We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
|
The story is what is hardly being covered in the Press The UKIP has just become a significant force in British politics. Will it last? I have no idea. But the fact is that the UKIP is now a major player in the European Parliament and allegedly gained almost 16% of the vote where they stood.
And yet this appearance of a new political force in Britain seems to be almost a footnote in most of the articles in the press. Oh, it is being covered, but the fact this upstart party is being examined in such muted matter is itself quite worth pondering. Although I am hardly an uncritical admirer of the UKIP in many ways, I do share their antipathy to the EU and I think that their success does show that a deep vein of disaffection is beginning to come to the surface even amongst Britain’s typically ovine electorate.
And the fact the sensationalist British press is not treating this into a sensation is itself rather interesting.
|
Who Are We? The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
|
I think the conservative press is listening to it but not wanting to talk about the UKIP for fear it may become a permanent force in policitics and thereby deny them the chance of winning the next election.
Labor pundits are not talking about it because they’re obvioulsy scared to give any publiticity to the UKIP’s policies since they represent such a direct and unfearful attack on some of the central planks of New Labor.
So both sides have an interst to not talk about them too much. But thats not to say everyone realises that the cats out of the hatch now.
Commentators in the press and ‘media’ often state that the presence of UKIP would cause injury to the Conservatives. Euro-scepticism is NOT solely a Tory phonomenon and opinion within the Labour party is just as divided over the issue of Europe. Why couldn’t they steal votes from Labour?
In my mind, the ‘success’ of UKIP can be attribbuted to public dissatisfaction regarding a proposed EU constitution. UKIP have been around for some time and it is only now that they are making inroads into mainstream British politics.
The European elections are announced on Sunday. I suspect that the press is ignoring UKIP because they are concentrating on the local election results.
Come Sunday, UKIP will have enough microphones and interviews to deal with.
There’s some incredible spinning abroad in the land tonight. The BBC (incredibly) is trumpeting the ‘success’ of the Leftist LibDems – who have actually managed to lose control of two councils.
Some success!
Similarly, the thorough trashing of Labour (as I’ve commented elsewhere) is being presented as a vote entirely about the Iraq war which, patently, it was not.
If it had been, why would the pro-War Tories have gained control of 12 councils?
Come Sunday, when our lords and masters in Brussels allow us to reveal the results of the Euro component of the election, it will be fascinating to see how the Europhiliacs in the meejah try to spin it.
I agree reading articles like this you get the impression that the BBC is back to deciding what the story is before the fact come in.
“The Tories had gained 263 seats and won Trafford and Tamworth. Charles Kennedy said Lib Dem gains proved the UK now had true three party politics. ”
and
“Only the most pessimistic had believed the party would be pitched into third place behind the Liberal Democrats and the Tories – the first time a governing party has suffered that fate. ”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3796497.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3799929.stm
The BBC and ITV News stuck rigidly to representatives of the Big Three parties in round-table discussions and interviews before the polls. We kept hearing on the news how UKIP, the Greens and the BNP might erode the Big Three’s share, but these interlopers were never allowed to speak for themselves.
Neither have I yet seen a single extended feature or documentary on UKIP: its origins, its internal feuds, who built it up and how many were Tory defectors, who’s voting for it and why it’s stronger in some regions than others. Just passing sneers about Kilroy Silk and Joan Collins. For instance, most viewers would not realise that UKIP’s leader was once a Tory whip, or that some of its councillors before 2004 had come over from Labour.
The establishment broadcasters are as hopelessly set in their Westminster ways as the pro politicians. In fact there seems to be a lot of intermarrying and movement from one side of the Westminster fence to the other. Also, the BBC in particular is riddled with Europhiles and may have decided that the three small emergent parties, which are all anti-EU, should not get too much publicity.
I was at (some of) the count today for Morley North & South for leeds Council. it was interesting that voters are less inclined to vote for a party rather than the people.
As it happened, a loose alliance of independents absolutely trounced labour and won all six seats. (They won two in by-elections in 2002 & 2003 but only in one ward.)They did it by engaging with people rather than being complacent & arrogant which is how the encumbents were perceived.
Leeds is now “no overall control” which is an absolutely top result after more than two decades of Labour.
Sadly, the independents haven’t entirely embraced Libertarianism yet but I am working on it……………
A Radio Four news reporter described the UKIP (linking it with the BNP) as a “Far Right” party. In other words if you are not a devotee of a single European State you are a Fascist! I appreciate why the European Community is appealing to self-righteous Leftist parasites such as the BBC, but since these air heads are attached to the public teat, is it too much to ask them not to vomit their contempt for those who pay their wages?
It’s also quite amusing to see the way the BBC site is covering the UKIP. For example, their “manifesto at a glance” section for UKIP began with something like “Anxious to distance themselves from their fellow nationalists the BNP, UKIP says …” – and in the euro election local candidates listing they’ve put BNP side by side with UKIP – and given BNP the UKIP’s signature purple color, leaving UKIP a washed out blue.
You can amost hear the gritted teeth…
The BBC’s been referring to UKIP as “far right” – with no explanation whatsoever – since the beginning of the campaign. I was going to write to [Don’t] Have Your Say, but why bother? Some little “editor” would hit the Delete key, as they always do with comments that don’t toe the far left line.
But they should be called to account, as, in categorising a perfectly normal political party with a popular and unharmful agenda as swivel-eyed fascists, they are engaging in electioneering.
I would hope that, when they get back in, the Tories will remove the licence fee. It should be a good laugh, watching their confusion as they flounder around trying to grasp what “the marketplace” means. I hate the BBC and think it a great force for harm.
Verity writes:
“I hate the BBC and think it a great force for harm.”
Indeed it is. And you are also absolutely right about the way the corporation responds to complaints. I’ve tried.
Aside from the Europhile/anti-UKIP agenda mentioned above, one of their favourite games since the last general election has been to puff the loathsome LibDems massively beyond their electoral relevance.
This began across the network, within hours of the result coming in, so one has to assume it was a deliberate editorial policy – no doubt (at least unconsciously, though very probably done with full awareness) because the BBC likes to be ‘the opposition’ to government and they couldn’t stomach siding with the Tories.
Count the number of times a LibDem (most often Menzies Campbell) is hauled out to comment on an event, when there is no similar opportunity given to a Tory. The canonisation of St. Menzies over the Iraq war has been remarkable – no doubt because his views match those of the bien pensant BBC news hacks.
As for the stigamtisation of UKIP as far-right, the BBC should never be allowed to forget the words of its ‘political advisor’ (don’t they call those ‘commissars?’) to Rod Liddle.
“‘You do realise, Rod, that these people are quite mad? “, was this silly baggage’s opinion anyone opposed to the EU.
So that’s UKIP’s chance of fair treatment pretty much done for, wouldn’t you say?
I will never forget how long it took the BBC to admit that the Tories were winning in the 1992 General Election, a success only outdone by their coverage of the last local elections.
The UKIP seems extremely moderate when weighed against the Lib Dems “If its the EU we’re for it” nonsense.
I can only conclude with Verity that the next Conservative government has no option but to abolish the licence fee.
Anyone tried this ? or is it as useless as complaining to the BBC direct.
http://www.ofcom.org.uk/contact_ofcom/tv_radio/
Like most on the Left the BBC detests a free society. If somebody dares to supply an alternative to their views (“The USSR is an evil empire” “Many familiar taxes [such as the licence fee!] ought to be abolished” “What drives the EU [other than individual financial gain] is resentment of the Anglosphere”) they have an ideological seizure. These arse licking apologists for Leftist authoritarianism (no propaganda is so vile that they will not broadcast it if it serves the cause of undermining those who seek to defend a free society) are not going to let a little thing like the catastrophic failure of the Left in the C20th get in the way of their desire to re-educate the public into hating Britain and the USA. It is hard to believe but even quite recently the BBC was producing dramas that asked us to get dewy eyed about those whose devotion to Stalin was such they betrayed their country and condemned opponents of “progressive thought” to torture and death in far away countries. No doubt in the future the BBC will produce a “controversial” drama in which they ask us to look sympathetically upon a resentful Muslims who, excited by hatred, straps explosives to themselves in order to leave those who are born Westerners in heaps of [White Meat] body parts – Oh what joy! What cause for celebration! – for the effrontery of living in happier more prosperous societies. Have I just committed a thought crime? Are we not meant to embrace our enemies? It may seem unfair to equate the hatred that the average BBC journalists has for Britain or the USA with the morally retarded throat slashing thugs of Al Queda, but it is a matter of degree. I remember seeing a documentary on the BBC gleefully showing “Thatcher” collapsing due to failing health at a political meeting. I actually rang the BBC to complain and the response on the other end of the line [sotto voce] was incredulity that anybody would care about how that bitch is portrayed. If I was asked if I want to keep on funding the BBC I would say no I would prefer not to fund them please, if I had a choice, but I don’t, and that is the way they like it.
It bloody annoys me when I hear the BBC and others saying UKIP, BNP and other fringe parties. There are quite a few on the left (even the soft-right) that are trying to trash UKIP by claiming they are just like the BNP, with a nicer message. That is truly nasty and totally untrue.
It is also becoming clear that UKIP is taking votes from all sides. not just potential Tories voters.
On a side-note, I am English and living in Tennessee, USA. I’d like to vote in the next general election but to do so, I need someone who has a British passport but is a resident here to sign my application. Is there anyone close by who would be willing to do that for me?
Thanks
Rich
I’ve been reading the UKIP site – and, so far as I can tell, the UKIP is pretty much literally libertarian. Fairly watered down, perhaps, but infinitely better than any other party. Heck, they’re explicitly against ID cards – when nobody else is. Check this out: “[they will] establish the general principle that new technology must never be used for the routine observation of members of the public who are not under suspicion of having committed some crime. ”
Cute.
Richard Thomas – I haven’t heard about these requirements before, but I believe to vote in Britain, you need to own property there. I don’t think having a total stranger sign something for you qualified you to vote in Britain.
Verity, you do not need to own property (indeed, when you think of how many residents don’t own property, such a requirement would be ludicrous.
The requirement is that a person know you. However “Hello, I’m rich”, (shakes hand) is about as good as I’m going to get around here.
If this is the first time you have registered as an overseas voter,
you need to get another person to fill in this section.
parent, grandparent, brother, sister, child or grandchild.
and is not living in the UK at the time of his/her declaration.
http://www.postalvotes.co.uk/documents/overseas_registration.pdf
Rich
Uh, I guess unorderd list tags don’t work around these parts anymore.
Rich
Can the local British consulate sign the thing?
Perhaps. Though they might feel they were less likely to get away with claiming that they knew me if pushed (not that anyone is likely to go tracking down my vote).
Rich
Richard Thomas – I wasn’t speaking of people living in Britain having to own property. There used to be a law – it sounds from what you say that it has been changed – that if you lived overseas, you could only vote if you owned a house or a flat in Britain. Thanks for the alert. I’ll vote in the next election.
Julian, what are their views regarding other social issues, like (say) drug legalisation?
Verity, gotcha.
Verity, I was just mentioning British residents for comparison. If it was once the law that you couldn’t vote without owning property abroad then it is good that it has changed as it is clearly discriminatory. I’m not sure what the law used to be, I’ve only been out here a few years.
Note that there’s a 15 year limit though. Don’t know if that would apply to you.
Rich
If it’s any help, when I was living overseas 10-15 years ago, there was no requirement to own property in the UK to obtain a postal vote. All I nede to do was tell them my last UK address.
Information about voting as an overseas resident can be found at http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/vote/register/?defCountry=3