Sunday, November 13, 2005

Haig and Fox for Cameron

My warnings of MP's opportunism of yesterday (see posting beneath this) were well timed as today's Sunday Times reports both William Haig and Liam Fox today declaring for the empty vessel.

Remember that this is the same William Haig who once commanded respect in the party and country yet without shame wrote in his News of the World column in the early part of this year that he was making far too much money on his US speaking tours to consider an active role either within the party or then certain General Election campaign. What weight should party members put on the recommendation of such a man?

Remember also that the timing of his declaration seems curiously timed to have possibly been made with the advantage of some knowledge of the early voting results, if these are being deliberately slanted by those pulling the party strings, a travesty of democracy could be underway!

If David Cameron is elected, how long will the supposed "stardust on his collar" or as Haig is quoted as saying " “a certain quality which was impossible to define but you know it when you see it” really last. Such qualities are best used by confidence tricksters as far as I can see.

Look at the likely consequences as reported in the same Sunday Times article, linked here:

As prospective party leader, Cameron is preparing to help Tony Blair push through a series of public service reforms that, aides say, will keep a “wounded” and “isolated” prime minister in power.

The leadership favourite signalled his support for the government against Labour rebels on greater independence for state schools, city academies, benefit reform, foundation hospitals and more private sector involvement in the National Health Service.

Although he argues that he supports Blair’s modernisation of public services because he believes it is the right thing to do, his aides pointed out it is also designed to have the political effect of making Blair look “isolated” from his party. The move comes after the prime minister faced a first Commons defeat over his anti-terrorism bill.

If Cameron becomes the opposition leader next month, it could be Tory votes that keep the prime minister in power. “It will leave Blair badly wounded if the only way he can get his reforms through is with our support,” said a senior aide.


Saturday, November 12, 2005

Tories heading for oblivion?

If the headline article in the online edition of the Daily Telegraph is to be believed the Conservative Party is doomed as David Cameron, the media darling who will become its mauled and mangled victim by the next General Election were he to become Party Leader, is reported to have opened an early and large lead over rival David Davis in the leadership contest.

Such are the results of a YouGov poll which has been so manipulatively reported as to condemn the Telegraph to the lowest possible level of even present day journalism. The report may be read from this link.

To try to grasp the degree of distortion it is necessary to recall the basis on which YouGov polls. Anybody can join YouGov and participate in those polls as they may wish. Is it really likely as the report seems to imply that one third of those conservative party members who have already voted are signed up as YouGov contributors. Unlike most polls published as far as I can find there is nowhere any reference to the size of the sample. Just how many conservative party members who have already voted could have been polled - it must be an incredibly small number unless there was some collusion or identification of names of those who had voted from party sources, any names thus provided could then well have been tilted towards the results desired by the Telegraph group owners and editors and/or the party establishment.

Evidence of the desired outcome of the senior party hierarchy comes later in the same report which states:

"Anne Maine, the MP for St Albans, who formerly supported Mr Davis, said she was now backing Mr Cameron, taking his support to 107 MPs - well over half the 198-strong parliamentary party.

Michael Ancram, the party's deputy leader, said the backing of a clear majority of Tory MPs was an important signal to party members."

The Gaderene rush to support the dubious, media reported front-runner by sitting MPs and their European counterparts is understandable when looking at the calibre and motives of the present elected party and remembering that were Cameron to win at only 39 years of age and given his apparent lack of policies and therefore presumably either character or principles, future advancement within the party is likely to be lost pretty much forever as far as the present entire elected members are concerned.

The announcement by the comparatively youthful Owen Paterson MP for David Davis is particularly commendable in this regard.

This blog quite correctly predicted the outcome of a Michael Howard leadership takeover - I feel equally certain that if the Tories go for Cameron then it will be the end of their party. How best to then restore decency and democracy to British politics will then become an even trickier problem.

Friday, November 11, 2005

Strange concept for Conservatives in today's Torygraph - Deeper Democracy!

A column by Danny Kruger makes interesting reading, even for regulars on this blog, with some IT analogies for a real opposition - highly recommended and linked from here.

Tuesday, November 08, 2005

David Davis gets Lord Tebbit's backing

The letter of support is in today's The Times as reported in Times Online linked from here.

The full letter may be read from this link. It concludes as follows:

"So Davis will have my vote. Perhaps that nice Mr Cameron will get it in ten years’ time if he learns as much from experience as David Davis has in the past ten years."

One of the few cheerful thoughts from today's news.... that Norman Tebbit with his innate common sense might still be around in ten years....as Mark Steyn concludes in his Daily Telegraph column this morning, quoted below and linked here, how many Telegraph readers can now really wish that:

As to where Britain falls in this grim scenario, I noticed a few months ago that Telegraph readers had started closing their gloomier missives to me with the words, "Fortunately I won't live to see it" - a sign-off now so routine in my mailbag I assumed it was the British version of "Have a nice day". But that's a false consolation. As France this past fortnight reminds us, the changes in Europe are happening far faster than most people thought. That's the problem: unless you're planning on croaking imminently, you will live to see it.

Monday, November 07, 2005

East Midlands eurosceptic Conservative MEPs back Cameron

The statement is reproduced herewith:

LEADERSHIP ELECTION

A Joint Statement from East Midlands Conservative MEPs

IT HAS TO BE CAMERON!

We have looked carefully at the two remaining candidates for the Conservative Leadership, and we have decided that David Cameron offers the Party the best prospect of returning to government at the next General Election. We will be voting for him, and we would urge all East Midlands Conservatives to vote for him too.

Little to choose on policy

Both men are Conservatives, so the policy differences are relatively minor (except for the EPP issue: see below). We believe that the choice hinges on personality and electability, and in our judgement, Cameron is well ahead. He would be the first Party Leader in recent years to create an immediately positive impression on the television with uncommitted voters. He has a little star-dust sprinkled on his Eton collar

So is his privileged background a problem?

We don't think so. It would be perverse if Conservatives rejected an excellent candidate because he went to a good school. It would be the worst kind of inverted snobbery. And Blair, after all, went to Fettes, one of Scotland's finest public schools

Cameron can reach the groups the Party desperately needs to recover

We believe that Cameron will appeal strongly to groups where the Party has lost traction and desperately needs to get it back. Critically, these include:

· Middle-class professionals who have drifted to the Lib-Dems

· Young people who may currently not vote at all

· Women, where our vote has slipped dramatically

Against this, Davis says he will play well in the inner cities. But we are not convinced that this will bring in the volume of votes we need.

Was Cameron damaged by the drugs stories?

We think not. His firmness and dignity in the face of attacks from the press showed him in a good light, while many younger voters if they cared at all would be positively impressed by the fact that he had, as he says, "a normal university life".

Cameron has made a clear commitment on the EU issue

One policy difference that does impress us is Cameron's clear commitment to take MEPs out of the European Peoples' Party group in the European parliament. It may not be a big issue in the overall scheme of things, yet it sets out a clear marker on policy. But this is one of the few things a conservative Leader in the opposition can deliver. No longer will we talk a good euro-sceptic story in England, only to go and cosy-up to the federalists in Brussels.

We are concerned that Davis has been equivocal on this issue, with some of his lieutenants telling sceptics "Vote Davis -- he'll have us out of the EPP in two years", while others tell former Clarke supporters "Vote Davis because he'll keep us in". We believe that politics should be based on clear principles, and we are not impressed by prevarication.

If you share our views on these points, please give David Cameron your support.

ROGER HELMER MEP CHRIS HEATON-HARRIS MEP

www.rogerhelmer.com www.heaton-harris.com

Saturday, November 05, 2005

The UKIP factor!

The former editor of the Daily Telegraph, Charles Moore, in an article explaining why he plans to vote for David Cameron in today's edition of that newspaper states the following:

".... a pedantic, historical, 20th-century point, is that, when he had the chance, Mr Davis did little for Euro-scepticism. As a whip, he helped bash through the dreadful Maastricht treaty. I notice that most of the committed, expert Euro-sceptics - David Heathcoat-Amory, Bill Cash, Daniel Hannan - are backing Mr Cameron. Mr Davis wants to maintain the Tories' membership of the Europhile European People's Party at the European Parliament, while Mr Cameron says he will stop it."

This is indeed a worry as this blog has consistently pointed out. The double referendum proposal by David Davis seems initially attractive and potentially answers concerns about the past stance of David Davis, but the fully detailed proposal is hard to find therefore final judgement remains suspended.

Conservative Party voters concerned about the EU deserve a full explanation from the three individuals named above for their support for David Cameron, (they should also however, bear in mind the presence on the BDI refusnik list of Bill Cash and David Heathcote-Amory).

The Conservative Party, regardless of leader, will likely find it nigh impossible to win any General Election without neutralising or compromising the UKIP. More on this as the campaign develops. The Davis referendum proposal might be a step in that direction but could subsequently be adopted under a Cameron led party. No party should select a leader based on the nature and calibre of its opponents! But which of Davis and Cameron will be most effective in dealing with Nigel Farage MEP and regaining the votes of his natural supporters?

I would also suggest the party deserves the detailed views of Roger Helmer MEP on the EU position of the two leadership candidates. The relevant website may be reached by clicking here.
Queries could also be sent direct to rhelmer@europarl.eu.int



Wednesday, November 02, 2005

David Davis offers double referendum on EU

In an interview in The Sun today and as reported on Radio 4 it appears that David Davis is prepared to finally offer something meaningful on the EU. This blog will comment fully on the proposal when it is has been fully detailed. With several more weeks remaining for the final vote, there is now much to be gained by party members pausing to await developments - as well argued by Simon Heffer in the Daily Telegraph this morning, linked here.

Tuesday, November 01, 2005

Leadership Election

The following post was put on my blog Ironies Too this morning under the title 'Cameron, Davis, the EPP and the EU' it is clearly also of interest here.

Quote
This blog has earlier made clear its strong doubts as to the suitability of Conservative Party leadership candidate David Cameron and in particular the depth and sincerity of his supposed euroscepticism. In the past few days it has been reported that he has been gathering so-called right wing eurosceptic support based on pledges regarding withdrawing the party from the EPP group in the European Parliament something this and my other blogs have repeatedly urged. (Some of the names mentioned should be checked against the information as to their position on the EU at the last election as reported on the results page of the British Declaration of Independence website linked here.)

An item in today's The Times covers this topic and may be read from here.

Conservative party members with the final say over the next leader are now faced with a very real choice and a real dilemma. Only a full and detailed explanation of each candidates' plans regarding the EU, Britain's place within or outside it and the exact strategy for achieving those ends both in government and opposition will now allow a well-informed vote to be cast by party members on the real number one question today facing the nation.

One major question for each contender I would suggest might be the following:

Is David Cameron proposing the Conservative Party will immediately join the group in the European Parliament which presently includes UKIP, or will he try and tempt UKIP away from the more extremist members of that present grouping or does he consider UKIP itself to be extreme?

David Davis owes the conservative party members a fuller explanation of his activities and views at the time of the Maastricht vote and a detailed summary of how they have evolved since that time.

Unquote

Sunday, October 23, 2005

Root out Conservative cronyism!

Janet Daley skirts around the problem in her article in today's Sunday Telegraph , linked from here.

The rest of the media have been, sometimes timidly, other times more obviously (such as this item in the Telegraph click here) making the same point - that the media darling and conservative leadership candidate David Cameron 'has no clothes'

And there in a nutshell is the country's problem epitomised!


The Tory Party that propelled Old Etonian David Cameron into Leadership favourite with one of their safest seats in the country inherited from fellow Old Etonian Douglas Hurd ( probably one of the most disastrous Foreign Secretaries in the nation's history), with apparently few other earler or subsequent qualifications than advising Norman Lamont during the country's crashing out of the ERM and partly penning the awful manifesto for the election just past, is in no state to be the main opposition to the present government!

The ninety Tory MP's who voted for Cameron should now be probed to fully explain their motives and reasons for so doing to their Constituency Associations. Where there is the slightest suspicion that either cronyism, possible future preferment or even capitulation to establishment pressure were motives in their decision - deselection, for which much time now remains available, seems the best option.

Conservative Constituency Associations for such MPs seem like a worthwhile area of spare time activity for true democrats in the coming years. Party attempts to limit the membership vote, and how far it is prepared to go to achieve the installation of its obvious puppet, widely reported this weekend, clearly indicate how low the Conservative Party has presently sunk.

Cameron's background and career to date, like so many within the party (not least Sir Michael Spicer, Chairman of the 1922 Committee, who ran the leadership election) screams out to the world at large the true depth and nature of the Tory Party's problems. Even at this early stage in the countrywide campaign, the establishment pressure for Cameron to succeed is self-evident while the attempts to hide his obvious flaws become ever more absurd.

In my opinion only by David Davis making this into a real bare knuckled fight and highlighting these facts will the country receive the kind of opposition any democracy deserves!

Friday, October 21, 2005

Self-confessed drug user Cameron's central office allies move to disenfranchise membership!

Ninety Tory MPs will have to increasingly learn to live WITH the reality of their unprincipled and opportunistic vote for this shallow man, who within hours of topping the Conservative Party second poll for leader, effectively admitted a youthful use of drugs - a fact about which - he had ducked, dived and weaved during the Commons campaign.

No wonder the old party stalwarts, who must be looking in his direction for continuance of their stipends, are now set to take the kind of disgraceful steps as reported by the press below.


The Tory establishment dirty tactics have already begun. as may be read in the full report (click here) from The Times - of which the following is but a brief quote:

Reports this morning suggested that as many as 60,000 of the 300,000 members across Britain may not receive a ballot paper when they are sent out in a fortnight’s time. Members who pay less than £15 a year to the party or have joined since 1998 may not get a vote, while husbands and wives who have joint membership may receive only one ballot paper, the BBC reported.

Christopher Montgomery, who led the Better Choice campaign that saw off Mr Howard's plan for his successor to be chosen solely by MPs, said that the number of ballots was "not going to be anything close" to the total membership and accused Francis Maude, the party chairman, of trying to boost Mr Cameron's chances.

"It’s an open secret that Francis and the outgoing leader would prefer David Cameron to win. They are the people who originally didn’t want the mass membership to get a vote," Mr Montgomery said.

"Now they are the people who are going to determine who among the mass membership gets a vote. There are moves afoot in Central Office to disenfranchise tens of thousands of Tory members. You don’t have to be too much of a cynic to say the people who are going to be disenfranchised might tend to be more at one end of the party than the other."

Thursday, October 20, 2005

Second ballot - A Good Result for Britain!

Cameron 90, Davis 57 and Fox 51 ensures that no case can be made by the so-called 'modernisers' to claim they have majority support among MPs.

For me it is now inconceivable that David Davis can falter and not show the other David for the flash in a new and empty pan that he seems to be! Cameron's sparse biography, which may be read by clicking on this link to epolitix, must surely make this immediately clear.

If Cameron can gain a majority amongst the clearer thinking and more sensible electorate of the mainstream Conservative members after six weeks of hustings, then he might well have the potential his backers allege or perhaps merely prove that Davis is as lacking in substance as his conference speech left many to believe. An Old Etonian background remains hugely problematical particularly if the possibilty of a rapidly declining economy becomes reality, with Brown then likely being ditched as a scapegoat - and recession then causing privilege to again become a matter of resentment - a not unlikely scenario and one easily to be exploited by other New Labour contenders for Blair's position!

Dr Fox fought a good fight but for me his nationality and accent made his rejection presently necessary. The Shadow Foreign Secretary has, however, now probably eclipsed William Hague in importance within the Conservative Party.

The Radio 4 PM programme this evening reported a Tory MP as stating that ideology in the party was dead. Effectively this seems correct, further strengthening my earlier advice (on my specialist blogs immediately after the last election to UKIP and Veritas Party members) to join the Conservative Party to have a say in the choice of the next Prime Minister.

That apparently opportunistic advice still holds true today, but if David Cameron wins (is he really Eurosceptic as frequently reported today?) then a switch to the Lib/Dems to have a say in their next leader might become a possibility! Why not? In a political world without principle or policy, those who believe in a best way forward must look to the best means of securing their ends. UKIP with Davis leading the Conservatives will become an even greater irrelevance.

In the meantime serious eurosceptics should be within the Conservative Party. Davis's wobbling on the EPP illustrates the need for strong grass roots agitation on the EU - the suggestion that such a major policy and financial decision should be left to the MEPs is both absurd and disingenuous!

In the battle for our democracy and against the EU, party loyalty counts for nothing, the best means to restore our sovereignty must be the major consideration.

Gordon Brown or the Lib/Dems could even become the best means in securing that end.

When politicians merely follow fads through focus groups then common sense may again prevail!

Ninety Tory MPs today showed their lack of mettle!

Tuesday, October 18, 2005

Clarke finally finished!

Another minister from the disastrous Major administration mercifully gets his come-uppance ending last with 38 votes in the first round of the most recent Conservative Party leadership battle.

David Davis at 62 votes is now clearly in trouble with Liam Fox needing to pick up a mere further eleven Davis supporters to make it into the run-off against David Cameron who now looks a certainty as the runner-up in the broader membership ballot. (Assuming that inexperienced and unpolicied Old Etonian gathers all the clearly politically challenged Clarke votes)

Dr Fox now needs to address the major problem of how - as a very obvious Scot- he will counter the problems of a potential General Election contest between himself and other main parties led by fellow Scots. An Englishman leading the Lib/Dems in such a scenario would be the safest bet as the first post-New Labour PM. Gordon Brown will need little time as PM to immediately highlight the present inequities of the Scotland vs England political status quo.

If David Davis can play on that point and appreciate the cause of Dr Fox still remaining in the contest is a direct result of his own lack of robustness on the EU question, then he might yet survive.

In all events the Conservative Party looks condemned to irrelevance - who can shed a tear after looking at the pattern of votes today?

Saturday, October 15, 2005

Clarke becomes the bookies outsider

Kenneth Clarke's odds go out to 12 - 1, were Rifkind's and Ancram's endorsements the 'kiss of death'?

Meantime the new front runner has attracted the following constructive criticism from Frank Johnson in today's Daily Telegraph:

Only one candidate knows just how dangerous policies are

Never mind about him and drugs. What about him and policies? That is what supporters of David Davis, Kenneth Clarke and Liam Fox ask about David Cameron. He showed brilliantly at the party conference that he has a speech. But has he ever had a policy?

Mr Cameron's reply can be imagined: "I'm not prepared to answer that question. I might once have had a policy; not that this should be taken as confirmation that I ever did.

"But if I did, it was before I knew I was going to become a politician.

"I went to a fairly ordinary secondary school near Slough. I probably did a lot of things there that I now regret.

"But I don't see why I should answer questions about them. I know how the media operate. If I confirmed that I had one policy, they would ask me if I had another. Then another.

"Before long, I would be having to say how much I really would cut taxes or where I stood on the Iraq war. These are personal matters.

"I didn't become Tory leadership favourite in a week by having policies. I did it by making lots of people think that I was in favour of their policy, and because Davis's speech flopped."

Later, Mr Cameron would issue a statement saying that a very close member of his family had a policy, and it didn't do that person any good.

That is all the more reason why he is the candidate who understands that policies are dangerous.

Leave the boy alone, I say.

Tuesday, October 11, 2005

Malcolm Rifkind withdraws

One report may be read from this link.

Speaks volumes on Michael Ancram having thrown his illusionary weight behind him in what seems just a few mere hours ago.

Is there no Tory contender with vision and perception as to the real problems of the country and the really rather simple means to put things right? Two days left to try your luck.....are David Davis, David Cameron, Kenneth Clarke and the scottish encumbered Dr Liam Fox really such powerful talents. Stronger men are there but they lack the guts to step forward - WHY for heavens sake? Nominations close on Thursday

Saturday, October 08, 2005

Ignoring the blindingly obvious

Just as the Conservative Party disastrously fooled itself into believing that the general public would change its widely held belief that Michael Howard could not be trusted, so it appears from this week's mainstream media it is about to do the same in the latest selection of their leader.

If reports are to be believed David Davis was probably sunk by his own conference speech leaving David Cameron and Dr Liam Fox a chance of making it into the membership ballot.

Remembering the most likely principal opponent in the next General Election is Gordon Brown, can the Tories really contemplate being led into such a contest by another Scot? What an opportunity for the Lib/Dems to finally consign the Tories to history by picking a leader to replace their own Scot, Charles Kennedy with a very English leader such as Simon Hughes then being able to trade on historic liberal principals of individual liberties to attack this most authoritarian and anti-democratic government.

On the other hand can the Tories seriously imagine painting themselves as a reformed and modernised party under the leadership of yet one more Old Etonian? Even if he can spout double talk in a class almost the equal of Tony Blair? They may well delude themselves as they have before, but the electorate will not be similarly fooled, (even if David Cameron is as brilliant as his supporters profess) for the electorate his schooling will render him unelectable. What a gift for Gordon!

Kenneth Clarke and David Davis are thus all that is left and neither performed in Blackpool in a manner that gives any indication whatsoever as to their ability to beat New Labour.

Hopefully another candidate will materialise before nominations close on Thursday, if not the country seems set to continue without any realistic political opposition.

Friday, October 07, 2005

Good riddance!

Michael Howard's farewell speech to his party is reported upon in the Daily Telegraph and that may be read from this link.

Howard epitomised the John Major years by refusing to retract obvious inaccuracies deliberately made to parliament over Home Office computers - thus setting the tone for ever untruthful New Labour. Peter Oborne's book on the acceptance of lying in our present political system underplayed that point.

Where is our political opposition? None will come from any candidate Michael Howard might endorse, is my gut feeling!

Tuesday, October 04, 2005

Dr Liam Fox on Radio Four "Today"

The interview was on this morning's programme at seven thirty and may be re-run using the BBC's Play Again facility from this link.

No surprise, listening to this, that Dr Fox is now increasingly seen as the dark horse candidate!

Saturday, October 01, 2005

A true Conservative alternative

Rather than blaming the lack of an economic slump on the Tory misfortunes as Michael Howard is quoted as doing in today's Daily Telegraph, a small group of Conservative MPs (with a contribution from the straight thinking MEP Roger Helmer) have instead prepared a series of policy options which seek to remedy some of the major problems confronting Britain. These may be read in PDF format by clicking on the title of the pamphlet: Being Conservative: A cornerstone of policies to revive Britain

Further details of the Cornerstone Group may be found from this link to their homepage.

Wednesday, August 31, 2005

Can a non-democratic Conservative Party restore democracy to Britain?

The following letter is in today's Daily Telegraph:

Sir - As senior representatives of the general membership of the Conservative Party since the reforms of 1998, we are dismayed by the new proposals for electing the leader of the party, currently to be voted on by the party's constitutional college, which do no more than return to the previous unsatisfactory system.

The current arrangements represent a delicate balance. Members of Parliament draw up the shortlist (so any candidate whom MPs consider they cannot work with is excluded) with the final choice being made by all party members. Significantly, if MPs can agree on a single candidate, he or she automatically becomes leader.

Supporters of the new proposals argue that, in future, MPs will have to take into account the views of the voluntary party. So they did under the pre-1998 system but there is no evidence that they ever listened.

As for cost, the last ballot of the membership actually made a profit, because members were asked to make a voluntary financial contribution when returning their ballot paper.

Senior members of the parliamentary party and, indeed, the media keep stressing the need for the party to "reach out" to find new supporters. It is hard to see how this important objective will be achieved by removing the vote from party members and returning it to under 200 individuals - MPs predominantly representing the shires and South-East of England and with virtually no representation from the north of England, Scotland, Wales, the cities, and importantly women and younger people.

If a change has to be made it should surely be based on a method of electing the leader which gives direct involvement to all parts of the party (MPs, MEPs, peers, councillors and members) in the final decision by means of an electoral college.

In the meantime the current proposals should be rejected.

Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts (Chairman, National Conservative Convention, 1998-2000), John Taylor (Chairman, 2000-2003), Brian Hanson (President, National Conservative Convention, 1999-2000), Jean Searle (President, 2001-2002), Caroline Abel-Smith (President, 2002-2003), Richard Stephenson (President, 2004-2005)

Saturday, June 18, 2005

What in the world do the Tory lightweights think they're doing?

A good analysis of the present state of the Conservative Party fromCharles Moore, the ex-editor of the Daily Telegraph may be read from this link to today's Opinion item in that paper which appears under the above title.

Sunday, June 12, 2005

Leadership contender Rifkind in contact with Saddam's regime for oil contracts?

Read the report from today's Observer linked from here.

Monday, June 06, 2005

Ken Clarke on his party - 'an unelectable Right-wing rump'

The article in the Daily Telegraph is linked from here. A quote:

"A Daily Telegraph/YouGov poll reported last week that 56-year-old Mr Davis was the overwhelming favourite among party members to replace Mr Howard, with Mr Clarke ranking only fourth in members' preferences.

Challenged on the results yesterday, Mr Clarke said that they underlined why grassroots members should no longer have the decisive "one member, one vote" say on who becomes Tory leader."

At least this Bildeberger (details from this link) is refreshingly honest regarding his contempt for democracy.

Sunday, May 22, 2005

Today's Sunday Telegraph Letters

Who do the Tories think they are?

So Francis Maude thinks that the Tory Party should represent a greater cross section of society (Opinion, May 15). I agree. It should try including Conservatives again. Although how someone like Maude, who signed away the UK's self governance at Maastricht and runs a "think tank" which advocates tax breaks for "homosexual marriages" and one of whose leading lights ran "wife-swapping parties" on a commercial basis, can claim to be a Conservative beggars belief.

Rodney Atkinson, Stocksfield, Northumberland

I find it a bit rich that Lord Patten should offer advice on the method of election for the House of Commons (Opinion, May 15). How many people voted for him to sit in the House of Lords, and pass the laws which we must obey?

Fortunately there is a simple solution to the twin problems of an imperfectly representative Commons, and an entirely unrepresentative Lords. Keep first-past-the-post for the Commons, but replace Lord Patten and his unelected ilk with those who come second in the poll in each parliamentary constituency.

(Dr) D R Cooper, Maidenhead, Berkshire
Our Post-Democratic Society

The Sunday Telegraph
has a report on the revised system for selecting the next leader of the Conservative Party, lamentably still the country's main opposition party.

It would appear that the rights now enjoyed by ordinary members to have a vote for their Leader, (first obtained under the leadership of William Hague, but resented following the election of Iain Duncan Smith, who could hardly have managed to do worse than Michael Howard in the General Election in my mind) are to arbitrarily withdrawn whatever new system is chosen.

Quotes from the article, which may be read in full from this link, are as follows:

"Michael Howard is to back new rules for Conservative leadership contests which could end in a stand-off between two rival "leaders", one with a mandate from local party activists and the other backed by MPs.

Under a radical plan to elect his successor, which Mr Howard will announce to senior Tory officials tomorrow, two parallel ballots would be held - one among local association chairmen, the other among MPs. The winners would then be pitted against each other in a knock-out round, in which only MPs would vote, The Sunday Telegraph has learnt."

...................

<>..... "rank-and-file Tories were likely to be angered that only constituency officials would be able to vote under the new rules. "For years it has appeared on our literature that choosing the leader is one of the main benefits of membership," he said. "People will understandably be very annoyed if this is going to be taken away."

Disaffected Conservatives need not bother to look towards the UK Independence Party or Veritas for better party democracy as a few moments reading the archives of ny blogs dedicated to those parties will quickly show.

Could the English Democrats live up to their party's name?

Sunday, May 15, 2005

Five Tory MEPs finally rebel against the EPP

The five Conservative MEPs who defied the EPP leadership to which group their party disgracefully belongs, in the vote for a motion of censure against the Barroso Commission (read here) have been named in the Christopher Booker column of the Sunday Telegraph, linked here, and were as follows:-

Roger Helmer, Christopher Heaton-Harris, Martin Callanan, David Sumburg and Daniel Hannan

Thursday, May 12, 2005

Tories - From 'Teetering' to 'Terrible' to 'Terminal'

The blog EU Referendum has been following the plight of the still main opposition party in Britain more closely then we have of late. Visit this link to read some of the almost unbelievable latest developments - Raiding the nursery!

Tuesday, May 10, 2005

Howard on the Skids!

A very satisfactory headline for this blog which has consistently made the case that Michael Howard was completely the wrong man to lead the Tories into the 2005 General Election.

One report of a prominent backer now demanding Howard's immediate departure is this link to a Daily Telegraph report - there are others. IDS has of course experienced exactly similar headlines immediately before his departure.

Monday, May 02, 2005

Refusals to sign the BDI by Party

The following is a list of candidates who have refused to sign a declaration upholding the principals of parliamentary democracy.

If they are candidates for the Westminster Parliament in your constituency- please ensure that neither you yourself, your family, neighbours or friends within the constituency vote for such traitors. Looking at the manifestoes and policies on which they now stand for election - and considering the reasonable terms of the British Declaration of Independence, linked here, which they have refused to sign - how else can they thus be described?

Conservative refusals

Dr Julian Lewis
Hon Nicholas Soames
Dr Liam Fox
Michael Fabricant
Sir Michael Spicer
Ashley Gray
Caroline Flynn-Macleod
Paul Maynard
David Amess
Cllr Kim Humphreys
Rt Hon Oliver Letwin
Jacqui Lait
Ian Taylor MBE
James Paice
Rt Hon Stephen Dorrell
John Maples
Douglas Carswell
Rt Hon Kenneth Clarke QC
Rt Hon David Curry
Angela Browning
William Cash
Rt Hon David Heathcoat-Amory
Laurence Robertson
Rt Hon Michael Howard QC
Edward Leigh
Robert Walter
Quentin Davies
Rt Hon Francis Maude
Owen Paterson
John Bercow
Tim Collins
Peter Luff
Tony Baldry
Andrew Robathan
Sir John Butterfill
Peter Bottomley
Rt Hon John Gummer
Geoffrey Cox QC
Anthony Steen
Christopher Chope
Scott-Haywood
Peter Atkinson


Labour refusals

Doug Henderson
Joan Walley
Rt Hon Robin Cook
Valerie Davey
Barbara Follett
Austin Mitchell
Mike Gapes
Keith Vaz
Barry Sheerman
Rt Hon Peter Hain


All candidates of the Liberal Democrat Party refused to sign.

Lying Politicians

There is a fascinating Opinion comment in today's Daily Telegraph by Daniel Hannan, MEP Conservative for the EU's SE England Region, which may be read from here.

Mr Hannan muses on why all involved with politics are so distrusted as if he should somehow be exempt.

That of course is part of the answer to the question he poses. In fact, of course, he personally has just last year, not followed through on a solemn commitment, basic to the principles on which he was elected, but now acts as if he has behaved consistently and honestly throughout!

It was Hannan himself, regular readers of this blog might recall, who had committed to leaving the Euopean People's Party group in the European Parliament if re-elected in June.

There was plenty of opportunity for Mr Hannan and his colleagues to do the honourable thing and resign the party whip following Michael Howard's reversal of the EPP 'divorce policy adopted by IDS. Faced with a threat of removal of party support (and therefore all the perks of life as an MEP) he campaigned knowing that he would be elected and that he would then have to remain within the ultra-EU federalist EPP bloc in Strasbourg.

My many requests for an explanation (he was one of my own MEPS) went unanswered. Some of the events were reported on this blog earlier last year so may be read in the archives!

Is not total distrust of the likes of Daniel Hannan, who is clearly very much a part of the pays légal not therefore pefectly justified?

What are we to make for example of the reality behind his regular supposed eurosceptic, presumably well-paid columns for the likes of the Daily Telegraph, while also enjoying the unearnt taxpayer largesse as an MEP within the ultra federalist EPP!

What hypocrisy!

Saturday, April 23, 2005

Empty headed Michael Howard

Click here to see today's Daily Telegraph 'Opinion' cartoon on the Tory leader.

Why did the Conservatives get rid of a staunch eurosceptic and democratically elected leader and replace him in a putsch with a known loser of suspect character?

Throwing this election seems one very likely possible answer as the postings on this blog have repeatedly tried to illustrate.

Why, only now when it is too late, is the Daily Telegraph, which is considered by many to be the house journal of the Conservative Party, only now prepared to hint at this possibility - and that in a cartoon over an article by the paper's former editor (linked here)?




Thursday, April 21, 2005

Howard Blows the Election as Presumably Planned!

I wonder how many Tories took in the book review by Simon Heffer of Michael Crick's 'In Search of Michael Howard' in The Spectator of 9th April.

I can no longer find the internet link, but for those who still have last week's magazine have a look and consider - can ever a man so flawed have been selected to do anything other than the opposite of what he apparently intends? Will some of the flaws revealed be slowly brought out throughout the campaign - or will his own errors make such scandal stirring unnecessary?

What spur of the moment piece of political expediency will the Tory's summon up tomorrow, yesterday Council Tax, today Stamp Duty - some gimmick on health I would guess.

Meantime our democracy dies!

Wednesday, April 20, 2005

A Conspiracy?

The following is an extract from an article by Ferdinand Mount in this morning's Daily Telegraph linked from here:

"While I was staring at Mr Blair's eerie tan, the Prime Minister may have been launching a vigorous defence of his decision to invade Iraq. Or Michael Howard, while I was dreaming of the first cappuccino of the day, may have been explaining to us exactly how he would renegotiate the European fisheries policy.

But I do not think so. On the contrary, so far foreign affairs have been kept off both parties' menus with Stalinist rigidity. It is as though their leaders had signed some secret concordat not to mention the war, or indeed the outside world in any shape or form

I heard Mr Howard start off yesterday morning with a thumping denunciation of Blair's lies: the lies about Tory spending plans, the lies about Labour's pensions policy, the lies about the patient's passport. Terrific stuff, but was there not one other little area of, shall we say, prime-ministerial prevarication that earnt some notoriety not all that long ago?

With few exceptions, the media seem happy enough with this weird vacuum. They will remorselessly quiz the politicians on almost anything else you can think of: where the Blair tan came from, what Rupert Murdoch thinks of immigration, the treatment of prostate cancer. But as for the world and Britain's place in it, for the moment these seem to be no-go areas.

Which is peculiar in the extreme. Because outside the political hothouse, as far as I can see, people talk of little else. Perhaps for the first time since 1945, it is two foreign issues - Iraq and the European Union - that are foremost in the minds of the most agitated voters at this election.

Every Leftish person I bump into is obsessed with Blair's lies in the run-up to war. Every Rightish person is exercised by the latest excesses of Brussels and in despair at our apparent impotence to undo them, let alone to find a stable and enduring relationship with the EU, in or out of it. Every tobacconist and taxi driver is liable to let rip on either front.

There are not one but two elephants in our sitting room. And the politicians are doing their best to pretend that neither of them is there. In the American elections, the candidates chewed over every aspect of the Iraq war. In France, each clause of the EU constitution is being hotly contested. In the British election campaign to date, zero public debate on either."

Monday, April 18, 2005

Conservatives Reject British Declaration of Independence

From the BDI website:-

Conservative Party officially rejects

British Constitution and British Parliament

We talked to the Policy Unit at Conservative Central Office. CCO said that:

  1. The Conservative Party rejects the British Declaration of Independence principally because of paragraph 2 - the right of the British Parliament to "initiate, pass and repeal laws applied to the British people". That is unacceptable to the Tory Party. (In other words the Party rejects a Parliament and Democracy itself not only for Britain but for the whole of the European Union as well. "The Tory Party is committed to the treaties signed since 1972 which contradict paragraph 2 of the BDI".
  2. The Tory Party would NOT withdraw "from areas where the EU Court has jurisdiction over the United Kingdom". It would request re-negotiation of specified areas –e.g. employment, immigration, international aid and fishing.
  3. The policy he was stating had been decided by Michael Howard and the Shadow Cabinet. We asked if candidates had been told NOT to sign the BDI. He replied the policy was that candidates should not sign statements which are inconsistent with Conservative policy. We stated that the BDI was entirely consistent with "in Europe but not ruled by Europe", a sovereign independent Britain in the European Union. They said they disagreed with the BDI because it meant "withdrawal from Europe". But the BDI does not concern itself with Europe it concerns itself entirely with British Democracy.
  4. Therefore the Conservative Party confirms that membership of the European Union has destroyed British Democracy and that the British Parliament was replaced in 1972 by a British Assembly. The British Conservative Party confirmed that this always was and remains their intention.
  5. The Conservative Party rejects the British Constitution. They also reject the European Constitution. Therefore they believe in NO Constitution – which means unfettered control by the politicians.

Therefore the Tory Party refutes the British constitution, rejects the terms of the Oath of Allegiance, denies Britain a Parliament, rejects the 1966 UN Convention of the Self determination of peoples (a treaty which the British Government signed) and thereby disqualifies Britain as a sovereign nation from membership of the UN.

This confirms Michael Howard’s stance that, on being elected, he will request permission (of what he recognises as a superior power, the European Union) to govern in the United Kingdom and even then in only certain areas.

The Conservative Party has been forced to produce a new "form of words" designed to fool their candidates and the British people. The BDI, by demanding they sign up to their previous "form of words" (i.e. "In Europe but not ruled by Europe"), has forced them to refute those words.

The BDI is concerned solely with the sovereignty of the British people and the status of their Parliament as a forum in which their laws are made. Our concern is the British Constitution, not the European Union – or any other Union!

This has all come as a great shock to many Conservative candidates and voters. Those candidates who have signed the BDI regardless of party pressure deserve our unstinting support. We need to do everything we can to strengthen them in the party and encourage allies to join them.

Tell others about the BDI and the Petition. (You can sign up others if they have no computer and you have their post code and permission!)

The BDI is powerful - use it.

Monday, April 11, 2005

Howard's Election Manifesto on the EU

The following are the relevant extracts from the manifesto launched today (my added highlights are the red, bold and italic items):-

We will save warships Mr Blair would scrap. A Conservative Government will support European co-operation on defence but we strongly believe that such co-operation should take place within the framework of NATO.
(Item on Iraq removed)

Conservatives support the cause of reform in Europe and we will co-operate with all those who wish to see the EU evolve in a more flexible, liberal and decentralised direction. We oppose the EU Constitution and would give the British people the chance to reject its provisions in a referendum within six months of the General Election. We also oppose giving up the valuable freedom which control of our own currency gives us. We will not join the Euro.

In a reformed Europe, the restrictive employment laws of the Social Chapter will have to give way to more flexible working. We will ensure that Britain once again leads the fight for a deregulated Europe by negotiating the restoration of our opt-out from the Social Chapter.

The common policies on agriculture and fisheries are unsustainable, damaging to free trade and conservation, and waste huge sums of money. The CAP needs further and deeper reform. And, because fisheries would be better administered at the national level, we will negotiate to restore national and local control over British fishing grounds. We are determined to ensure national control in this area.

We will also build on the success of enlargement, making Europe more diverse by working to bring in more nations, including Turkey.

We value Britain’s membership of the European Union, but our horizons extend much further. A key element of British foreign policy under a Conservative Government will be fighting world
poverty. We will support further action on debt relief and will work to meet the UN target of spending 0.7 per cent of national income on overseas aid by 2013. We believe that British aid programmes are among the best in the world, so we will negotiate to increase British national control over our international aid spending.

Wednesday, April 06, 2005

Guardian Letter on the BDI

The following appeared in yesterday's newspaper, linked from here:

Election principles

Tuesday April 5, 2005
The Guardian


At this election the only thing that matters is whether the parliament to which we elect MPs has the power to govern in our interests (Election countdown, April 4). The British parliament no longer makes our laws. This happened without the knowledge or permission of the British people. The British Declaration of Independence makes sure that in future only our MPs make our laws and that we can sack our law-makers if we don't like those laws - in other words that we live in a democracy.
By signing the declaration, parliamentary candidates acknowledge the authority of the British people and commit to exercising British self-government when they get to parliament. People pressure them to do so by signing our petition (www.bdicampaign.org). We then tell the candidates how many votes they gain by signing. We urge the electorate to vote for a candidate who has signed the declaration. Without self-government there is no point in voting at all.

Rodney Atkinson
Frederick Forsyth
Leolin Price QC
Lynn Riley
Alfred Sherman
David Stoddart
The British Declaration of Independence

Wednesday, March 30, 2005

Tory Eurosceptic Candidate Sacked

The author of the book "The Principality and Power of Europe" - Adrian Hilton has been removed by Conservative Central Office as candidate for Slough. A report in today's Daily Telegraph may be read from this link.

I have heard Mr Hilton when he addressed an anti-EU rally in Bath in the Autumn of 2003 and he made an impressive case for his views on the main dangers he believes the EU now poses. To remove him as a Conservative candidate by Central Office seems harsh indeed.

Adrian Hilton's book is published by Dorchester House Publications, Box 67, Rickmansworth, Herts and has an ISBN number 0-9518386-2-8

Tuesday, March 29, 2005

Tyrannical Tories

The Conservative Party having condemned the country to a 'Popperian Tyranny' with its policies of the past four decades, has now moved to eradicate democracy from within its own organisation.

Such is the full thrust of an article in this morning's Daily Telegraph, linked here, which more surprisingly reports that some of the party's supine membership (that happily allowed their previous democratically elected leader IDS to be replaced in a palace putsch) are actually making small noises of protest, needless to say no such objections are being heard from the party's big guns either past or present!

None of our sitting politicians deserve re-election unless they have signed the British Declaration of Independence, click here for more information, as only by leaving the European Union can accountable democracy be regained and the only certain way to speedily achieve that is by the electorate seizing on the BDI opportunity in the coming election!

Sunday, March 27, 2005

Dr Sean Gabb on the Tories

I recommend this latest article titled Tax, Public Spending and Everything Else: The Sorry Truth about The Conservative Hidden Agenda which may be read from this link.

Saturday, March 26, 2005

Undemocratic Tories

The unsuitability of the Conservative Party for parliamentary governance is once again being demonstrated in the ATTEMPT TO PREVENT a local constituency from deciding on its own candidate. The Mail article linked here almost says it all (especially when considering the source).

Note the involvement once again of Oliver Letwin in the affair, and recall that individual's extraordinary role in blowing the Tory's chances in the 2001 election.

To compound matters, now the nation has two certain losers leading its main opposition party in what should be a certain general election victory over this disgraced government and its duplicitous leader. Instead few doubt that New Labour will emerge victorious once again!

How can that be possible?

The British Declaration of Independence

The Home Page for the above may be found from this link. The following quotes from the site give an indication of the aims and how to promote them to regain Britain's sovereignty.

25 March 2005

HOW TO USE THE BDI

WHAT TO DO AT ELECTION MEETINGS

The only thing that matters is what your candidates, by their actions, say about themselves. ONLY The British Declaration of Independence forces candidates to reveal what they really stand for:

  • Democratic Sovereignty or Dictatorship?
  • A Parliament or a Talking Shop?
  • Working for us or just taking the money?
  • Legislating or Lobbying?

Tell Candidates at every opportunity that you will know exactly what they stand for because they will have signed the BDI – or refused to sign the BDI.

If a candidate has signed then protest parties should not oppose them and you should vote for him/her regardless of their party.

If a candidate has refused to sign then you must not vote for him/her and must find the best way to use your vote to defeat that candidate, regardless of party.

SOUNDBITES FOR PUBLIC MEETINGS

"What the British people demand is their own Parliament which exclusively makes and repeals their laws and the right to sack their law makers. Its called Democracy."

"There are 170 sovereign nations in the world and we want to be one of them. If Declarations of Independence are alright for the Americans and the Iraqis then why not for Britons?"

"You are asking for our vote to go to our Parliament to make our laws. But if you will not commit to passing a Bill which says that our laws are made by our Parliament then why should we elect you?"

"Your party has voted for the legislation which has allowed others whom we cannot elect or dismiss to make our laws. If you don't sign this Declaration I will vote for one of the many smaller parties not yet in Parliament who WILL assert our sovereignty."

"If you are listed on the British Declaration of Independence website as having refused to sign I will not vote for you"

Friday, March 04, 2005

The Next Betrayal

Last evening in Dorchester I witnessed the next stage in the thirty-five year process of the destruction of Britain's sovereignty and democracy by the nation's own political rulers.

The event was a debate on the EU Constitution organised by the Bruges Group and the Democracy Movement, two organisations supposedly and reputedly dedicated to the fight against the erosions of our statehood by the EU. Those attending last night's procedures would be well justified to now have doubts on both those counts.

The main speaker was Oliver Letwin MP for West Dorset, Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, and only recently resigned from the London Merchant Bank whose history and family connections could themselves be considered an almost perfect template for the secretive, elitist and corporatist European Union itself. In support was the President of the 'real' Liberal Party Councillor Steve Radford and Marc Glendenning of the Democracy Movement, which organisation's regional press spokesman chaired the meeting.

The essence of the arguments presented was that the referendum on the EU Constitution expected for May 2006 should be fought solely on the drawbacks of that document and under no circumstances should debate be allowed to stray onto the question of the country's continued membership of the EU. This, it was repeatedly suggested, would be to play into the hands of the euro federalists and Tony Blair, Peter Mandelson and New Labour in particular.

Oliver Letwin set out three factors to be considered in the coming debate. First by stressing what was in the document, second by describing why it was a threat (he cited the 'new?' primacy of EU Law) and thirdly why the referendum represented an opportunity. On the latter point the thrust of his argument was that if the British people voted NO a mandate would then exist for a complete re-negotiation of the terms of British membership.

Such an argument completely ignores the obvious fact that if the NO campaign focuses solely on those elements, the assertion that a mandate for EU withdrawal has been given by the British electorate becomes entirely false - for that debate will have been prevented by the very politicians and political movements pretending to be opposed to the sovereign and democratic encroachments of the EU most already entirely legal, already experienced and clearly foreseen and envisioned under the existing treaties.

This fact became impossible to bring out, as by ignoring my repeatedly upraised arm, the chairman of the meeting managed to restrict the subsequent debate (with the honourable exception of two astute ladies, the best of whom had crossed the border from Devon to make a telling point on patriotism) to safe and largely irrelevant questioning from those who appeared to have been known to him.

Little mention was made of the more immediate general election contest expected by many for May 2005; rather we were urged to get campaigning for the hardly burning matter of a possible referendum in May 2006. The nonsense of the platform's case became clear when one moment we were regaled with the horrors of the recent Peter Tilleck and Marta Andreasen cases, while the next we were cautioned to refrain from the use of terms such as 'totalitarian' or 'police state'. Democracy through the Westminster Parliament might not ever have existed for this panel of speakers; perhaps a subconscious admission of the soon to be completed reality that indeed it soon will not.

With EU opponents such as these supposedly fighting the EU, no wonder Britain is now so almost entirely ensnared. The next general election, perhaps only two months away, will clearly be the last chance to fight off the EU. Small Euro-sceptic parties should now be combining to fight the big three large and united euro-committed political establishment of Labour, Conservative and the Liberal Democrats.

Rather than that, however, I fear what appears to be on the cards in the coming General Election contest is Euro-sceptic candidates fighting one another and not the devious, untruthful, non-democratic, globalist, corporatist and therefore effectively corrupted candidates from the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties who have together delivered their country and their countrymen into the hands and clearly non-existent mercies of others.

Oliver Letwin won his seat at the last election with a small majority on a platform that demanded a renegotiation of the EU Nice Treaty. From his words last night he now seems quite content with that document and all its federalist and anti-democratic provisions. No doubt if he were to be re-elected (even if the EU Constitution is resoundingly turned down in Britain's referendum and a watered down version is then accepted as would be the inevitable next step under either Labour or the Conservatives), he would then declare himself content with that outcome. It is by this kind of gradualism that we have now reached today's situation where we cannot select our own real government in the coming general election.

Only by consigning Oliver Letwin and his likes to electoral defeat can we ever hope to regain our country!

Thursday, March 03, 2005

Finally Something to Vote For!

10 STEPS TO FREEDOM
The British Declaration of Independence

· 1. The election tool called The British Declaration of Independence will succeed because it is based on three powerful elements: A Declaration which is worded to have real constitutional power; a signed document which irrevocably commits candidates to voting for the Declaration Bill when they get to Parliament; a voter petition which makes clear to candidates how many votes are available to them if they sign the Declaration.

· 2. The British Parliament has delegated law-making to foreign powers - without the clear knowledge or specific permission of the sovereign British people.

· 3. This happened when a cross party coalition of MPs, misinformed and under duress, passed an Act of Parliament. This situation will only be reversed and British sovereign power confirmed through another Act of Parliament - almost certainly passed by another cross party coalition of MPs.

· 4. The people have the power to elect that coalition of MPs - by voting ONLY for those candidates who, regardless of party, commit irrevocably to asserting British Sovereignty.

· 5. By signing The British Declaration of Independence MPs commit, before being elected - and on pain of resignation - to passing an Act of Parliament which will do just that.

· 6. The difficulty for voters in the past has been identifying those individual candidates. Many candidates have trumpeted sovereignty before an election and have voted against it when in Parliament. The BDI clearly identifies those who make a real constitutional commitment by signing - and it exposes those who refuse to sign.

· 7. The BDI INTERNET PETITION calls on all voters to register their desire to vote for BDI candidates. We will collect and consolidate the number of petitioners (voters) in total and in each constituency.

· 8. The Candidates (and press) will be regularly informed of the results of the Petition. Candidates will see the votes they can gain by signing the BDI itself - or the votes they will lose if they refuse to sign. 5 days before the election the voters will be told which candidates in their constituencies have signed.

· 9. When a majority of BDI candiates are elected the British Declaration of Independence Bill will then be presented in Parliament and will be passed.

· 10. The electoral power of the voter, the democratic independence of MPs and the Sovereignty of the British people will thereby be confirmed. Government by consent of the British people will be established in perpetuity by a vote confirming the Declaration of Independence Act at the beginning of every Parliament.


Make Sure the candidate receiving your vote in the General Election - REGARDLESS OF PARTY has signed up to the British Declaration of Independence!

Wednesday, March 02, 2005

British Declaration of Independence

Those familiar with the South Molton Declaration (see this link) from the last General Election will be pleased to know that a new, even stronger statement has now been prepared and will be available for signature by candidates at the coming election.

A well funded web site is under preparation we understand and should be up and running very soon. Electors will have the opportunity of entering their post code and immediately obtaining a list of candidates prepared to sign up to and VOTE for the restoration of Britain's sovereignty and parliamentary democracy.

LAST EVENING WE WERE INFORMED THAT THE CONSERVATIVE PARTY'S CENTRAL OFFICE HAD ADVISED ITS CANDIDATE'S THAT THE PARTY HAD NO OBJECTIONS TO ITS CANDIDATES SIGNING UP TO THE DECLARATION.

EVEN CONSERVATIVE VOTERS WILL NOW BE EASILY ABLE TO IDENTIFY WHICH PROSPECTIVE MP'S CANNOT BE SUPPORTED BY THOSE RIGHTLY DISTRUSTFUL OF THE EUROPEAN UNION!

Saturday, February 26, 2005

Tories Trounced Again

UKIP beat the Conservatives into fourth place in a Hartlepool by-election according to the results announced yesterday. The Scotsman report may be read from here.

Tuesday, February 01, 2005

New Party to be Launched Tomorrow

VERITAS …the Straight Talking Party

MEDIA ADVICE: Tuesday 1 February 2005, 11am

Robert Kilroy-Silk to front launch of VERITAS - Wednesday, 2 February, Institute of Civil Engineers, One Great George Street, Westminster, 10.30am prompt

Robert Kilroy-Silk will tomorrow (Wednesday), at 10.30am, announce the formation of a new political Party, the straight talking Party, VERITAS.

An attractive, central venue has been chosen at the Institute of Civil Engineers, with plenty of room for guests from TV, radio and press:

1 Great George Street, Westminster, LONDON SW1P 3AA Tel: 0207 665 2323.