Midlands M.E.P. for the U.K. Independence Party, will address a UKIP Meeting in Wokingham this week - which will be open to the public - to rally support for his view that the U.K. Independence Party must fight every seat in the coming General Election, even against so-called ‘eurosceptics’ like John Redwood.
Mr Kilory-Silk made a powerful speech at the UKIP Conference in Bristol on 2 October, condemning what he described as the policy of ‘doing shoddy deals with other parties’ on Europe. Following his speech, delegates voted overwhelmingly to reject a motion put forward by the current leadership of UKIP for UKIP candidates to stand down in favour of ‘eurosceptic’ Conservatives like John Redwood.
Mr Kilroy-Silk will use his speech on Wednesday to tell UKIP members and the wider public that Redwood is lying when he claims that the Conservative will ‘repatriate’ powers already lost to Brussels. Redwood and Conservative Party Leader Michael Howard said recently that they would ‘repatriate’ fishing, employee rights under the ‘Social Chapter’, and overseas aid. However, Mr Kilroy-Silk will tell his audience, “In the 47-year history of the Common Market, since the Treaty of Rome was signed in 1957, no E.U. Member State has ever openly defied the European Union. Member States who join the E.U. must sign up to implement all E.U. law as a whole. Britain, under the Tories, passed the European Communities Act in 1972, which bound Britain to implement E.U. law for ever. We have to decide as a nation whether we want to be in or out”.
Wokingham is a strongly eurosceptic constituency. Local UKIP Vice-Chairman Frank Carstairs said: “We beat the Liberal Democrats into third place in the European elections. We have had a dramatic increase in membership in the last 12 months and fielded 23 candidates in the local elections this year, averaging 15% of the vote. I talk to local Conservatives all the time and to a man and woman they all want Britain to leave the E.U. and become independent again. Our task is to persuade as many of them as possible to vote for British independence at the coming General Election”.
Sunday, October 17, 2004
The 'Factortame' case concerning Spanish Fishing rights under the EU Fisheries Policy clearly shows the supremacy of Community Law, the impossibility of the Westminster Parliament being able to legislate to circumvent it - and consequently the complete hypocrisy of the Howard conservative oppositions stance on renegotiating the Fisheries Policy or anything else.
The following extracts are taken from 'THE FACTORTAME SAGA: THE FINAL CHAPTER?' available in pdf format from this link.
THE FACTS AND THE HISTORY OF THE LITIGATION
Briefly, in the 1980s the United Kingdom Government formed the view that Spanish
fishing vessels with no genuine connection to the United Kingdom had registered in
Britain in order to obtain access to British fishing waters. The Government therefore
introduced new licensing conditions pursuant to the Sea Fish (Conservation) Act, 1967
restricting registration by reference to nationality, residence and social security
contributions. The majority of these conditions were found by the Court of Justice to
be unlawful in R. v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte Agegate Ltd.5
and R. v. Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, ex parte Jaderow Ltd.6
Considering that the situation was worsening, the Government subsequently enacted
the Merchant Shipping Act, 1988. This provided that a vessel could only be registered
as British if all the legal owners and at least 75 per cent of the beneficial owners were
‘‘qualified persons or companies’’ 7 and its charterer, manager or operator was a
qualified person. The vessel must also be managed and its operation directed and
controlled from within the United Kingdom.
On 19 June 1990, in Factortame I, the Court of Justice ruled that the English rule
of law preventing suspension of the Act pending determination of its validity must be
disapplied and, on 25 July 1991, in Factortame II it held that the requirements of the Merchant Shipping Act as to nationality, residence and domicile for legal and beneficial owners, charterers and managers and operators of fishing vessels were contrary to Community law and in particular to article 43 (ex 52) of the EC Treaty on the freedom of establishment. However the requirement that the vessel be managed and its operations directed and controlled from within a Member State was not contrary to
Meanwhile, the Commission had also brought proceedings against the United Kingdom under article 226 (ex 169) EC. On 10 October 1989 the President of the Court of Justice made an order for interim suspension of the Act pending a final ruling
and, on 4 October 1991, the Court of Justice ruled the Act invalid in the article 226
EC proceedings. Under article 228 (ex 171) EC the United Kingdom was obliged to
take measures to comply with this judgment.
In Factortame III the Court of Justice repeated its reasoning in Francovich v. Italy
that although the Treaty did not expressly provide for Member State liability in
damages for breach of Community law, such liability was vital to ensure the full
e摯瑬敳獩ectiveness of Community law. The obligation to remedy breaches of Community law
was also part of the duty of Member States under article 10 (ex 5) EC to fulfill their Treaty obligations. However, where a Member State had a wide discretion over its actions, it could only be liable for a breach of Community law where that breach was sufficiently serious, national courts could take into account a number of factors. These factors included the clarity and precision of the rule breached, the measure of discretion left to the national authorities by the rule, whether the infringement and damage were intentional or involuntary, any contribution to the State’s act or omission made by the position taken by a Community institution and the adoption or retention of measures or practices contrary to Community law.10
When Factortame III returned to the Divisional Court 11 in the United Kingdom, that
court ruled that, on the facts, the enactment of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1988
constituted a sufficiently serious breach of EC law so as potentially to give rise to
liability in damages to the applicants.12 The court noted a number of relevant factors:
the intended effect of the domicile and residence conditions was discrimination on the ground of nationality; the Government was aware that the conditions would cause loss to the applicant; the Commission was hostile; the use of primary legislation meant that under domestic law interim relief was unavailable; the superior rules of law of proportionality and legitimate expectation had been breached; and the Government had failed to comply immediately with the Order of the President of the Court of Justice in proceedings under article 226 (ex 169) EC that the Act should be suspended pending determination of its validity.
The Court of Appeal upheld the judgment of the Divisional Court 13 and the
Government made a further appeal to the House of Lords. It argued that its breach
was excusable, since the law was not clear until the judgment in Factortame II and
there was substantial objective justification in the form of protection of the national fish quota. In addition, other Member States had adopted the same approach as the United Kingdom, the national courts regarded the issue as complex and the
Government had sought and relied on independent legal advice that its action was in
accordance with Community law. The United Kingdom was not obliged to follow the
advice of the Commission and it had not intended to breach Community law or injure
the respondent fishermen. Finally, even if the breach caused by the nationality
condition was sufficiently serious, that caused by the residence condition was not.
Footnote references and the eventual outcome of Factotame III can be found from the link.
In a comment to the final ruling which went entirely against the British Government, the following point was made regarding lessons for the future:
The judgment also gives guidance for future applicants and the government. First, the fact that favourable legal advice is received will not, of itself, render a breach of Community law excusable. Second, any delay in giving effect to a ruling of the Court of Justice is likely to be considered to be a sufficiently serious breach of Community law in itself. Third, where a serious injury to the potential applicant is a foreseeable result of the government’s action, this will also give weight to the argument that there has been a sufficiently serious breach.
Naturally none of this will come as any surprise to Howard's Conservative Party, who while proclaiming 'Trust Us' are, as usual, engaged in an elaborate chirade designed to dupe the electorate and bind us ever more closely and cravenly to the non-democratic EU that will soon become their principle source of unconditional funding. (See my posting to Ironies of last Friday, linked from here).
State funding of political parties is as unacceptable as Company Directors operating without either shareholders or a Companies Act!
Friday, October 15, 2004
This report from The Scotsman, linked here, gives a glimmer of hope that sense may be returning to the Conservative Party. The reaction from Denis 'Macshame' the Minister for Europe, reported by the BBC is also worth reading, it is linked from here.
When Clarke, Heseltine and the other Euro-supremacists start heading towards New Labour or the Lib Dems where their EU federalist and anti-democratic totalitarian views would make them more naturally at home, then there may be hope indeed. Howard?-----(kaput - comes to mind!)
Wednesday, October 13, 2004
Mathew Parris in the 9th October edition of The Spectator, attacks UKIP as mad, bad and nasty. The flavour of the article , linked here, may be guaged from this brief quote:-
Ukip is mad, bad and nasty. Its ill-doing is intentional. It is nothing like the Conservative party. Its aims are hugely different from those of the Tories, and profoundly wrong. For any former Tory voter, supporting Ukip is an act of idiocy and of betrayal, and unforgivable. Ukip people are not (in Michael Howard’s term) ‘gadflies’, they are scorpions.
I have now seen an article by Peter Hitchens, also from The Spectator 2nd October edition linked here, which mounts a similar attack but here upon the conservatives and ends as follows:-
"....by 1997 the Tories had accepted so much of the Left's thought that it was hard for them to argue against its logical conclusion in Mr Blair, Mr Brown and Mr Campbell. The slow-motion coup d'état which placed the state under the full authority of political commissars was the end of a process they had begun themselves with their platoons of special advisers. Their own long failure to defend the hereditary principle as a valued part of the constitution left them headless and gutless when New Labour turned on the Lords and began to jostle the monarchy. They had actively taken part in the egalitarian trashing of the education system. They had emasculated the police, destroyed the power of parents and teachers over children, undermined marriage, sought to attack juries and mused publicly about introducing identity cards. They had initiated the process leading to capitulation to the IRA, and so couldn't oppose surrender when it took place. They were even more compromised on the European project. Because they no longer really believed in British interests themselves, they couldn't even see that the Iraq war was not in British interests.
The rejuvenated Labour party is in the hands of blithe, shameless cynics who are delighted to endure the attacks of stupid leftists who think they are 'right-wing' if they can convince enough dim Tories to believe the same piffle. The successful advance of a breathtakingly radical programme proceeds unnoticed and unopposed. New Labour is indeed a new danger, but it can only be beaten by people who both understand its nature and fundamentally disagree with it. That will not happen until the wreckage of the Conservative party is cleared out of the way."
The problem for voters is, of course, that there are large amounts of truth to what both these concerned columnists write. (Especially if the present discredited UKIP leadership cabal succeed in clinging to their posts) It is difficult to conclude anything other than that some new political entity is now the only answer.
It might appear so from Howard's latest disastrous decision, as reported in the Opinion section of today's The Scotsman, linked here - which under the title 'Tories tactical blunder' started as follows:-
PETER Duncan has a new job. Some might think he has too many for one man. As well as being Scotland’s only Tory Westminster MP, he is also the shadow secretary of state for Scotland. And yesterday, Michael Howard also appointed Mr Duncan as chairman of the Scottish Tory Party.
Perhaps this multiple portfolio is designed to maximise Mr Duncan’s profile in advance of the general election. But by loading all these jobs on to one man, the London leadership only draws attention to the paucity of Tory parliamentary representation north of the Border, while making Mr Duncan look faintly ridiculous. Worse, setting him up as an alternative focus of attention to the Tories’ Scottish leader, David McLetchie, MSP, is a tactical blunder. For Mr McLetchie is not only the best-known Tory in Scotland, he has done much to distance the party from its previous anti-Scottish reputation (deserved or not).
Monday, October 11, 2004
The following extraordinary statement is made at the end of an article by the political editor of The Spectator, linked here, to try to justify the cover story assertion that somehow Howard is more to be trusted than the totally duplicitous and dishonest Tony Blair:-
The British people may prove to be allergic to Michael Howard for reasons that are beyond anybody’s computation.
Any having read this blog for the past year, or used their common sense rather than listen to the media, would be perfectly well aware that Michael Howard is probably one of the least trusted men in the country. Conservative MP's used to recognise that fact when they decisively ruled him out of consideration as a leadership contender to replace his former boss John Major. What has changed ??
It really is a close run thing trying to decide which of the two EU Commissioners returning to Britain from the Prodi years in Brussels has been most soiled by the experience. Patten went into the appointment with the shame of his means of entry the Patten report on policing in Northern Ireland, and his l handling of himself at the Hong Kong handover, the one and only real function he was expected to properly fulfil for his lucrative and cossetted Governorship. Therefore, before this morning, I believed it was probably Neil Kinnock who had been most demeaned by his years in Brussels. Signs are that Patten might be catching up.
This attack by Patten on his ex-Party shows extraordinarily enough that there is always somewhere lower to sink for senior conservative figures from the Major years. (Rifkind also excelled himself in that regard over the weekend with his comparison of UKIP voters with those who let Hitler into power!).
The Patten attack which is in today's Independent may be read from here.
Sunday, October 10, 2004
Christopher Booker in his Sunday Telegraph column, linked here, 'No way to win the nation's trust', hits the nail on the head:
So when it comes to putting his new "get tough" policy into action, Mr Howard not only has no trumps in his hand, he has no cards at all. His entire policy rests on bluff. And while this brave talk may fool the British electorate, it hardly seems the best demonstration of his trustworthiness.
Howard's conning conservatives by being so blatantly disingenuous over their EU policy, which they hope to marginalise, merely prove that all their other detailed commitments are not worth the bother of even reading let alone discussing or considering.
The poll flat-lining of yesteryear will soon take on the aspect of the steepest downhill slalom slope, unless Howard can be speedily dispatched - unhappily there remain no alternatives in the wings - unless UKIP wake-up and rid themselves of their old Tory deadwood.
Saturday, October 09, 2004
The Independent carries an NOP showing a mere nineteen per cent of voters have fallen for Howard's laughable ploy to make himself appear trustworthy. The full report is linked here.
The poll does show a conference boost for the shameless conservative party putting them at 34 per cent, still two points behind Labour, but five points ahead of the pre-conference YouGov poll.
Only four per cent of those questioned believed in EU withdrawal, they were not asked, of course, whether they might be prepared to consider such a course were their democracy not to be restored.
Friday, October 08, 2004
A good indication of just how 'EU-native' has Britain's so-called conservative party become is provided in the latest report of the European Foundation, still run I believe by Bill Cash, one time (I am assured 'Genuine' Euro-sceptic!) I will not bore readers by quoting the whole turgid mass of EU news from the latest report, but leave those who wish to plough through the minutiae linked here - the section headline give a flavour:-
RUSSIA ON THEIR MIND
BRUSSELS TO SEND POSITIVE SIGNAL TO SOFIA AND BUCHAREST
GREEN LIGHT FOR TURKEY
CHIRAC PROMISES REFERENDUM ON TURKEY
ITALY AND POLAND TO PULL OUT OF IRAQ
STRUCK: KOSOVO STATUS SHOULD BE RESOLVED QUICKLY
SCHUMAN AND GASPERI NEXT?
SPAIN TO LEGALISE GAY MARRIAGE
NO SANCTIONS AGAINST GREECE
EU AND US FIGHT OVER AEROPLANES
BUILDING OF US EMBASSY STARTS IN BERLIN
So much for the eurosceptic wing of the ultra-federalist Tory Party. Can one really believe, when Cash started this newletter of protest against the EU, he would be headlning reports such as these ?
Please visit Ironies linked here, where resistance continues on a dauily basis!
Thursday, October 07, 2004
"A government that is honest - a government they can trust" preceding a call 'Come and join us" thus did Michael Howard wind up the probably the last Conservative Party conference as number two party in the land, - no not government - next year they will almost certainly be only number three .
Can you credit such a call from cloud cuckoo land? Well just look at this one little statistic from the YouGov poll published today by YouGov ( click here) Tories 29 per cent Labour 35 and others 14.
Michael Howard in a government that is honest? More laughably still recalling the Major years a government we could trust? Does he really believe the British electorate have neither memory nor the sense to see through his latest EU lies and evasions.
The outspoken Europe Minister Denis Macshane has this to say in his Guardian column:-
I know Paul Sykes. He made his first fortune in the Meadowhall shopping centre 10 minutes from my house in Rotherham. We have debated Europe over the years in Yorkshire. He is strongly anti-Europe which is his perfect right. He also has millions to spend on politics as play and flits between anti-EU Tories and other outfits that are more stridently Europhobe. William Hague thought he had his support but then Paul gave the UK Independence party shedloads. Before that it was the people linked to the late Jimmy Goldsmith. In 1983, he would have given money to Labour because of the party's anti-European manifesto. But the vast bulk of Yorkshire businesses know that the Tory-Ukip line Mr Sykes supports would mean the UK would instantly be in breach of all its solemn treaty obligations, which would mean either massive fines or quitting the EU.
The Europe minister then goes on to prove that he knows absolutely nothing of business or economics, making it a clean sweep alongside his ignorance on his own portfolio. We will have to take his word for the fact that he does indeed know Paul Sykes, but his reliabilty factor based upon recent outrageous utterances is at rock bottom for me! The whole column may be read from here.
Wednesday, October 06, 2004
“I want the world to look at us and to see a nation that is as strong as it is compassionate. Strong in the face of threats. Compassionate in the face of hunger and disease."
If the Tories get re-elected there will be no nation to see whatsoever - just a group of regions run from Brussels - a Popperian tyranny with the people permanently unable to bloodlessly replace their rulers. Ancram knows it - Howard knows it - but the Tories just as much as Labour, the LibDems, the Greens and UKIP under Knapman are addicted to the EU cash! There is a word for what they are about!
Howard for PM? Ask the bookies!
(This is taken from Wales@westminster weblog - seems accurate it is linked here)
Time to get the flak jacket out. I appear to have upset some people by suggesting the Tories might find it difficult to win the next general election.
Sian Morgan writes, "I think it is terrible that David Cornock is so totally and openly anti-Conservative. Do you believe in fair journalism at all?"
Er, thanks Sian. The answer is yes - I try to be scrupulously fair to all parties.
The Tories have had three leaders in three years, have no MPs in Wales and only one in Scotland, have just been beaten by the UK Independence Party in a by-election and are below 30 per cent in one recent opinion poll.
There are parliamentary candidates here in Bournemouth who privately say Michael Howard has no chance of winning the next general election.
Would it really be fair to imply they're on course for a glorious victory? Admittedly you can get longer odds against a Welsh victory on Saturday, but there isn't a bookmaker in the land who believes Michael Howard will win the next general election.
The one crumb of comfort in what became a day of complete humiliation for Michael Howard, was the fact that for a moment he could revel in the knowledge that he had apparently , through the offices of one-time eurosceptic John Redwood, coaxed millionaire Paul Sykes into withdrawing backing from UKIP.
It was indeed UKIP that dominated the news bulletins and papers throughout the day.
Sykes of course was refusing to give any money to UKIP for many months before last June's elections, but finally brought forth spectacular sums for the billboard campaign. On that occasion it was the incompetence of Farage and Knapman in rebuffing his offer to stand as the Yorkshire lead MEP candidate that had brought on the sulk. Next time it is most likely to be the lack of any real anti-EU policies in Howard's manifesto that will bring back Sykes to the real anti-EU cause.
Kilroy's leadership bid is the talk of the hour, even knocking the likely rapid decline if not demise of Blair from the top story notch.
Throughout the day today, on BBC TV, going out across the world, Robert Kilroy-Silk is being afforded the chance on the 'Hardtalk' programme, to demonstrate what a refreshing breath of candour and honesty he will be able to bring to the corrupted and degraded British political process.
At the same time, through the prejudiced hectoring of Tim Sebastian, Kilroy has been able to spectacularly illustrate how far from the norms of broadcasting impartiality the British state broadcaster has now strayed.
Tuesday, October 05, 2004
According to a preview of Howard's first and almost certainly last conference speech as Tory leader, The Scotsman, linked here, reports the following:-
Mr Howard admitted that the John Major government in 1992 had, like so many other governments, let people down by increasing taxes instead of cutting them.
He was due to say: "This damaged people’s faith in politics so it’s hardly surprising that people don’t trust politicians today. In the real world, if you say you are going to do something you do it. And if you screw up, you can lose your job. It’s called accountability.
"But politicians seem to live in a different world. A world where promises are dropped just as casually as they are made. A world where there are no penalties for failure."
In the actual speech Howard blamed Europe and Tax for the loss of public faith in politics - presumably because of the Tories immense guilt over the EU the press release seemed to concentrate on the tax aspect - as seized upon by the Scotsman quoted above.
On the EU he tried to imply that he would restore accountability - FAT CHANCE while never negotiating while being prepared to contemplate withdrawal!
UKIP remains where the EU action is Sykes or no Sykes!
Do the following events explain why UKIP backed the Tory controlled and incompetent 'NE Says No' Referendum Campaign?
In the early summer of 2003 some even more bizarre disputes than normal occurred within UKIP's fractious National Executive Committee.
At the June 2003 meeting of UKIP's National Executive Committee, it was alleged in a pre-prepared statement- that after the May meeting one of the members had at the bar made a comment that Roger Knapman would stand aside and that the party leader was reportedly in debt for some three hundred thousand pounds as a result of his having been a name at Lloyds. This statement was reportedly then followed by Knapman himself accusing that member of having Tory party associations.
The accused NEC member, took legal advice after the meeting and refuted these accusations in a long letter dated 12th June 2003, that was addressed to the reader of the prepared statement which opened as follows:-
While I was generally quite relaxed about the discussion we had at the outset of the meeting of the NEC on Monday, even though I think it went on about an hour too long, I was very disturbed at the allegations about two things you made towards the end of the meeting:
1. You alleged that in conversation with you in the bar after the May meeting, that I made defamatory and personal allegations about Party leader Roger Knapman's financial affairs, including references to him owing 300,000 pounds.
2. You allege that in the same conversation I stated to you that Roger would soon no longer be party leader.
I am concerned about this for a number of reasons:
a) Both allegations are completely untrue and I can find no other NEC member who was present who will corroborate them.
(For brevity intervening points have been removed)
f) The Party Leader (Roger Knapman) followed with a statement that made clear that he knew exactly what was in your script, and that the information I am alleged to have given you about his financial affairs is only known to two sources - both high up in the Tory Party - and that the inference could only be that I am acting for the Tory Party to destabilise UKIP."
Later there is one further paragraph of present day interest:
"....Indeed the allegation that Roger is going to step down in favour of Nigel after the Euro Elections is common currency in the party, but is also one which I have never aired to anyone, partly because I do not completely believe it"
THE LETTER WAS ALSO SENT TO ALL THE MEMBERS OF THE NEC, WITH A COVERING EXPLANATION WHICH INCLUDED THIS POINT:-
"Roger Knapman followed (----'s) statement on Monday with a further statement alleging that, as only two other people know the information I am alleged to have given ----, the only conclusion that could be made was that I was a Tory mole. That inference has now been made to others in the party.
My lawyer was asked last Tuesday to obtain a court order of disclosure against the individual who recorded last Monday's NEC."
WHAT DOES ALL THIS TELL US ABOUT KNAPMAN'S FITNESS TO CONTINUE AS LEADER?
Firstly - it is plain that there were continuous rumours within the party that Knapman was to step down after the Euro elections, well over a year before polling day. This makes Knapman's statement of last weekend to the BBC as to being surprised at the suggestion he might have been prepared to stand down from the leadership a clear misrepresentation of some very well known fact. Had he not considered standing down then a public statement to that effect should have been made to the party following the entire NEC being notifed on 12th June 2003 that reports to that effect were common currency within the party.
Secondly and far more importantly, If Knapman truly believed that only two people knew of his debts and if they were both senior Tories, as it has been alleged then, how does he reconcile his own position with that of the alleged informant NEC member, who he implied must be a Tory mole through having contact with these individuals?
He apparently stated at the June meeting that anyone dealing with these must be a Tory mole sent to destabilise UKIP - what are we possibly to make of his own actions in apparently making himself so indebted and therefore beholden to people he viewed as wishing to harm the party he then led - and regrettably to this day still leads?
Normally I would hestiate about putting this on the open internet, but as Greg Lance-Watkins was extremely verbose on this topic, firing off three detailed and widely circulated e-mails about the incident during June 2003, (which are referenced in the legal riposte) the greater good seems to be best served by bringing the matter to light again now - particularly as it reflects on the veracity of Roger Knapman and therefore his fitness to lead.
Kilroy's offer to lead UKIP was made for the very short term. Recent events in the North East prove that the present party leadership has at the very least an ambiguous approach to the Conservatives and this morning reports are circulating that Paul Sykes might direct his funding in their direction in the future. That would be reward indeed for the comparatively small investment reportedly made by the two tories concerned, namely the neutering of UKIP by the continuation of Knapman's apparently duplicitous leadership and the aquisition by the Conservative's of UKIP's most generous backer. Can such a betrayal really have taken place, why has the NEC not been asking such questions? Just what does UKIP's present leadership intend towards the EU? Ordinary UKIP members should now get on the telephone and start demanding answers!
Knapman must be called to fully explain this affair. The two senior Tory Party members mentioned must be named so that their role in this matter can be properly understood and hopefully their own accounts obtained.
Sunday, October 03, 2004
This blog really only got underway when the Conservatives unceremoniously dumped IDS because he was not rising in the polls quite rapidly enough. The party was on a rising trend that made a break through the 40 per cent level appear imminent but still just out of reach.
Tomorrow the Tories will start their conference reading a Times 'Populus' poll putting them at a mere 28 per cent. (the article actually reports 20 pct but that is probably a misprint!) . Read here.
Clearly this self-destruction is deliberate. The enemies of British independence and sovereignty have long desired the demise of our nation. I can write this without fear of being labelled extreme or anything else justifiably unsavoury - as this certain outcome was predicted in writing on this blog, over and over and over again. Read the archives from last October they begin with this item:- A party split from Top to Toe, and continue to the final entry for the month as follows:-
"Our main posts on the Conservative Party's apparent urge to self-destruct can be found on Ironies by clicking HERE....."
and so on throughout the year that has now passed. Why?
Why has the Conservative party BETRAYED...... and continued to BETRAY the people of Britain, that seems to me the question for the Conservative Party conference this week.
There is no answer of course, other than greed and selfishness. Ordinary conservatives and all concerned for their families and country should now perhaps seek an alternative.
The above headline is a quote from a news report this evening, linked here:
...a survey showed more than two thirds of leading Tory activists are prepared to contemplate withdrawal from the EU.
Seventy one of the 110 constituency party chairmen polled by BBC2’s The Daily Politics said there could be circumstances under which Britain pulled out.
If this report in the Guardian, linked here, is to be believed, Tory voters will be flocking to UKIP in their droves once Kilroy is safely ensconced. First kisses of Howard, May, Soames etc uggghhhhhhh????
Talk about a party that has truly lost its way!
This incredible report (just carefully consider every 'laboured' statement), is taken from a longer item on the Sky News website, linked here:-
|HOWARD'S ACTION PLAN|
"What we want is action. Less talk, more action. People want to know that when their Prime Minister says something, it will actually happen........ NO HOPE OF THAT FROM LABOUR OR THE TORIES!
The Comment piece concludes with the following:-
Thus Michael Howard, who this week faces his first party conference as leader, has tried to grab headlines with populist announcements while positioning most of his policies close to those of Labour. It is not working. An ICM poll today shows that voters still think the Tories are out of touch. Even though Labour is unpopular, more people will still vote for it than for the lacklustre Tories. Mr Howard needs to be bolder, more coherent, or else his party will be devoured by the snapping jaws of the Lib Dems and UKIP. And then Mr Blair and his successors will go on and on.
This assessment in my view is totally false. As Nick Wood argues in the Independent on Sunday 'UKIP is not the half of it' linked here, TRUST is the key, and it is the trust of the British electorate that the main political parties have deservedly lost.
UKIP has the chance of the biggest political shock imaginable if they can capitalise on the deep disgust the British now hold for the entire political class. First it must dump its own similarly soiled ex-Tory MP leader Roger Knapman, and install Robert Kilroy-Silk as speedily as possible so that intelligent election planning can begin and large scale recruitment from the Conservatives shattered ranks commence. Thereafter it can concentrate on the country's most deadly clear and present danger New Labour.
Saturday, October 02, 2004
Such is a report conatined in this opinion piece from Fraser Nelson, political editor of The Scotsman, linked here. The quote is as follows:-
"If I wasn’t a Tory frontbencher, even I would vote UKIP," admitted one shadow cabinet member recently. They secretly admire the audacity of Robert Kilroy-Silk, the UKIP frontman and former talk-show host.
UKIP's humiliation of the Tories in Hartlepool is already bearing fruit. The Daily Telegraph this morning, linked here, reveals:
Michael Howard seeks to counter a growing threat to the Conservative Party's election prospects from the UK Independence Party today by promising to hold an early referendum on rejecting further European integration.
Elsewhere in the same paper Howard details all the other policies he will never now get the chance to implement. These fantasmal hypotheses may be read from here.
The facts of the matter are now of course quite different. As politics.co.uk reveals (here) this morning, it now appears highly likely that neither Michael Howard, nor the shadow chancellor Oliver Letwin, will even be Members of Parliament following the next general election. I quote from their report on the UKIP conference which starts this morning in Bristol:-
The anti-EU party is set to unveil a list of election target seats expected to include Conservative Party leader Michael Howard's Folkestone and Hythe constituency and Treasury spokesman Oliver Letwin's Dorset West seat.
Friday, October 01, 2004
Such was the response of Nicholas Soames to the Conservative Party's result in Hartlepool, where they only managed fourth place. The first time since the war that an official opposition party has not come in the top three according to another source. The Scotsman report is linked here.
Of course it is no surprise to readers of this blog which predicted the demise of the Tory Party immediately following the underhand ousting of IDS last year and his replacement by the deeply distrusted Michael Howard.
The fact that this disgraceful, oppressive and clearly anti-democratic government, reviled the length and breadth of the country cannot be defeated even in a by-election called for such a purpose, should set alarm bells ringing. A Prime Minister trusted by a mere quarter of the electorate now seems set to win a third general election victory and loudly boasts of continuing throughout such a term. Incredible!
Thursday, September 30, 2004
Sep 30th 2004
From The Economist print edition
What people say they want the Conservative Party to be
HOW can the Conservatives change from a party that just holds on to votes to one that goes out and wins them? As Tories gather in Bournemouth for Michael Howard's first conference as party leader, many of them think that the answer is simple. Over in Bristol, the UK Independence Party (UKIP), which wants Britain to pull out of the European Union (EU), will also be holding a conference. There, the message that foreigners are only good for trading with will be clear and loud. Surely, Conservatives wonder, we should be tougher on Europe and foreigners too?
Our Economist/YouGov poll shows why they think they are right. More than a quarter of voters say they would be more likely to vote Conservative if the party committed itself to withdrawal from the EU (see chart). And 44% say they would be more likely to vote Tory if the party took a harder line on immigration. If winning an election was like baking a cake, all the party would need to do is add those two ingredients and watch its vote rise steadily.
But the Tories are in more trouble than this quick fix suggests. Voters don't identify with the party and are not attracted to Mr Howard. Though they have sometimes harried the government effectively, the Conservatives have failed in an opposition party's other job, namely to charm voters by using the freedom that not being in power brings. After seven years of a government that is now widely disliked, 60% still say that the Conservatives do not understand their needs. Mr Howard has not yet found a way of talking to them.
| Britain's failing Tories
Sep 30th 2004
Why Tony Blair and Gordon Brown will have less to argue about
Sep 30th 2004
How politicians fit on the political spectrum
Sep 30th 2004
Iraq, Labour and the war
Sep 30th 2004
Mr Howard's leadership may be part of the problem, however. Female voters seem particularly unimpressed by him. Only 7% of women say that having Mr Howard as leader makes them more likely to vote Conservative, compared with 13% of men. The other front-runners don't do much better: 33% of women say they would rather have someone nameless and younger, compared with 29% of men who feel the same way. This antipathy is particularly bad news for the Tories, since the party is normally better supported by women than by men.
At last year's conference, gloom about the party's prospects was lightened by the feeling that Iain Duncan Smith, the party's then leader, would soon by replaced by someone who could unite the Tories and make them loved and successful. Mr Howard has managed to save the party from itself. But if he doesn't begin to show how he will rescue the party from the public, Mr Howard's first conference as party leader could also be his last.
This article is reproduced as it appears on the Economist website LINKED HERE