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
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
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.