Nigel Farage

Back in April I complained about the lunacy of UKIP's devolution policy, a policy that would scrap Scottish and Welsh self-government and replace it with grand committees for Scotland and Wales, and restore symmetry by also creating an English grand committee.

UKIP's dreadful showing in the Scottish elections (UKIP doubled the share of the vote that they achieved in 2007 by standing 29 candidates in 2011 instead of the 10 they stood in 2007) caused me to reactivate an email discussion that I was conducting with a member of Nigel Farage's staff.

Nigel Farage's office, 24th March 2011

Dear Mr Young

Thank you for your "plea" - but I think you'll find that UKIP does propose an English Parliament (together with parliaments for Wales, Scotland and Ulster) composed of the Members of Parliament for constituencies in each of those parts of the United Kingdom.

Please see UKIP-Manifesto (2010)
15 Culture & Restoring Britishness
· End support for multiculturalism and promote one shared British culture for all
· Be fair to England by introducing an ‘English Parliament’, ending the discriminatory Barnett Formula and making St George’s Day a national holiday in England
· Ban the burka and veiled niqab in public buildings and certain private buildings
· Require UK schools to teach Britain’s contribution to the world and celebrate cultures, languages and traditions from around the British Isles
· Scrap political correctness in public affairs

Me, 24th March 2011

Take a look at the quote that you have sent me. As you can see 'English parliament' is enclosed in inverted commas. This is because it is not an English parliament that UKIP propose but is in fact an English grand committee sitting within the UK Parliament.

Inverted commas placed around text are used to indicate another sense or meaning of a phrase rather than the one initially suggested, or often to convey humour or sarcasm.

So are you being funny or sarcastic, or are you just trying to fob me off as if I was some sort of ignoramous who doesn't know the difference between a parliament and a grand committee?

Nigel Farage's office, 25th March 2011

Dear Gareth - technically, you are right; but why should this arrangement not serve the purpose?

PS - I reject your aspersions

Me, 25th March 2011

"technically, you are right; but why should this arrangement not serve the purpose?"

That was a valid question back in the 1990s, read the speeches of Malcolm Rifkind or Michael Forsyth, or the minutes of Thatcher's government, they all ask that very question.

The valid question now is "why are UKIP still asking that question?"

Do you seriously believe that you can scrap the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly? James Gray, the Shadow Scottish Secretary of State, was hounded out of his job for suggesting such a thing.

Nigel Farage's office, 25th March 2011

G -I just wondered what your response would be. We think it would serve the purpose, obviously.

As for doing things the incumbent parties would never do - that's what UKIP is in business for.

Me, 25th March 2011

It may in theoretical terms 'serve the purpose' - though that's debatable - but it's unachievable and it makes UKIP deeply unpopular in Scotland

I lived in Scotland until recently so I know that UKIP are on to a loser with this policy. It's less of a far-fetched policy in Wales but it's a loser there too. Even the English - disadvantaged by devolution - have not shown any desire to have the Scottish and Welsh governments scrapped, quite the reverse in fact.

Call me a realist but I'm more interested in vote-winning policies that are popular with the public and therefore achievable.

Nigel Farage's office, 25th March 2011

Dear Gareth - the EU was quite popular with the public before we got going, but EU-regional government (for that's what the present assemblies are) never really has been. UKIP believes that its "Grand Committees" will serve their turn electorally and, once established, their political purpose also; but that won't be until we are in government and rid of the EU - and if we can do that, what can't we do?

Nigel appreciates your concern, which I'm sure is well intentioned. No-one likes all of UKIP's policies. I'm not happy with several of them; but we must pull together or pull apart. Anyway, UKIP is going with "grand committees"

Me, 25th March 2011

I can see that we're going to have to disagree over this.

As a parting favour, would you point me in the direction of the polling data or the research papers that support UKIP's belief that the Scots and Welsh would like to abolish their nationally mandated parliaments and governments and replace them with grand committees?

Nigel Farage's office, 25th March 2011

I shall have to ask the Policy-Unit. Hopefully, they will respond to you direct.

Me, 7th May 2011

I never did receive any information from the Policy-Unit.

Following on from our discussion, do you have any news on how UKIP performed in the Scottish elections?

Nigel Farage's office, 7th May 2011

I daresay there is no polling-data. We certainly have no money to commission any. I would call this an intuitive judgement.

We did better than ever in the Scottish elections - 7th out of 18, beating BNP and NF combined -but there's still a long way to go, obviously

Me, 7th May 2011

Intuitive judgement? Good one, that's funny!

As you may have heard the Scots have elected a majority SNP government, which makes UKIP's policy seem even more crazy than it was previously.

You're right about one thing, there is no polling data to support UKIP's position. In fact all the available data undermines UKIP's position because it shows that the Scots want to keep Scottish self-government and increase its powers.

So UKIP's insane policy on devolution is based on a feeling in Nigel Farage's waters rather than the result of any research or evidence. Little wonder that their results are appalling. Case closed.

Barnbrookgate continues.

Cliff Dixon casts doubt on the offical version of events that Mssrs Tilbrook and Uncles put forward:

Oh dear - This post has all the fingerprints of a certain Mr S Uncles all over it.

"Following the invitation by Derek Hilling the national party secretary of The English Democrats to Richard Barnbrook" - What invitation? Derek and the rest of the NC were unaware that Barnbrook would be addressing the meeting on Saturday. I have a copy of the agenda sat in front of me now, and of the 17 points on it, not one regards a certain Richard Barnbrook addressing the NC of The English Democrats. A vote of no confidence in Uncles was proposed at the meeting, and deemed not admissable as it was not on the agenda - Barnbrook was only allowed to address the NC because it was pointed out that Item 12 (Membership applications from ex BNP members - CV?/RC?) could be used to justify it, and as he doesn't drive and had to be ferried up by another NC member, he shouldn't be left to sit in the foyer on his own (A joke was cracked that we could have a whip round for his train back if necessary)

If I attended as a guest of Roger Cooper, why was item 4 on the agenda titled "Allegations of improper conduct against Steve Uncles - CD & SU" ? Would a guest be on the agenda? Indeed, why have I been at every NC meeting in my capacity as Roger Cooper's deputy for the last 6 months, and have held his proxy vote on the previous 4?

Nigel Farage casts his net over dissaffected English Democrats supporters:

"Some weeks ago I received a message from the South East Chairman of the English Democrats, Steven Uncles. He requested a meeting with me to discuss electoral cooperation.

"At the time I was dubious and delayed answering. However, with their acceptance of Richard Barnbrook, originally elected to the GLA for the BNP, I am adamant that at no point now or in the future must the UK Independence Party be linked with the English Democrats.

"With this move, the English Democrats have put themselves beyond the pale. As a non-racist, non-sectarian party UKIP, at all levels, must have nothing to do with them.

"We urge all English Democrats who feel as we do about this to join UKIP now."

The ranting Alan England retaliates on the English Democrats' little known blog:

What is so absurd about Nigel's outburst is that it continues a long established line of UKIP hypocrisy. SEE: The hypocritical party It seems that Mr Farage would have us believe that UKIP does not actually recruit BNP members.

[...]

WE URGE ALL THOSE IN UKIP WHO WANT A REFERENDUM FOR PROPER PARLIAMENT FOR ENGLAND IN ADDITION TO A REFERENDUM ABOUT CONTINUED EU MEMBERSHIP TO JOIN THE ENGLISH DEMOCRATS ~ NOW!

And Nick Griffin casts doubt on Richard Barnbrook's suitability as a BNP candidate and alludes to an addiction to alcohol:

I have no idea whether you really intend to join the EDP, with its boasts of Muslim candidates and totally undemocratic structure. I would have thought that the fact that they were only able to gain one tenth of our vote in Oldham last week, failing even to beat the Monster Raving Looney Party, would have made even you recognise that there is no possibility of their serving as a vehicle for your ambitions and needs.

In truth, however, that is irrelevant. What matters is that you think that it is acceptable to use the threat to join them to try to blackmail the British National Party into giving you what you want.

It is not acceptable. Your letter confirms your utter selfishness and total unsuitability as a candidate on the British National Party GLA list next year. Over the last few months we have made enormous strides in London . We are building a dynamic team and developing campaigning techniques that, taken together with the likely collapse in the Tory and LibDem votes, give us a very good chance indeed of winning at least one seat.

[...]

The only thing that could make me reconsider would be if, rather than going off to another party, you went to seek the medical and support help for your alcohol problem which I have repeatedly counseled and even arranged for you, went through with it and came back to us with medical proof that you had actually accepted, confronted and conquered the disease which has stolen your dignity and decency.

Your promises and pleadings are worthless, for we have heard them all before, including when you were selected to lead our list in the first place subject to your firm undertaking to stay off alcohol and our mistaken belief that you had overcome the problem. Only real action by you to secure a sustained change can now save you from self-destruction and lead me and the British National Party to reconsider the position.

What a particularly unpleasant soap opera this is, and one from which only Cliff Dixon can emerge a winner.

See also: BNP Barnbrook joins English Democrats

I once met Nigel Farage and he seemed like a bit of a slimeball to me. Nevertheless he has done a job on the slimeball-in-chief here.

Via Devil's Kitchen and GavPolitics.

Blair's enemies are moblising; Spring is returning to Narnia.

Add my name to the list.

And this is just beautiful:

Last Friday Mr Blair attacked “the political and legal establishment”. He said that it “didn’t understand”, that it was “in denial”, that it was “out of touch”. And he argued the Establishment was letting down everyone else, “ordinary, decent, law-abiding folk”, and failing to get the balance right between victims and offenders.

It was a curious speech. But not because Mr Blair was wrong. Many of the things he said were right and needed saying. No, it was curious for entirely different reasons.

First, consider the man making it. Mr Blair is Prime Minister, a barrister, married to a human rights lawyer and best friend of the Lord Chancellor. Who, then, is the “political and legal establishment” exactly?