THREE PARTIES Have More In
Common With EACH OTHER-And KEEP OUT Smaller PARTIES -Than SHARE The SPOILS. * Observations of a fruitcake (In answer to Mr Nice-Guy Dave’s remarks of UKIP membership) * Eurofacts28th
April-2006 Vol .11-No 14 Helen Szamuely says that the
three main parties now have more in common with one another than with the
electorate. HOW STRANGE that a man all of whose jobs have been in
politics or political PR should be so bad at understanding what does and what
does not work politically. I
speak, of course, of the leader of the Conservative Party David Cameron and, in
particular, of his unnecessary attack on UKIP and, by implication, all those
people who might support UKIP’s central policy of Withdrawal from the European Union. By
now all our readers must know what happened when David Cameron (or, as we like
to call him, the boy-King of the Conservative Party) was taking part in a
phone- in on Radio 5 Live. Somebody
asked him about UKIP’s stated intention to use the Freedom of Information Act
to find out about Conservative donors and lenders with relation to subsequent
recommendations for peerages. Cameron
replied that it was all just mischief-making, which it undoubtedly was. Not content to stop there, he giggled a bit
and told his incredulous audience that UKIP was full of loons, fruitcakes and
“closet racists”, whatever that last description might mean. As
the row broke, with everyone from the Daily
Telegraph leader to Melanie Phillips in the Daily Mail to Yasmin Alibhai Brown in the Evening
Standard demanding that he apologised, not so much to the UKIP
itself but to the nearly 3,000,000 people -
who voted for
them in the last election, Cameron turned
peevish. He
insisted that he was absolutely right, trotted out the old story of Alan Sked
leaving (ten years ago!) because of infiltration by extremists and apparently
instructed his correspondence secretary (who happens to be his sister- in –law)
to reply to many outraged letters and e-mails that he had consulted the very
suspect organisation called Operation
Black Vote and was assured that yes indeed, the UKIP was racist. There
is one problem with Operation Blake Vote they get
the bulk of their funding from various EU funds, the rest coming from the
Government, Quangos and the Mayor of London. The notion that they are likely
to be unbiased about UKIP is laughable.
Why
did Cameron do this? The most obvious explanation is that he is incapable of
consistent rational thought. As I said
above, it is astonishing how little somebody who has done nothing but politics one
way or another all his adult life understands political forces and motivations. Possibly
the problem lies in the fact that his rise has been smooth, without
difficulties and, one must add, without trace. In this he mirrors the Blair of
1997 with somewhat less substance. [We
have always believed that there is an indoctrination centre somewhere in the EU,
which for a number of years now turns out yearly a number of EU, indoctrinated clones
–some will say clowns or drones. We would call them ‘sleepers’ who are brought
to the surface when their present favourite is having a hard time in order to
not have the line of succession interrupted. In
a number of films in the past we have been shown the alien from outer space or
the corpse from the tomb –well some of their characteristics fit very well a
number of politicians who we all rely on daily to protect us from foreign
criminals –and dangerous asylum seekers –immigrants and of course the Asian Bird
Flue amongst many other threats to our lives and livelihood.] To
continue: Near Hysterical Outburst On the other hand, the abuse of UKIP -may
have been a calculated move. The
Conservative leadership has never understood or wanted to understand the phenomenon
of UKIP and the growing support among the electorate for it. We
have seen near-hysterical outbursts of accusation against people who dared to
vote UKIP or Veritas, thus losing Conservative seats. It did not seem to occur
to the accusers that the electorate owes the politicians nothing. It is the candidates who owe us an
explanation of why we should vote for them. Nor
has the Conservative leadership noticed that UKIP is trying to move into areas
less traditional to them: EDUCATION TAXATION THE
EFFECTS OF DEVOLUTION -and
so on. These,
together with the thorny question of Europe and Britain’s relationship with it,
are the subjects that matter to the electorate. Norwegian glaciers do not. [Maybe
Mr Nice-Guy Dave has like the famous Superman legend to return to the heavenly glacier
for regeneration- we hope it was successful –we will have to see? We would call
him the subterfuge man for someone who is so taciturn and takes a refuge from the
immediate real life dramas here today] It
would appear that Cameron and his cohorts do really believe that the UKIP and all
those who vote for it are a bunch of fruitcakes and closet racists, people from
whom the “modern compassionate Conservative Party” must distance itself. The
people they must target and hope to bring over are the supporters of the Lib-Dems,
who are in tune with the “modern etc etc”. Apart from the basic dishonesty and
lack of PRINCIPLES behind the thinking, the mathematics is wrong. [Well! as we have previously said lack of oxygen to the brain
is a common complaint of those who climb glaciers. David Cameron’s attempt to
breath some life into debate about the Home Secretary’s failure was without
real conviction –almost as if he was so sorry to have to mention it at the
time.] In
order to attract a minuscule number of potential defectors or returnees from
the Lib-Dems, Cameron is deliberately discarding his own core supporters and
another important group of people: the
disaffected Labour voters, who would, in the days of the “nasty” Tory Party,
have gone over to supporting it. Now
they seem to be drifting to the BNP or, again UKIP. Between them these two
groups outnumber by far the few centre-ground Lib-Dems that might find Cameron’s
vacuousness attractive. We
are reaching a political stage in this country that, in the past, we have seen
only on the Continent: The
three main parties now feel that they have more in common with each other than
with any part of the electorate. Their main aim at any election is to keep out any
smaller party or independent candidate in order to divide the spoils, based on
ever-smaller proportions of actual votes. WHEN
and IF State Funding for Parties (so warmly supported by Cameron and his
acolytes) is introduced, the process will be completed. AND THEN WHAT? * * Dr Helen Szamuely was one of the founding members of both
the Anti-Federalist League and UKIP. She left after a disagreement with the Leader over
representation in the European Parliament. * * * [Font
altered-bolding & underlining used –comments in brackets] MAY/06 *
* [Latest Addition - June07] * * *
*
Daniel Hannan - Forming an OPPOSITION to the EU
*
VOTE MAY -2007
WITH THE ONLY PARTY WITH A MANDATE TO SET YOU FREE
THE UK INDEPENDENCE PARTY
TO RECLAIM YOUR DEMOCRACY DON'T VOTE FOR THE TRIPARTITE PARTIES IN WESTMINSTER BUT SMALL PARTIES THAT SPEAK THEIR MINDS WITHOUT SPIN AND LIES. *
ONLY WILL BRING DEMOCRACY BACK TO THE ENGLISH PEOPLE * WHY NOT
* MAY/07
[All underlined words have a separate bulletin]
|
|||||||||||
