close
The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20101016203534/http://juniusonukip.blogspot.com//

Saturday, 16 October 2010

UKIP: More on Farage

BERJAYA

The Farage Campaign Team get together to hear a pep talk from the Fuhrer.

This email has been doing the rounds. Every UKIP MEP was sent a copy. Some were amused, some were not. We at Junius thought that it should recieve a wider audience.

-----Original Message-----
From: mike nattrass
Sent: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 12:51
Subject: FW: None of the above (including UKIP)

Do take a moment to read this devastating appraisal of Nigel Farage - first published in May of this year.

It would be criminal for a charlatan with a dangerously overheated ego, aka Nigel Farage, to be allowed to continue to lead UKIP???

A.

None of the above (including UKIP)
Noel Lackland

http://critical-reaction.co.uk/2641/17-05-2010-it-wasn-t-the-squeaker-we-were-promised


Now that he is on the mend, one can ask the question that many have privately asked, but which they have refrained from raising while he was in hospital, out of good taste and also because, bluntly, there have been more important considerations in the political world over the past ten days. But just what in heaven’s name was Nigel Farage doing aboard that plane on election morning?

The polling stations were open in Buckingham, where he was opposing John Bercow in what he had promised would be a hard-fought battle. The tried and tested, efficient way to achieve electoral success is to spend the campaign weeks canvassing for your pledges – identifying your definite or at least, if as desperate as Farage clearly was, your likely supporters – and then concentrating your election day resources ruthlessly upon them in order to maximise your vote. But while the pocket-sized Speaker was tearing round the constituency from dawn on May 6th in his usual fashion, UKIP’s ex-leader was many miles away at an airfield in Northamptonshire, posing for press photos (just in time for Friday’s local papers!) as he strapped himself up and all the while getting out precisely zero per cent of his Buckingham pledges.

It’s arguable whether or not trailing a “Vote UKIP” banner high in the skies around the Home Counties, as was the plan, could ever have been an effective polling day tactic, but, even if could have got the votes out, why did Farage have to be in the plane? Here was the man who said he would “professionalise” his party upon becoming its leader in 2006, neglecting the most elementary requirements of electioneering, the sort that a twelve-year-old could grasp, in order to indulge in what was, in terms of the necessity of his own presence, nothing but a jolly jape at best, and a vanity project at worst.

It’s little wonder that Farage, by his own admission, was so out of touch with the Buckingham voters, absurdly saying, ‘I wasn’t to know just how popular Bercow was with his constituents’, which could have come straight out of the Alex Ferguson Book of Lame Excuses. A quick glance at the archives shows that UKIP had stood candidates against Bercow in at least the two previous elections. Is Farage suggesting that his Buckingham party colleagues had gleaned absolutely nothing about their major opponent in all that time? On the evidence of his own approach to marshalling the vote, perhaps they hadn’t.

Worse still, Farage is so out of touch with Buckingham that, even after the event, he has managed to draw the wrong conclusion. In an election in which none of the major parties stood against the Speaker, over 24,000 people still chose to vote against him (and that’s deliberately not counting those who voted BNP). On any scale, that’s a lot of evidence against Bercow’s overwhelming popularity. The problem for Farage, about which he is conveniently saying nothing, is that two thirds of them chose to express that evidence next to a name other than his own.

Perhaps Farage is simply unaware of the result. Certainly the UKIP press office struggled to interpret it, declaring, in one of the most stupid pieces of spin imaginable, that Farage was ‘the leading candidate amongst the ten who had (challenged) Bercow … in third place behind John Stevens’.

The bigger issue which both Farage and his successor as UKIP leader, Lord Pearson, must address is this: May 2010 was truly the “none of the above” general election, the first in living memory when not one of the main parties could happily let the results speak for themselves. In such circumstances, UKIP ought to have been perfectly positioned as the leading “none of the above” party. If it was unrealistic to expect that it could have matched its vote in the last two European elections, when different factors were at play, it was not unrealistic to expect that it should have polled much better than the 3% that it managed.

But when handed the ball in front of an open field, UKIP, instead of running with it, immediately kicked it into touch. We had the bizarre sight, surely unique in electoral history, of its leader campaigning with another party’s rosette. Equally uniquely and equally bizarrely, Pearson also advised electors to vote for the Tory candidate in a constituency where his own party was standing. That was in Wells, where the Tory candidate still lost. Up the road in Stroud, Farage was doing his bit by backing another rival candidate, Labour this time, describing him as ‘a good egg’ despite the fact that he was shown to have tabled a Commons EDM calling for an EU directive to be tightened up and properly enforced. No matter, he lost too.

What sort of message were all these shenanigans sending out to the electorate? UKIP has long claimed to be the anti-establishment party, yet here it was, backing all sides of the establishment at its own candidates’ expense. One final clue to all this can be found by revisiting that strange interview given by Farage, post-crash (and you take that as a bad pun if you wish). He put his “miscalculation” about Bercow down to the Speaker being ‘somebody who is pretty unpopular amongst the Westminster set’.

And there you have the reason UKIP is missing its current opportunities, in a nice little nutshell. The Westminster set will tell you that Nigel Farage is a common sight around its watering holes these days, both inside and outside the House, a rather sad sight too, given that he sits in another ‘parliament’ a couple of hundred miles away. No wonder then that, on his own admission, Farage’s political antennae are attuned more closely to that set, that establishment, that elite, than to the ordinary voters in Buckingham and up and down the rest of Britain too.

The problem with politicians, these days, is that politics is all they know. That truism has been amply stated with regard to the new double act in Downing Street and to what is likely to be facing them across the dispatch box after the summer recess. But what is now becoming evident is the extent to which the “full-time” political web is ensnaring every party which gets anywhere near it. UKIP, once a gloriously bottom-up party, has been transformed by stealth into as lopsidedly a top-down party as any on the circuit, dangerously over-dependent on the money its MEPs bring back from Brussels and upon the insidious group system from which they derive still more Euro-funding. On the back of that, it gets a press office in the heart of the Westminster village, absurdly detached from reality given that it has no MPs in the Commons, because that is where the European Parliament, as opposed to ordinary UKIP members, says its press office should be – though Farage’s rather pathetic wannabe inclinations, it must be said, do not help.

Of course Farage is guided by the Westminster set. He’s part of the Westminster set. And when it comes to the political establishment, UKIP, sad to say, isn’t part of the solution – it’s part of the problem.

Friday, 15 October 2010

UKIP: Put your questions to Tim and Gerard

BERJAYA
BERJAYAThe hustings have been marred by the fact that all questions were vetted beforehand. UKIPPERS were also denied the right to ask questions from the floor. How can this be considered democratic? Members have a right to ask questions without fear of censure.

Unlike Farage and Bannerman - who have much to hide - Tim Congdon is more than willing to listen to your concerns. This is why he wants you to take part in a A LEADERSHIP TELE-CONFERENCE.

Read on for the full details!

From: TIMOTHY CONGDON
To: undisclosed recipients:

Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 4:35 PM

Subject: E-mail to Tim Congdon's supporters in the 2010 UKIP leadership contest: announcement of 'Leadership Tele-Conference' on 18th October

E-mail sent to supporters of Tim Congdon’s bid for the leadership of the UK Independence Party, on 14th October 2010

This e-mail is sent to you because I have been informed - or have good reason to believe - that you are a supporter of my bid to become leader of UKIP. If you do not want to receive e-mails from me, perhaps you would let me know. The leadership campaign rules are intended to encourage discussion and debate, but also to prevent spamming.

Dear friends and supporters,

Here is the second e-mail announcement today. PLEASE CIRCULATE THIS MESSAGE TO ALL YOUR PERSONAL LISTS. Gerard, Steve and I want hard questions - and lots of them!

Announcement from Tim Congdon, Gerard Batten and Stephen Allison

- A LEADERSHIP TELE-CONFERENCE

We want to give as many members as possible the opportunity to discuss our plans for the UK Independence Party and to outline the policies we want to develop for the party. Some people have difficulty attending the hustings. We are therefore very pleased to announced that all members of UKIP are invited to put live questions to us from 7 pm to 8 pm on Monday, 18th October, on 0203 0032 666.

We look forward to hearing from you. The harder the questions, the better!

Put questions to Tim, Gerard and Steve LIVE on our UKIP Leadership Tele-Conference between 7.00pm to 8.00pm on Monday 18th October.

Dial 0203 0032 666 (local rate call) to put your questions and listen to the debate.

You are not only free to circulate this message more widely to other party members. You are positively requested to circulate it widely to as many party members as possible.

With best wishes

Tim Congdon

Thursday, 14 October 2010

UKIP: Death Rowe

BERJAYA
All those UKIP members who made the modest but vital donations that originally took the party forward, might like to consider the following.

For a short time, until recently, UKIP employed the "services" of one Bridget Rowe, a former fleet street hack. Her role in the party was somewhat unclear, although the Messiah did once let it slip that her main task was to keep him out of the red-tops in the event of scandal.

Well, as too often happens, part of the prophecy became self-fulfilling, the Messiah and Rowe appear to have become "close". We remember the chosen one speaking to UKIPPERS at a pub in Biggin Hill a little while ago. The two arrived together but entered separately, and some minutes apart. Their departure was a reversal of the less than successful deception.

Now it gets good.

Junius can reveal that Rowe was paid, by UKIP, (although through EU budgets), the rather nice sum of £90,000 per annum.

That seems to be rather a lot, even for a high-profile media operator, but for someone who never registered on the radar at all, and who seems to have had no impact on UKIP's media profile, that does seem to raise some questions.

Rowe has departed from UKIP, and has gone to pastures greener, as befits a lady of her years.

For more on 'Death Rowe': LINK

Wednesday, 13 October 2010

UKIP: Bloom's fine

BERJAYA
Godfrey Bloom is always aghast with indignation when he learns of the transgressions (alleged or confirmed) of other human beings. But it seems that there are more questions than answers concerning the old boy himself.

We are all aware of his being ejected from a Financial Services Authority dinner in London after a drunken rant at the main speaker, and we all sniggered when this "pillar of the financial services industry" received a £28,000 fine from the FSA over "irregularities". But close inspection of the final notice served by the FSA in 2008 reveals an interesting little tidbit.

http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/tbo.pdf

Page 5 (2.13) refers to certain inconsistencies in signatures on documents, ands questions their authenticity. These inconsistencies "potentially compromised the validity of the trusts themselves."

We all recall with glee the moment when Bloom rose to his feet, as drunk as a skunk, to complain to the President of the European Parliament that foreigners did not understand the finer points of the financial services industry. It looks like Godders could teach them a trick or two!

Tuesday, 12 October 2010

UKIP: Peterborough Hustings

BERJAYA
Ask yourself, which one of these men would YOU really vote for?

Three Midgets? A pet Poodle? Two drunks? Or a Gentleman?

East Midlands/Eastern Region Hustings meeting, Best Western Hotel, Orton Hall Hotel, The Village, Orton Longueville, Peterborough, PE2 7AM.

100 people attended the event which is quite poor considering that it was a joint event.

Derek Clark was conspicuous by his absence. He wasn't missed. He was probably worried that someone would ask him about that pesky OLAF investigation. See: LINK

Or was he just worried that someone would mention the time he betrayed UKIP by signing a declaration espousing the principle of "subsidiarity". Prior to this UKIP has always been in favour of total withdrawal from the EU. By accepting the principle of subsidiarity UKIP was now accepting the authority of the union to take decisions which are not devolved to national or regional government.

At the same time Clark also signed up to the principle of "reforming" the Common Agricultural Policy, something which UKIP had previously refused to recognise at all.

Don Ransome - his highly paid RO - was observed desperately looking for people to talk to. Poor man!

Congdon was very good. He is now really getting into his stride. He answered questions with clarity and commonsense.

Farage was his usual arrogant self. And Bannerman was just as slimy as ever.

However, the problem with the hustings is that questions cannot be asked from the floor. Questions for this hustings had to be submitted to Peter Reeve. And you can guess what happened to any awkward questions about the widespread corruption that has flourished under Farage's leadership. We know that several UKIPPERS wanted to ask Farage and Bannerman about the lack of financial transparency within UKIP. But they never got the chance.

It is the lack of financial probity within UKIP that a member of the Junius Team heard being discussed around the various groups of people who assembled before and after the formal proceedings.

Only by voting for Tim can we assure a new era of openness and honesty in the party.

Monday, 11 October 2010

UKIP: Tim Congdon backs the Referendum Campaign

BERJAYA
BERJAYA
BERJAYA
20,000 - 30,000 copies of this magazine will be sent this week to activists across Britain from the offices of Nikki Sinclaire MEP. Once again she puts Farage to shame. In one year she has done more for the Euro-realist cause than Farage has done in ten years as an MEP!

To read the mag online:

http://yourmep.org/pdfs/12%20pg%20A4%20magazine.pdf

And don't forget to sign the petition: LINK

From the magazine:

Why we need a Referendum by Tim Congdon

Clear majorities of the British people want their country to leave the European Union.

A recent YouGov poll found that 47 per cent wanted the UK out of the EU, compared with 33 per cent who preferred to stay in. Bizarrely, the latest Eurobarometer of public attitudes (financed by the European Commission) had earlier demonstrated a similar result. It showed that 33 per cent of its UK respondents regarded the EU as “a bad thing”, while 29 per cent viewed it as a “a good thing”.

The current widespread opposition to the EU is hardly surprising, as EU interventions in our national life are now disrupting long established traditions, undermining revered institutions and damaging livelihoods. The Commission, the Council of Ministers and their secretariats have used the passage of the Lisbon Treaty last year as the pretext for further encroachments on the EU member states, including the UK.

The last few months have seen a media furore over the effects of the Working Time Directive on the efficiency of British medicine and the National Health Service.

For many decades junior doctors have acquired experience – the experience which is essential if they are to be real doctors and not parrots of the textbooks – by working very long hours in real-world, often life-or-death clinical settings. Now, because of the Working Time Directive, they are prevented by law from this practice.

With lives being put in jeopardy by an EU directive, the puzzle is not that almost half of British people want to leave the EU, but why a third still believe in staying in. More and more people are angry and resentful about how EU decisions are affecting them in their daily lives.

There is a growing discrepancy between popular hostility to the EU and the willingness of successive British governments to hand over so-called “competences” to EU control.

This discrepancy is dangerous. When people believe that politicians are out-of-touch and untrustworthy, and ignore what they want, the risk of civil disobedience increases. In a modern democracy politicians must respect the wishes of citizens and voters. The case for a referendum on the UK’s continued membership of the EU is now overwhelming.

The 2009 Lisbon Treaty was undoubtedly a radical change in the constitutional arrangements of every EU member state, including the UK. All three of the main parties gave clear pledges in their manifestos at the 2005 general election to hold a referendum in the event of another big European constitutional upheaval.
Yet all three of them then judged that the Lisbon Treaty was not important enough to justify the holding of a referendum.

This is scandalous, an orchestrated insult to the intelligence of the British electorate. Britain must have a referendum on its membership of the European Union. That referendum needs to be held as soon as possible, to stop more damage being done to our traditions, our institutions and our way of life.

End of article.


Also see: LINK

Sunday, 10 October 2010

UKIP: Vote Congdon and send Farage to the Knacker's Yard!

BERJAYA
Do you want UKIP to be a REAL alternative to the old party system? Do you want UKIP to prosper under a NEW leader with NEW ideas? Then Vote Congdon!

Or do you want UKIP to continue to stagnate under Farage's corrupt and dishonest leadership?

It is up to you. Don't waste your vote!