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!