• Rochester and Strood: A good result but not the decisive bandwagon that was hoped for.


    Above, an engraving of Rochester Castle from across the Medway around 1836 by H. Adlard after GF. Sargenby.

    Mark Reckless’s victory is to be welcomed but the margin was less than was hoped. That is the cold hard fact of the matter. This, despite previously being number 271 on the UKIP target list [of seats to win in May 2015].

    UKIP supporters however should not be downhearted.

    The prospects for the UK and UKIP after May 2015 are very much of a curate’s egg: Good in parts.

    The MOST important thing to realise however is that the three main party leaders:
    - David Cameron
    - Ed Miliband
    - Nigel Farage
    are not in control of events. Events are in control of them. This fact is something that must constantly be borne in mind.

    The Good is that the country is destined to leave the EU in 2020 when the EU effectively becomes a federal superstate. The UK (and possibly Denmark) will be “relegated” to the European Economic Area along to join Norway and Iceland. This means that the country will still have no control over its borders. It will however have regained significant amounts of it’s sovereignty.

    As they say at Tesco: “Every little helps!”

    Part of the Bad is the possibility of a Tory minority government – supported by UKIP. This would be a disaster for UKIP.

    Before addressing this, let us first address the prospect of Ed Miliband and the Labour Party.

    Whilst the Tories prospects are largely linked to UKIP’s, Labour’s prospects are largely linked to those of the SNP.

    This has serious implications for the continued unity of the UK.

    One of the most wily and skilled politicians in the UK made it fairly obvious what his intentions were insofar as the forthcoming General Election is concerned. This organ is of course referring to Mr Alex Salmond.

    Mr Salmond it seems intends to stand for Parliament and if (read very likely) he gets elected, he will lead the SNP group in the Commons. This group threatens to be quite a significant factor if the car crash that is the Labour Party keeps its current form.

    His replacement – Ms Nicola Sturgeon – has already gone on record stating that she will not consider a coalition with the Tories. She has indicated that her preference is to support a minority Labour government.

    What British Gazette readers will be fully aware of is that these two Scots work very much hand in glove. They are shall we say, “partners in crime” – that “crime” being to sever the unity of the kingdom.

    The one thing to understand about the politics of coalition is that like poker, you never declare all your cards. What you say and what you end up doing is very often quite different.

    Ms Sturgeon should be aware, and if she is not, Mr Salmond will very soon educate her, that minority governments seldom last very long. This means to get most influence a coalition is desirable. There are potential downsides to being a minority partner in a coalition. This has most clearly been demonstrated by the experience of the Liberal Democrats.

    So, Messrs Salmond & Sturgeon will want to avoid the Lib-Dem experience. As should UKIP!!!!

    They however will be in a vastly different position to the unfortunate Lib-Dems. Nick Clegg has since 2010 been David Cameron’s whipping boy so far as the British electorate is concerned.

    Historical Note: A whipping boy was a boy who was beaten for the misdeeds/failings of a young prince – it being considered infra dig to beat a young prince.

    Ms Sturgeon has however set out her terms for a coalition with Labour: they are removal of Trident from Scotland and no more austerity.

    These are unpalatable terms. One (removal of Trident) is politically costly. The other (no more austerity) is practically impossible for whatever Mr Miliband may say, the next government – whatever its make-up will not be able to abandon austerity. The credit reference agencies and international markets will forbid it.

    This does not however mean that Ms Sturgeon could not be accommodated. For “No more austerity” read “No more austerity – for Scotland.”

    In other words, if the SNP sweep the board in Scotland in May 2015 and Labour cannot form a majority government without them, Mr Miliband may well agree to Ms Sturgeon’s terms. Mr Miliband will want to increase public spending in England. That is a given. He will not be allowed to increase the borrowing to any significant degree. It is quite possible he could scrap Trident. This would achieve two things: it would accommodate Ms Sturgeon and would save money. Insofar as “No more austerity – for Scotland” is concerned this could easily be secured by an upward adjustment to the amount of money Scotland receives. So, as England continues to experience austerity, Scotland would no longer.

    This of course would be PRECISELY what Messrs Sturgeon and Salmond want. Remember, their objective is to secure a secession of Scotland from the union. Their “game plan” is clear: Protect and insulate Scotland from the necessary austerity. Use the resultant election of a majority Tory government (or Conservative/UKIP alliance) to force the issue of another referendum.

    Sadly, it seems there is a distinct prospect that Messrs. Sturgeon & Salmond will eventually achieve their goal. A separate Scottish state however will be a disaster and it is entirely possible that it could collapse after a decade or so.

    Let us return to the prospect of a Tory/UKIP coalition:

    Since the UK will be leaving the EU in 2020, there is little we Eurorealists can gain by having the “In/Our Referendum” but there is a lot potentially we could loose.

    We MUST avoid a situation where a majority of the British People [who turn out to the polls] vote for unlawful and unconstitutional rule [of the UK by the EU].

    The argument regarding the return of FULLY sovereign government can take place after 2020.

    As for UKIP’s prospects of being the Tories partner in another coalition one need only point out what has happened to the Lib-Dems!

    There are however far more serious challenges than the electoral prospects of UKIP after 2015.

    Let us address the issue of Immigration. What we know is this:
    - The UK has NO CONTROL over immigration from the EU.
    - The UK will continue to have NO CONTROL over immigration from the EU after 2020 as the requirements of being in the EEA are to allow the free movement of peoples to and from the EU.

    We therefore know what needs to be done in order to secure control over our borders: leave the EEA and only be a member of EFTA.

    Now at this point, those readers who are likely to be actively involved in any campaign for withdrawal from the EEA might be thinking along the lines of; “we will have to counter arguments about lack of inward investment, increases unemployment &C.”

    This might well be the case, but there is a distinct possibility that an altogether more pressing situation will be concentrating the minds of voters and politicians. That is what will be happening in Europe.

    It is a common failing of voters and politicians alike to be far too insular in their outlook. They only look at the situation in their own country.

    This organ has in previous articles has drawn the Reader’s attention to the grave threat posed by radical Islam. The British People are of course now very aware following the arrests of the latest terror suspects and their alleged bloodthirsty and murderous plan to behead a member of the public.

    What many British People forget to realise is that a similar situation also pertains in Europe. European voters are responding to this threat by voting for parties categorised by the BBC as being parties of the “Far Right.”

    It is the challenge of radical Islam that is focusing minds in Europe as well as the UK. It is the reaction to this challenge that will dictate the course of future events.

    Again, there are facts that are clearly self evident. These facts will presage events and it is these events that will be in control. Not the politicians.

    Let us take one of the most obvious facts:

    1. Radical Islam’s attitude towards homosexual men. Homosexual men found guilty of sodomy in Sharia courts are hanged. Actual evidence of the act it appears is not necessary to secure a conviction. Circumstantial evidence that the act “on the balance of probability” took place is enough. Hanging is by the slower method of hanging by asphyxiation and is performed in public – generally using a crane.

    2. Radical Muslim campaigners WANT this situation to occur in the countries in which they are currently living. These being EU countries including the UK.

    Now there are those who are campaigning against radical Islam who hold out the spectre of such hangings taking place in a Europe that is part of an Islamic Caliphate.

    Whilst sadly such hangings will likely take place in Europe, they will not take place across Europe as a whole for the very simple reason that homosexual men are no more likely to vote to be hanged than turkeys are likely to vote for Christmas!

    What it will mean is Civil War. The result will be segregation and the fracturing of Europe into smaller states. Some will be linked politically and economically by their continuing membership of the EU. The others (the Islamic states) will form part of the Caliphate.

    This will likely take place as the large Muslim populations will react violently to the coming to power of far right parties across Europe. Due to the greater pressures, increased support [of the “Far Right”] and proportional representation, the UK will experience in a decade or so’s time a flood of Muslims fleeing to the UK from the EU. It is this flood that will to borrow that ghastly phrase from the Greens be a “tipping point.”

    At the same time, “our” Muslims will be becoming ever more numerous and ever more radical. “Our” homosexual men will feel just as threatened as their counterparts in the EU.

    The UK’s “Gay Rights” campaigners will discover the simple fact is that you cannot live at peace with someone who wants to kill you.

    Now you see Dear Reader why arguments about the level of bonuses paid to bankers is of somewhat secondary importance.

    Write a comment