Sunday, October 07, 2007

Getting wood

Iain Dale has picked up and commented on UKIP's immigration policy.
On the face of it, UKIP's pledge of no more immigration for five years is a vote winner. Immigration is constantly up there as one of the issues people are most concerned about. UKIP say they need a five year moratorium in order to have time to work out an Australian style points system. All I can say is that they must have some very dim policy makers if it takes them five years.

Not purely for that. UKIP also want to hold an exhaustive census, to work out who is here legally and who is here illegally. After that, we then need to work out a public services structure that will better serve those in Britain.

There are a number of policies that will be implemented, and probably the most important one is the Citizens Basic Income, as recommended by UKIP's new financial controller: blogger, Mark Wadsworth.

Interestingly, when this poliy was being announced, the huge, black security guard* (employed by the venue, not UKIP) stood by the side of the stage was nodding and especially vigourously when Nigel pointed out that many of the people who would support this policy were those immigrants who had come here and integrated already.
In actual fact, this points system is already Tory policy. So guys, come on. If you're serious and want to introduce that policy, come and join the party who might actually be in a position to implement it.

Er... No, Iain: the Tories are no position to implement any kind of comprehensive immigration policy. Sure, you can put a points system in place for non-EU members, but that isn't where the massive influx is coming from. The biggest influx is from the poorer EU countries: Poland, etc.

Why will you Tories not stop lying to us?

Is it some kind of reflex, some tragically compulsive habit?

Is it an illness of some sort?

I mean, Iain must know that the Tories cannot implement this points system, so why does he keep pretending that they can?

Similarly, the Tories must know that they cannot deport people? Here's Cameron's speech, with EU Referendum's comment.
Embedded in David Cameron's speech to the Tory conference this afternoon was this little gem:
But it wasn't just that, it was the cynicism of it. He told us things that he knows he can't do: 'British jobs for British workers' is illegal under EU law. 'Deporting people for gun and knife crime', you can't do that because of the Human Rights Act. I have to say to our Prime Minister, if you treat people like fools, you don't deserve to run the country let alone win an election.

Er… no Mr Cameron. You can't deport people for "gun and knife crime" because of EU directive 2004/58/EC. Even the BBC's Mark Mardell knows that.

Still, you're right on one thing. If you treat people like fools, you don't deserve to run the country let alone win an election.

So, we are forced to ask the Toynbee Conundrum: is he ignorant or is he lying? It is, I think, unlikely to be ignorance, he has enough advisers: therefore one must conclude that he is lying.

The same applies to Iain: he must know—because, fuck knows, we EUsceptics have written enough about it—that the Tories cannot deport people or implement a points system for EU immigrants. So, the only conclusion is that Iain is being, at best, disingenuous (note his cautious wording) or, at worst, actively dishonest.

That, at least, is my conclusion: you may make your own minds up.
Nigel Farage is at least honest about his own prospects. He says UKIP are not ready for an election, they haven't got the money to fight one properly and haven't got enough candidates. A helpful suggestion. Sit this one out.

We know now that the Gobblin' King has bottled it, the lame fucker, so it doesn't apply so much now. UKIP were actively calling for candidates at the Conference, however, although I happened to be near Farage when the news of the lack of election was brought to him; as I recall, his response wasn't unajacent to, "thank goodness for that." But, anyway...

First, Tory MPs know precisely how to avoid having UKIP stand in their constituency: sign up to Better Off Out.

Second, for what it is worth, I do not think that the next general election will be UKIP's time (although that doesn't mean that we shouldn't fight it). The Tories are revitalised and people hate and loathe this government with a deep and abiding passion (well, those who aren't on the payroll, of course).

UKIP's time will be at the general election after that, when the population realise that the Tories are, effectively, the same sort of big-state, dishonest wankers that Labour are. People like my father, who would vote for a crippled newt in order to get Brown out, will start to vote with their angry, middle-class libertarian hearts.

In a way, one cannot blame the Tories, Labour and LibDems for being much the same: after all, when 75% of our law isn't actually made in Westminster, what the hell can they really offer? They can only really differ on the remaining 25%.
They won't, of course, because they are far more interested in damaging the Conservative Party than helping to eject one of the most discredited governments in modern British history.

Ah, the old "they just want to damage the Conservatives" meme. This is not only tired, Iain, but it is also incredibly partisan; just for once, try to think out of your Tory box and understand that UKIP stand for more than simply getting out of the EU.

For fuck's sake, I wrote a post some time ago, explaining why UKIP were worth voting for aside from that one issue. I concluded with the following paragraph.
So can we stop all of this fucking bollocks about UKIP just being an old Tory pressure group, please? Or rather, if you want to make such points, go and make them over at Iain Dale's where your comments will warm the cockles of his anti-EU, free-trading, Tory-supporting heart...

Damn it, Iain, we have policies that I agree with and, I know that this is an alien idea to you tribal Tories, I want to vote with my principles: I am fed up of holding my nose and voting for a bunch of cunts that I don't agree with.

UKIP have 17 policy groups currently working on a full and detailed manifesto. It is actually quite remarkable that, in a party which is so behind on "new media", the policy groups should be so dominated by intelligent bloggers.

The point is that our policies will not be Conservative policies: they will be dominated by a libertarian mindset: we can do this because UKIP will leave the EU. UKIP is not the Conservatives: we are fighting for something entirely different.
UKIP don't want Britain to sign up to the new EU Constitution. Nor does the Conservative Party. Has it ever occurred to them that if they didn't fight Tory candidates in marginal seats there might just be the prospect of a Tory government holding a referendum and then vetoing the constitution? No, because they're too blinkered to see the wood from the trees.

Oh, Iain, Iain, Iain; who cannot see the wood from the trees? Look, sunshine, the Tories may be pro-referendum. What they have not said is that the Tory party will campaign for a vote against it.

A couple of weeks ago, one of my readers contacted me and said that his mother was going to a Q and A session chaired by William Hague, and did I want to ask a question through her? My question was this.
The Conservative Party are campaigning for a referendum on the EU Reform Treaty, which is the Constitution in all but name. But, should a referendum be granted to us miserable proles, will the Tory Party as a whole be campaigning for a vote against the Treaty? Or will MPs be allowed to align themselves as they see fit, as in 1975?

My correspondant wrote back after the session.
My mum got the opportunity to ask him her questions; regarding the treaty Mr. Hague said that most of the party were against it – the whips would make it their business to see that the party as a whole represented a united front against a treaty, but that back benchers could choose either way. Answer seemed to be a little confused or maybe even evasive.
...

Sorry; that answer was utter gibberish. Essentially WH said that their would be some pressure from the whips but that the back benchers would still be free to vote.

This was why we set up Referendum List, of course. No MPs have yet deigned to reply to our missive: we shall start ramping up the pressure again, once they are back at "work".

Even better, if any of my readers would take a few minutes to email their MP, asking which way they would vote, and then forward the MPs reply to me, I and my RL colleague would be very grateful. You can find a letter template here: please feel free to adapt it (or make up your own, of course).

Further, the Tories also know that, once the Constitution is law, they cannot repeal it—which is why Cameron has not promised a referendum if the Treaty is in force when the Tories get into power.

I talked to Nigel Farage about this issue and he reassured me that the Better Off Out offer remains. However, what he also said was something like this (from memory).
"The Tories may be against the Constitution, but simply means that they are opposed to the further transfer of powers, which implies that they are happy with the current situation as regards the EU. And we aren't. It is that simple."

Yes, that seems pretty fucking simple to me. Unfortunately, the Tories are too busy lying to the electorate to be aware of these absolutely fucking obvious subtle distinctions in policy.

When will these Tory fuckers stop lying?

I'll let you know when we are all ice-bound here at Hell Towers, but don't expect that to be anytime soon.

UPDATE: Iain has another amusing little snippet.
I hear on the grapevine that Conservative Future at Exeter University have a new member, who has a high profile father. Daddy won't be amused though, for he's none other than UKIP leader Nigel Farage. Obviously son Sam is none too impressed by UKIP's offerings and has fallen under the spell of Dave. Sensible lad.

Given that I can think of few groups of people who are so politically obtuse as students, this doesn't really surprise me. I do hope that Sam is enjoying paying those tuition fees which UKIP want to abolish, but I doubt it. Never mind; the top-up fees which the Tories are so keen on won't apply to him, after all.

Still, at least he will have his pick of quality women, eh?

UPDATE 2: in all fairness to Iain, he is right about some parts of UKIP wanting to hammer the Tories. They tend to be people who were Tory activists and feel utterly betrayed by their party and have now turned on it; they are a bit like someone who found his girlfriend being fucked by a big-cocked stranger, the intensity of his love now turned on the one-time object of his affection and transmuted into a vitriolic hatred.

These were the same people who complained bitterly—and still do so—when the UKIP leadership decided not to stand against those who had signed Better Off Out (which, incidentally, I signed back in March: my name has yet to appear...).

You know what, Iain: take them back, you are welcome to them. Because they aren't too keen on UKIP's libertarian stance either, and the lives of UKIP's leadership would be a lot easier—and the party would be stronger—without these Tory-bashers.

UPDATE 3: on the other hand, I can't tell you how much it irritates me when people whine about UKIP "costing the Tories seats". First, those seats are not Tory by right, you know; you do not have a right to the votes that get cast for UKIP.

Second, it simply isn't true, as UKIPper Jens Winten points out on Iain's own site.
There is a myth going around that voting for UKIP hurts the Conservatives, and by default, lets in Labour. One reason given is that a number of otherwise close Conservative defeats in the last General Election in 2005, in around 27 to 30 odd seats (the number varies from time to time) was caused by votes for UKIP.

This is simply not true.

Of the 646 seats available in the elections of 2005, UKIP contested 496. There were only 39 seats that saw UKIP having a greater vote than the difference between first and second place. That was less than 8% of the 496 seats UKIP stood in.

Of these 39 seats, only five were in UKIP’s top 39 results across the country, and four of these five kept their deposits (the fifth almost joined them). Of these 39 seats, Labour won 16, the Conservatives 13 and Lib-Dems 10. Of the 16 Labour seats, there was no net gain for them from 2001. The Conservatives had a net gain of 11 (nine of them from previously-held Labour seats and two were taken from the Lib-Dems) as well as two existing 2001 Tory seats. The Lib-Dems had a net gain of four (three taken from the Conservatives and one from Labour). They kept six 2001 seats within the party.

I trust this puts paid to the myth that a vote for UKIP is a vote for Labour. The evidence simply does not support it.

So, can we please put that particular meme to rest, please? And can the Tories stop bitching and whining about UKIP "stealing their votes". To plagiarise an advert tagline, they're not your votes, they're ours.

UPDATE 4: Iain points out in the comments that David Cameron has indeed said that the Tories will campaign for a "no" vote on the EU Constitution Reform Treaty.
In a world where we have this freedom and control are we really saying to people that when it come to how you are governed, how your country is run you can't have a say, it's nothing to do with you? That's wrong and that is why we will keep pushing for that referendum, campaign for a No Vote and veto that Constitution.

Apologies, my bad. However, my other points still stand.

Oh, and, looking at Cameron's speech, I notice that David still cannot help lying, lying, lying.
And we heard from Alan Duncan how we will introduce regulatory budgets to cut that regulation and I can tell you that we will get out of the European Social Chapter so we can make those rules in Britain rather than in Brussels.

As I have pointed out, approximately 83 trillion times, the Social Chapter no longer exists. It is now part of the fundamental EU Treaties and it requires a unanimous vote in the Council of Ministers to allow a change to those Treaties. This is not going to happen.

Lies, lies, lies, lies, lies. When will they stop?

Let's hang them all.


* I was with one UKIP staffer when he was talking to the Head Security guy, whom we shall call "Dave". Dave said that he didn't know that it was a UKIP event until he'd turned up and then he was assailed by doubt. Dave told us that his reaction was, "uh-oh! My team's all black."

By the end of the Conference, Dave's mind had been set entirely at rest. He was particularly impressed, when he and his team were called to remove some BNP people who had turned up, to find a number of young UKIPpers there already, giving the BNP members a hard time for being collectivist, racist scum.

Dave was pleasantly disposed to us by the end of the second day and thanked us for making the whole thing so easy. No, Dave: thank you.

30 comments:

Prodicus said...

"the Tories may be pro-referendum. What they have not said is that the Tory party will campaign for a vote against it."

They said so this week. Can't remember who said it, but I remember sitting bolt upright and thinking 'Cor, FM, about time. That's more like it'.

Iain Dale said...

I'm pretty sure Cameron said it in his speech. Of course the Tory Party will campaign for a no vote. Chris, you undermine your own arguments by alleging that the opposite is the case.

Mark Wadsworth said...

Fine post, fine ending they're not your votes, they're ours

Anonymous said...

Eerr – the Jens Winten post doesn’t appear to contradict the charge that the existence of UKIP meant that the Conservative Party won fewer seats than it would otherwise have done. Indeed, the post appears confused and is full of irrelevancies (gains/losses compared with 2001, retained deposits, top results etc).

The relevant figures would surely be the number of seats where Conservatives were placed second and the UKIP vote exceeded the wining margin.

Even this would be insufficient. It would risk overstating the effect, since not all UKIP voters would otherwise vote Conservative. Conversely – and more importantly in my view – it wouldn’t reflect the negative effect that UKIP has on attempts to hold Labour to account, by fragmenting the efforts and energies of opposition.

You’ve rather supported my view by attacking the Tories and making false claims about their attitude towards the European constitution and referendum when Cameron’s speech included the words “We will keep pushing for that referendum, campaign for a No Vote and veto that constitution.”

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7026435.stm

joseph goebbels said...

Dale displays that smug complacency of many Tories: whatever they say must be right, precisely because they are Tories.

He reminds me of a simple evangelist: self-righteous, deluded and incapable of understanding that his beliefs are a cheap confection of prejudice and dogma.

You won't get much in the way of analysis at iaindale.blogspot.com, but then anyone who has been there knows that already.

AD627 said...

Speaking of liars, it is clear that the UKIP's existence HAS resulted in fewer Conservative MPs and consequently more Europhiles in Westminster.

Looking at the 2005 results, I think there were 24 seats (listed below) where the UKIP vote amounted to more than the difference between the winner and a second-placed Conservative. 15 of these were won by Labour and 9 by the Lib-Dems. I’d say a swing of 39 seats in Labour’s majority over the Tories would have had a meaningful effect at Westminster and that that – combined with fewer Europhile Lib-Dems – would have meant there would be no question of the government avoiding a referendum on the EU Constitution.

Torbay, Thanet South, Medway, Eastleigh, Staffordshire Moorlands, Romsey, Gillingham, Crawley, Harlow, Taunton, Sittingbourne & Sheppey, Stroud, Solihull, Dartford, Stourbridge, Warwick & Leamington, Westmorland & Lonsdale, High Peak, Somerton & Frome, Portsmouth North, Battersea, Hove, Hereford, Carshalton & Wallington

John Trenchard said...

dk. whilst i appreciate you sticking to your guns and being principled, UKIP could well end up taking votes away from Tories and thus ensuring either Labour or Lib Dem seats - and therefore could well make European Federalism an even closer reality. its a pity we dont have a PR voting system so we are stuck with what we have got.

i say this as a libertarian who normally votes UKIP - but the prospect of a FOURTH labour term in government is too much for me. Accordingly I shall just vote Tory - and hold my nose while doing so. I would encourage others to do the same. We simply HAVE to get rid of those Marxist cunts in office right now. And if that means UKIP-lite (i.e the Tories) then so be it.

Andrew Ian Dodge said...

John; I would hope that you would look at the Tory you are voting for first. Some of them are pro-federasts who will campaign for a yes.

Conservatives are doing well in polls right now, though I point out still behind overall, however on past performance Dave & Co will blow their gains. I would not discount Dave's ability to blow it just yet.

With the Tory Wets firmly in control of the party right now I am not convinced a Tory government would be that different from a Brown one. They will tax you just harshly just in different ways. Cameron & Co are not for limited government, low taxation and less regulation.

Devil's Kitchen said...

John Trenchard,

I think that many people think as you do: that is why this next election will not see any UKIP gains (and we may even go backwards).

DK

Vindico said...

John,

Like DK, i agree with your sentiment. However if those people who would vote UKIP vote Tory instead to 'kick out' this government, then they only make the situation worse by denying UKIP votes.UKIP will only be worth voting for once we reach a certain tipping point, howver by denying those very votes to UKIP you perpetuate the situation. Only by those waverers voting for UKIP will there become sufficient momentum to solve the very problem you quite rightly recognise exists.

Mark Wadsworth said...

It's always best to do a quick Google search, establish the facts and then work from there.

Simple proven fact, voting UKIP does not make a referendum any less likely.

lahgbr said...

I have been advocating a TEN year moratorium on immigatrion for some time now. Five years are far too few to sort out the appalling mess produced by a decade of uncontrolled invasion and occupation under New Labour. However, as UKIP have no chance at all of getting this policy through, and any influence they may have on the Conservatives is pretty slight, and anyway even any possible future Tory government (if there is ever such a thing again) will be just as hog-tied by EU regulations, if not more so, than the present shower, I am am now waiting for a military coup and martial law as the only realistic solution to our plight. After all, it has happened before in our history. It's either that or - bye, bye Britain and a thousand years or so of history.
Think I'm being melodramatic? Think again.

Mr. Hughes.
P.S. The efforts of UKIP are heroic, and I will continue to support them, but I'm afraid it's all too late.

AD627 said...

Having misled about Conservative policy on the European Constitution and on the effect of UKIP on the number of Conservative MPs, UKIP – or at least Mark Wadsworth is now mis-leading people about the effects of voting UKIP. The assertion that “Simple proven fact, voting UKIP does not make a referendum” is based on MPs’ voting when Labour MPs were whipped to vote in favour of the Constitution and consequently in favour of a referendum. If Gordon Brown determined he doesn’t want a referendum he is unlikely to win, they will be whipped to vote against a referendum. And being New Labour MPs that is exactly what they will do.

It is depressing that some people who spend all their time complaining about lying politicians to engage in deception themselves.

Devil's Kitchen said...

Um, I need to check this, but have a large number of Labour MPs not said that they will vote against the Constitution?

DK

Anonymous said...

Too Late. Talk of immigration controls, or a 'referendum' or anything else which we may consider within our remit are nonsensical.

Once the 'treaty ' is signed in December, game over.

Pucker up, hope you like living life as a slavebot under the EuroGov marxists.

AD627 said...

I don't know old boy, since the only link anyone from UKIP has provided turns out to be ancient and irrelevant.

It's your blog, why don't you tell us? Tell you what, you could even do some research BEFORE posting. That way, your readers wouldn't have to do the work to show that:
a) you mis-represent Tory policies; and
b) your assertion that voting UKIP doesn't result in fewer Tory MPs is demonstrably false in a significant number of seats.

Anyway, the promises of some Labour MPs to vote in favour of a referendum does NOT support the contention that there being fewer Tory MPs makes the imposition of the Treaty no more likely. We know Labour MPs will say anything to retain power, we know this government can rely on its backbenchers to support it - regardless of their own beliefs - and we know that the Labour leadership supports the Treaty and recognises it would probably lose a referendum. By contrast, the Tory leadership is unequivocally in favour of a referendum and has committed to campaigning for a "no" vote.

Mark Wadsworth said...

DK< here is a list of sorts, I'm sure there's a better one.

ad627, it is quite possible that a strong UKIP campaign would result (or has resulted) in there being ten or twenty fewer Tory MPs than there otherwise would be (or would have been).

So what?

Let's assume at the next GE very few seats change hands, indeed it is reckoned that Nulab's majority would come down to 20 seats, and the same lot of MPs vote on whether there should be a referendum.

If all the Tory MPs vote for, and the rebel Nulab MPs (it is reckoned there are about 100) plus a couple of honest LibDems, there would be a clear majority for a referendum.

Those are simple facts. There is no factual or logical link between a strong and successful UKIP camnpaign and us not having a referendum.

Letters From A Tory said...

I suspect the Conservatives will wait until they are in office to start dismantling the EU. Campaigning for a no-vote is a nice, gentle vote winner and there is no need to do anything more for now.

AD627 said...

DK states above that “it simply isn't true” that UKIP is "costing the Tories seats". I believe I have shown that that is untrue, which Mark Wadsworth grudgingly acknowledges. That is unfortunate for DK since much of the rest of his post is dedicated to castigating the “lies” of David Cameron.

MW’s “so what?” argument rests on a number of assumptions, including that few seats change hands (why?), that rebel New Labour MPs retain the courage of their convictions AFTER they have successfully defended their seats, that all Tory MPs vote the right way (unfortunately, there are some morons on the Tory benches, albeit proportionately far fewer than among the other parties) and that there is such a thing as an honest LibDem (something for which I have seen no evidence advanced at all).

It is perfectly clear that the best way to stop further EU integration is to vote Conservative. If you wish to make the EU the over-riding reason for engaging in political activity (which is reasonable given its importance), then set up a campaginign group that will fund and fight for avowedly-Eurosceptic Tory candidates in constituencies that they can win.

Mark Wadsworth said...

the best way to stop further EU integration is to vote Conservative

The EU will collapse under its own weight in the next ten years or so anyway.

And as DK says, UKIP have always said that they will not up candidates where the sitting MP has signed up to BOO. So if UKIP do manage to deprive sitting non-BOOers of a few seats, so what?

What's the difference between a Lbaour MP voting against a referendum and a Tory MP voting against a referendum? What is the f***ing difference?

BTW, Jens W's statistics fail to say in how many of those seats the Tory MP came second, that would be interesting to know, even working on the weak-ish assumption that those who voted UKIP would otherwise have voted Tory.

Roger Thornhill said...

I'd be happier to hear about tactical voting if we had STV or something like that, but while we have FPP, voting for who represents your views the most is the best option. Even if you do not "win", at least when the count comes X votes will be seen to be at or around a particular ethos. Voting Tory obscures the Libertarian and "no EU" stance of any UKIPers and is lost in the mass of votes.

AD627 said...

Regardless of party affiliation, there is not a difference bewteen votes against a referedum and I haven’t suggested there is.

However, as I have explained perfectly clearly, Tory MPs are going to be instructed to vote for a referendum, but it still seems likely that Labour MPs will be instructed to vote against a referendum. We will then see exactly how many will oppose their own leadership.

My 6:51 post above gives the 24 seats where UKIP’s vote was sufficient to deprive the second-placed Conservative of victory. As I have outlined, there are arguments both ways on whether this simple analysis overstates or understates the problem.

I can send you the spreadhseet this evening if you like, although it is somewhat worrying that UKIP don’t appear to have considered the minor matter of whether they are causing Eurosceptics to lose to Europhiles…

Mark Wadsworth said...

UKIP don’t appear to have considered the minor matter of whether they are causing Eurosceptics to lose to Europhiles…

They have given it a lot of thought, and the policy is AFAIAA that they will not put up candidates against a sitting MP who has signed up to BOO. That is a simple, verifiable fact.

Let's agree the facts before we embark on any more fruitless discussions, I have always found it saves oodles of time and effort.

Devil's Kitchen said...

AD627,

I would be very interested to have a look at the spreadsheet, if you would be happy to email it to me: and I will publish comment/retraction, etc. if necessary.

It is worth pointing out, I think, that I read all of these comments and so, I would hope, do the vast majority of readers; your comments are just as much published as my posts.

A couple of small points: you accuse me of lying, which is fair enough. But there are two things that make the difference – politicians have an army of researchers to check their information: I don't.

Further, I am merely one (smallish) comment blogger: I am not aiming to rule your lives.

DK

AD627 said...

Yes, the fact that you're free and not costing me about 50% of my income is a pretty good defence! I'll drop you an email with the maths when I get home - it would probably be good to have someone check I haven't mauled Excel and produced an incorrect outcome.

I agree that I would love MPs top sign up to BOO, but it's a pretty strong test of Euroscepticism. I would prefer MPs that support Hague’s line about no further transfer of powers without referendum to those – largely Labour and LibDem, as well as a few Tory Wets – who unthinkingly support “the Project”.

What is encouraging is the manner in which the balance on the debate on taxation has moves so swiftly in a matter of weeks. It gives one some hope that one day a similar seismic movement could occur with regard to an institution that costs us billions and delivers few tangible benefits in return.

Devil's Kitchen said...

AD627,

Cheers, although I wouldn't necessarily rely on my mathematical skills!

"I would prefer MPs that support Hague’s line about no further transfer of powers without referendum to those – largely Labour and LibDem, as well as a few Tory Wets – who unthinkingly support “the Project”."

Yes, although, for me that is basically having to choose between an old turd and a fresh turd. I am not interested, fundamentally, in staying in the EU; I want out and the Tories are not offering that.

"What is encouraging is the manner in which the balance on the debate on taxation has moves so swiftly in a matter of weeks."

Yes, but I've been saying for ages that people were ready to hear the low-tax argument; if the Tories had found their balls a little sooner, it would have been so much the better.

"It gives one some hope that one day a similar seismic movement could occur with regard to an institution that costs us billions and delivers few tangible benefits in return."

Yes, but it requires the politicians to admit that and you can tell from my conversation with Letwin that they are not going to.

The point is that the tax debate was conducted purely on the politicians' terms; until they admit that the EU is shit for Britain, that debate will not be had.

DK

rigger said...

I hate this talk of UKIP costing the tories seats.It does imply that they're theirs by right and they're not.It's first past the post,thats what happens.When John Major and maggie were winnign large parliamentary majorities with 40-45% of the vote they weren't bitching.

For me it smacks of sour grapers.whining because they can't get their snouts deep enough into the trough.

I loeft the Tories when DC took over and joined UKIP.I'm glad I did.I believe that it offers a legitimate and sensible plan for saving this country from the forces of mediocrity and self indulgence.

I won't vote tory again.Their policy platform is big govt-keeping to labours exhorbitant spending plans etc and I would treat with real scepticism any promises with reference to the EU.They will seek to neutralise us so that they can get back into bed with the bureaucrats,plain and simple.They are surrender monkeys of the first order.

AD627 said...

|Having failed the Maths test (subject to DK not finding any howlers in my Excel analysis), it seems UKIP is now intent on failing at English too.

The statement that “UKIP cost the Tories seats at the last election” does not imply the seats rightfully belong to the Tories. You are ascribing a meaning to “cost” that simply does not exist, merely to justify your own preconceptions about Tory arrogance.

When people assert that “John Smith’s shadow budget cost Labour the 1992 election”, they are not asserting that Labour had a right to be in government from 1992 to 1997. They are saying that “Labour paid a price for the shadow budget – it lost the 1992 election” or “If it hadn’t been for the shadow budget, Labour would have won the 1992 election.” This meaning of “cost” is consistent with my analysis, which appears to show that there were 24 seats where the 2005 margin of Lib/Lab victory over a second-placed Conservative candidate was smaller than the size of the UKIP vote.

And I’m not whinging – you’re very welcome to spend your time and effort on UKIP, as other people do on the Flat Earth Society. I am simply concerned that you understand that the result of your actions is to encourage further European integration by returning more Europhiles to Westminster. I believe my analysis of the 2005 election demonstrates this (although feel free to take it further by comparing the personal position of the defeated Tory candidates with those of the successful Lib/Lab candidates). The fact that no one from UKIP appears to have bothered with this basic analysis doesn’t fill me with confidence about the degree of intellectual rigour associated with all the UKIP policy development that DK has been so keen on.

rigger said...

ad,thanks for the lesson in spelling.

You claim that UKIP's existence ensures the return of more europhile MP's at Westmisnter.That rather presumes that the Tories are sceptic........and my experience of MP's was that most,with a few exceptions ,out of touch with reality

weight it up,europhile MP's or Tories MP's who are in it for themselves and what they can get.


buggered if you do etc..

Jens Winton said...

I feel it is only right for my comments on the myth of "Vote UKIP, Get Labour" to be shown in detail. Therefore, I present my original document based on the ACTUAL results.

==================================

The Myth of Vote UKIP, Get Labour
By Jens Winton

There is a myth going around that voting for UKIP hurts the Conservatives, and by default, lets in Labour. One reason given is that a number of otherwise close Conservative defeats in the last General Election in 2005, in around 27 to 30 odd seats (the number varies from time to time) was caused by votes for UKIP.

This is simply not true.

Of the 646 seats available in the elections of 2005, UKIP contested 496. There were only 39 seats (full list at the end) that saw UKIP having a greater vote than the difference between first and second place. That was less than 8% of the 496 seats UKIP stood in.

Of these 39 seats, only five were in UKIP’s top 39 results across the country (full list at the end), and four of these five kept their deposits (the fifth almost joined them). Of these 39 seats, Labour won 16, the Conservatives 13 and Lib-Dems 10. Of the 16 Labour seats, there was no net gain for them from 2001. The Conservatives had a net gain of 11 (nine of them from previously-held Labour seats and two were taken from the Lib-Dems) as well as two existing 2001 Tory seats. The Lib-Dems had a net gain of four (three taken from the Conservatives and one from Labour). They kept six 2001 seats within the party.

If UKIP `spoiled' seats for the Conservatives by having more votes than the margins the Tories lost by then the same could be said for the other two parties who came second as well. After all, voters can freely change their choice of party between elections. Of the 39 seats, the Tories came second in 24 seats, the Labour party just missed out on victory in ten, and the Lib-Dems were runners-up in five.

It is also irrational to burden UKIP with the blame that their votes robbed the Conservatives when third place parties scored significantly more votes and could also have denied the Tories of victories. The only way this could not be a factor is if one UKIP vote was worth multiple votes of other parties: Of the 39 `spoiler’ seats, only five UKIP candidates kept their deposits. And this is without mentioning the effect of other small parties that also ran in many of the 39 seats.

In summary, these numbers are simply too small to justify any statement about a vote for UKIP lets Labour in. The so-called 39 marginal seats out of the 496 UKIP had a candidate in are scattered far and wide across the country, hardly representing any geo-political pattern of note and bear little resemblance to where UKIP scored its most votes. In these 39 seats, all of the big three parties came second with margins less than UKIP votes but the Conservatives alone claim to be a `victim’. Another case of lies, damned lies, statistics?

The 39 seats (regions) where UKIP got more votes than the margin of victory in the General Elections 2005:
Battersea (London)
Carshalton & Wallington (London)
Clwyd West (Wales)
Crawley (South East)
Croydon Central (London)
Dartford (South East)
Devon West & Torridge (South West) – UKIP deposit returned
Eastbourne (South East)
Eastleigh (South East)
Gillingham (South East)
Gravesham (South East)
Guildford (South East)
Harlow (Eastern)
Harwich (Eastern) – UKIP deposit lost by 0.4%
Hemel Hempstead (Eastern)
Hereford (West Midlands)
High Peak (East Midlands)
Hornchurch (London)
Hove (South East)
Medway (South East)
Portsmouth North (South East)
Reading East (South East)
Rochdale (North West)
Romsey (South East)
Sittingbourne & Sheppey (South East)
Solihull (West Midlands)
Somerton & Frome (South West)
Staffordshire Moorlands (West Midlands) – UKIP deposit returned
Stourbridge (West Midlands)
Stroud (South West)
Taunton (South West)
Thanet South (South East) – UKIP deposit returned
Torbay (South West) – UKIP deposit returned
Totnes (South West) – UKIP deposit returned
Warwick & Leamington (West Midlands)
Watford (Eastern)
Wellingborough (East Midlands)
Westmorland & Lonsdale (North West)
The Wrekin (West Midlands)

The top 39 results for UKIP in the 2005 General Elections were:
Arundel & South Downs
Aylesbury
Beverley & Holderness
Bexhill & Battle
Bognor Regis & Littlehampton
Boston & Skegness
Cambridgeshire North East
Cambridgeshire North West
Castle Point
Chichester
Christchurch
Cornwall North
Cornwall South East
Devizes
Devon East
Devon North
Devon South West
Devon West & Torridge
Harwich
Horsham
Isle of Wight
Louth & Horncastle
New Forest East
Norfolk South West
Plymouth Devonport
Plymouth Sutton
Rayleigh
Salisbury
Sleaford & North Hykeham
St Ives
Staffordshire Moorlands
Staffordshire South
Suffolk South
Teignbridge
Tiverton & Honiton
Torbay
Totnes
Truro & St Austell
Worthing West