Another great illumating, well-researched article by Raheem Kassam – this time on why on Labour’s losing to UKIP and won’t be able to play the “racist” card worth reading. It resulted in some succinct and accurate comments from readers.
I’m happy with UKIP’s position on this. The Scottish tail must not be allowed to continue wagging the UK dog (of which 86% comprises England) – as it has done for too long.
From UKIP’s site:
Scotland voted to save the Union, only just …but at what cost to the unity of the Kingdom?
UKIP is a national party with elected representation in all four nations of the United Kingdom. Accordingly we are pleased that the Scottish referendum resulted in a “No” vote but unhappy that Messrs. Cameron, Miliband and Clegg saw fit, without an electoral mandate, to make a last minute vow to Scotland for increased powers and the continuation of the Barnett Formula. UKIP wants a new Constitutional Settlement for the UK which includes a fair deal for the 86% of the UK’s population who live in England.
1. English only votes in Westminster. Nigel Farage is today writing to all Scottish MPs asking for their commitment not to vote on English matters that would otherwise fall within devolved powers if they related to Scotland
2. Revision of the Barnett Formula. We want a full debate and vote in the House of Commons to rebalance this arbitrary and out-of-date concept.
3. No taxation without equal representation. The Electoral Commission must determine new boundaries for the constituencies of Scottish MPs so that the average number of constituents more closely resembles that in England.
4. A Constitutional Convention. Such a Convention needs to be rapidly established to put in place a plan for a Federal UK.
UKIP is confident that fulfilling these reasonable requests is vital to retaining the confidence of the electorate in a United Kingdom in which so many powers have been devolved.
I’ve been a staunch UKIP supporter for nearly a decade, but unless there’s a damned good and detailed explanation for what Farage said in the USA last week, he has lost my support.
He said, with regard to recent ISIS activities:
“… and I’m sad to say this, but it probably means giving up some of the liberties that previously we have enjoyed …”
I would like him to explain what exactly he meant by this. Is he saying that we should have more state control, or more intrusion into our lives? Is he saying that the country should become more of a police state?
I think we should be told.
Has he sold us out?
And while he’s about it, perhaps he’d like to explain what his stance is on the TTIP treaty. If he’s for it, then I will fight UKIP just as hard as I’ve fought LibLabCon, because TTIP is another Trojan horse, just like the EU treaties which have preceded it, which were also sold to us as being “trade agreements”. I think many of us have learned from history and are determined not to repeat it. You’d think Nigel would know better, wouldn’t you?
I’m not going to vote for another sell-out politician.
I’m fresh out of hospital, recovering from a burst appendix, so I will make this brief.
Firstly, I should imagine that you will be somewhat bewildered by the sheer amount of freedom that being a UKIPer gives you (as opposed to the oppressive control that you no doubt experienced in the ‘Conservative’ Party). Remember: freedom has pitfalls and responsibilities, but I’m sure you need not be reminded of that.
I applaud the actions you have taken to join UKIP. Instead of taking the easy option of merely jumping ship, you have chosen to do things the hard way, the right way. While the “right way” of doing things brings with it its own hardships, the rewards will be greater because your detractors will have a harder time attacking you: you’ve not left them with sufficient a target to do so.
There will be relentless attempts to criticize, marginalise, ridicule and isolate you – not just from the usual channels or from your natural enemies, but also from those you had previously considered to be your friends and colleagues. Expect it and be strong. The public will support you because you have shown integrity. You have put your own career on the line for what you (and they) consider to be the “right thing” to do.
When in doubt, during those dark nights of the soul and the dark days of betrayal that will surely follow, think Ghandi.
It is instructive to see life as akin to a game of draughts: each move you make determines the options that will be available to you in the future.
Choose wisely, have courage, and be quietly confident. Say grounded. You are amongst friends now. Welcome.
Blair is sticking his nose in where it is definitely not appreciated or wanted and psycopathically describing UKIP and Farage in terms that would be more suitably describe himself.
Why is this man not in jail?
I’d wager that there are too many people in positions of power with too much to hide to allow this to happen. The tangled web would unravel, revealing all the rats feeding off the carnage that they created between them.
So how can any politician hope to get into power (or stay there) if he vows to allow past PMs to be tried for war crimes?
I suspect there are many ways of skinning that particular cat. What if:
- more documents were declassified, or declassified earlier?
- laws were changed to make it easier for citizens to make arrests?
- class action suits were extended, such that more people could initiate them?
In other words, a government not wanting to take the blame for taking Blair (et al) down, could let the people bring his ilk down: it only needs to change the laws to allow that to happen.
That is ConHome’s latest edict.
Well, I hope their readership plummets. The Conservatives really are their own worst enemies.
Good bye, ConHome.