• Memo to Diane James: Be careful what you wish for. You might get it!

      0 comments

    In your election communication that was packaged with those of the other candidates, you state; “A new Constitution? A new Governing system? A new “Top Team”? I truly believe that under my leadership the necessary changes that the party so desperately needs can happen, they must happen! I say bring them on because I have the concepts and ideas to resolve the issues that this party faces.”

    You then go on with what can only be described as masterful understatement that; “Party leadership is not for the faint hearted.”

    How true!

    Whoever succeeds Nigel Farage as UKIP leader is going to face a very challenging situation. You will be aware of the old adage, “All political careers end in failure” – which begs the question, “Did Nigel effect a political master-stroke by resigning when he did?” Another question follows of course; “Are you campaigning for the opportunity to drink from a poison chalice?”

    You will of course be aware that Mrs May will be very much hoping that the Brexit vote and a subsequent delivery of Brexit will have effectively “shot UKIP’s fox” nullifying the UKIP threat to Tory marginals.

    You should also be aware that in the Brexit process there lies not only the potential of electoral disaster for the Tories, but disaster for UKIP also. The danger of course lies in the risk (and it is a very real risk) that Brexit goes horribly wrong!

    It is therefore essential that YOU understand the dangers surrounding the Article 50 process, even if most of your party colleagues don’t! Which is why we would suggest that you read this article of yesterday:
    http://www.british-gazette.co.uk/2016/09/01/brexit-getting-a-deal/
    Please be aware that Article 50 was drawn up by Europhiles who wanted to discourage any member state from leaving the EU. The cards are stacked very heavily against the withdrawing state! For a start there are the other 27 member states; all have to agree to the deal! Most crucial to this country’s economic prospects is however “the clock” – the two year time limit. If no deal can be negotiated and if all but one member state does not agree to an extension, the withdrawing state ceases to be an EU member after 2 years.

    If – and there is a real and present danger of this happen – Brexit were to occur without an agreement, the economic effects on the UK would be catastrophic. You will remember the doom-mongering the Remainians and the Remainiacs indulged in during the campaign. Well even the worst of these will pale into insignificance were the worst to happen!

    Of course, nobody wants this to happen. This for the obvious reason that a UK facing virtual economic collapse would severely damage exporters such as Volkswagen (who already have enough problems vis-à-vis false emission reports). The danger is that it could and that there will be negotiators on the other side who will wish to push their luck.

    The motivation for a good deal for Mrs May is clear. You can be sure that the reticence to embrace EFTA + EEA on her part is due to the issue of immigration and “free movement of people”. Mrs May views herself as being stranded between a rock (the need to deliver an economically successful Brexit) and a hard place (the need to deliver controls over immigration).

    It is possible that when Article 50 gets submitted the Tories will try and negotiate a bespoke deal which gives then EFTA + EEA + an “Australian style points [quota] based system” but the chances of this are more remote that you winning the Euromilions lotto jackpot!

    There is a danger that the Tories may well try and spend some time trying to negotiate a special deal before eventually falling back to the Flexcit position so ably advocated by Dr. Richard North. The problem is that the longer they spend on the “wild goose chase” the less time they have to complete the negotiations.

    Another danger [for the UK] is that the Tories might be pushed into a so called “Associate Membership” that would appear to give everything the country wants but would in fact result in continuing membership of the EU. This of course is something UKIP should be looking out for and start shouting from the rooftops if such looks like happening.

    Electorally the consequences for the Tories of “Associate Membership” would be their failure to shoot the fox! The UK would still be in the EU!

    The British Gazette however is hoping that Mrs May will be the one holding the reigns and not the hapless Boris! It is this Editor’s opinion that Mrs May will instruct the UK’s negotiators to try and repackage Article 112 the Lichtenstein provisions to look like the fabled “Australian style points [quota] based system”. She will of course have a problem! A big problem: the two are completely different! Trying to disguise one to look like the other is like trying to disguise a giraffe to look like a hippopotamus! Yes, both animals are herbivorous mammalian quadrupeds living in the sub Saharan savannah of Africa – but both are recognisably different!

    Mrs May however will be counting on the effects however. This is because she will need to be able to stop the many thousands of EU workers coming to the UK to pick soft fruit. Here of course we enter a field synonymous with politics: irony!

    Preventing these many thousands of Bulgarians and others from coming to pick soft fruit will of course not result in these positions being taken up by British workers. The result will be that the former soft fruit growers will put the land to other use. On one level this will have a negative economic effect. However, a sharp reduction in numbers of people arriving will reduce pressure on the UK’s infrastructure. Naturally the Tories are going to shout about this from the rooftops!

    You must now ask yourself this question: Why is EEA membership so important? The answer is of course: “Because it is NOT just financial services, but services. The UK is predominantly a service economy and this will benefit from future development of the EEA towards this sector.

    On reflection [of the UK's situation vis-à-vis Brexit] then, it is the British Gazette’s opinion that you would be well advised to assume that Mrs Theresa May, the UK’s Prime Minister is not going to allow herself to be manoeuvred into a situation that will result in an economic catastrophe for the UK but instead will do her best to spin the Lichtenstein provisions as much as is possible.

    So you will then ask yourself this question: Where will this leave UKIP?

    Well, UKIP is rapidly approaching it’s own “fork in the road” moment! Does UKIP take the left fork or the right fork!

    Please do NOT make the mistake of thinking you can walk down both forks at once!

    It would be prudent to work on the basis that by adopting a heavily disguised version of Dr. North’s Flexcit, Mrs May will have shot UKIP’s fox insofar as many of the potential Tory voters in what has traditionally been known as “the Home counties” is concerned.

    There are however, huge numbers of voters who will not feel themselves particularly well rewarded by Flexcit. These are Labour voters.

    Up to this point we have examined the UK’s situation in relation to the Tories. At this point we should now look at it in relation to that now world famous car crash, “the Labour Party!”

    It can of course be truly said, that presently the Labour Party needs NO opposition as it is perfectly capable of providing it’s own!

    However, to simply pontificate upon Labour’s misfortunes in relation to the leadership of Comrade Corbyn would be to miss the most important aspect of Labour’s difficulty. That difficulty is severe as it is structural. The best way of imagining the Labour Party is to imagine it as the isosceles triangle below:This is a very much simplified picture of Labour’s predicament. At the top we have the logo of the LSE [Labour's supercilious elite? - Ed.] , an institution that well represents the nature of those who form the leadership of this large party. By leadership we mean the majority of activists and branch officials as well as the MPs. They are predominantly middle class and university educated. Then there are two distinct constituencies. The traditional white working class – the social group Labour was established to represent – and ethnic minorities. Now of course, the UK’s ethnic minorities come from across the world and are of many religions. However, one community can be said to have “adopted” Labour as “their” party. That is the Muslims whose ancestors emigrated from Pakistan after 1948. Now of course, the diagram is imperfect and many in the two constituencies form part of Labour’s leadership, but please be aware of this FACT:

    Given the nature of the British First past the Post system and the reality of the “safe” constituency – something unknown in most democracies that operate proportional representation – the reader unfamiliar with the Labour Party’s internal workings may assume that a rock solid Tory seat such as Mr Hammond’s Runnymede and Weybridge constituency would be given a very wide birth by Labour activists who would concentrate their efforts on far more fertile territory. Far from it! This is because constituencies like Runnymede and Weybridge provide Labour with a very valuable resource: educated professional members!

    What we have in Labour is a patrician elite represented by such as Fiona Margaret Mactaggart – educated at Cheltenham Ladies College – telling E, D, C2 and C1 voters about how wonderful it is to be “Gay”, “Lesbian”, “Transsexual” and that anybody who feels that marriage is an institution set up to join men and women and not men and men and women and women is a bigot and that a man who pays for sex with a prostitute is not only an immoral fool who risks acquiring “a social disease” but someone who is effectively a rapist and should be “locked up”.
    This is unsustainable and ultimately the white working class voters will want a party who will represent them. UKIP should aim to be that party.

    Write a comment