There are things happening and OoL really must comment on them if it’s to have credence as a libertarian site.
Item 1 – The Tories scraping the bottom of the barrel
a. Tim Aker
It’s possible the print is too small but it speaks of UKIP’s Tim Aker. The Tories campaigning against him have issued a leaflet drawing attention to Mr. Aker’s Turkish roots.
Nice. Are they trying to hand power to Labour in 2015? Douglas is apparently asking the question of the PM at PMQs on Thursday.
b. Nigel’s parachutism
The Times is running a piece today on Nigel doing the cavalier parachutism he himself was criticizing. No other major online news is running this at the moment, so one wonders and yet it’s a valid concern.
There was a high-profile elbowing some time back in which Roger Helmer became the PPC and it does underline the division for those going for UKIP electability and those for purity. Which brings us to:
Item 2 – Ideological purity or broad church?
I believe this Breitbart piece to be one of the most important posts, not just for UKIP but for the nation, which is pretty well waiting, politically, on what it’s going to do.
The Times piece today on Nigel doing the cavalier parachutism he himself was criticizing raises the issue and the Breitbart post and comments thread takes it further.
UKIP members are probably the most united bunch of politicos in the country, but most of them joined the party on the expectation they would be a fringe pressure group not a national force.
The European elections changed that, and for the first time the protesters faced a daunting prospect: that they might actually win real power.
People like Patrick O’Flynn and Tim Aker take the idea of winning power seriously; they believe UKIP’s role is to win government. Others in the party are less sure, not least because they know that winning power means the party has to become a broad church.
U.K.I.P. is a state of mind; it blows the Left vs Right paradigm into the weeds.
Hmmmmmm, it’s certainly amateur zeal back in politics, surely a healthy thing. At my own place, I’ve just being arguing that while Brits generally prefer detailed grey dourness as ‘dependable’, something Tories have always relied on as the serious party of government and this is reflected in Richard North’s Flexcit, this is not realpolitik today.
UKIP have shown that detail-lite and simple political will in the right direction can force a change in the issues being debated. Then again, this is dependent on circumstances in the community … but hasn’t that always been the case though?
Richard North is a purist and no doubt, in terms of playing the game, chaps, it is the right way to go. Except for one thing -those bastards on that side of the channel don’t play that way, they don’t accept the umpire’s decision [Ireland], it’s a ratcheting of ever more powers to them and they are using the British penchant for everything being just so and respectably done to tie the Brits up.
Along comes a grinning cavalier with a pint in the hand and he outrages Richard North’s sensibilities. No value judgment attached to that, one way or the other. But it’s so. Richard carries a body of opinion in the community with him.
But it ain’t going to win power. Nigel shouldn’t be cavalier in one way but in another, he should. What’s the point of putting these PPCs up around the country, at great cost, if UKIP is not serious about gaining power?
Equally, they must never dump Nige because he no longer fits in with Douglas, as parliamentary leader of the party. There’s a need for a middle way, a bit of one, a bit of the other. Seriousness in policy on things which matter, a bit of the cavalier when needing to bust through the red tape to actually get something done.
No other party has this embarrassment of riches just now. British politics is exciting once more, emotions, rather than just giving up, are involved again. Sure UKIP is not truly libertarian, not truly conservative, certainly not left-liberal and yet under this broad umbrella, people such as Voice of Reason and I could quite possibly agree on many things, direction for the nation … and he’s an American.
UKIP is definitely becoming quite a big-state party.
However, this is necessary to appease the retarded electorate who will be convinced by the privatisation of the NHS argument against UKIP
If UKIP are to get us our of the EU they must first win public support.
Once we achieve that goal I hope either UKIP will return to it’s small state initial calling or another party will take it’s place in that arena.
For now, vote for UKIP, we’ll see what the terrain is like post-EU.
Again, one must be realistic. We’re not going to get our perfect libertarian scenario. We’re going to get, at best, a reduction in big state waste. We might favour blackbox democracy, where every citizen has a unit in his home and can vote on policy but most people out there are not going to allow that to happen. They prefer the security of the two [three?] party system where they don’t have to think.
UKIP always was and is now, increasingly, a flawed and yet only possible compromise. There is seriously no other game in town just now.
It is possible to be big(ish) state in some areas (nhs, defence) and small(ish) state in other areas (education, pensions).
The present mantra is that one must be big state in ALL things, or small state in ALL things.
ukip has to try and take the best from all ideologies. that way lies success with both traditional tory and traditional labour voters. traditional libdem voters are in a world of their own and so I don’t consider them.
And it still belongs to ordinary people, the debate still belongs to ordinary people. Hence the dirty tactics of Them/Lib/Lab/Con.
Ideologically speaking, UKIP appeals to the abandoned working classes, those that miscreant Blair abandoned when he said those words ‘ we are all middle class now’ and fundamentally speaking, the true working class English people ( not imported voters from the middle east) these have no party and no voice, they will also never vote Tory.
In the same way, I say to Voice of Reason and others – OK, I represent some views anathema to you, I come over as a closet Tory of the old type. You say things I simply think are rubbish. However, here we are, in this blog – can we find any common ground, in favour of a smaller state and more personal freedom? Could we work together?
I’m vastly more interested in working with VofR than underscoring the differences. Can we get there? Can we thrash something out we’d both agree on?
And OoL – what should it be? I’m most uncomfortable about it reflecting only Julia and my views. Yet it is a site many go to who don’t go to our personal sites. I know of people who check in who would not otherwise.
And ditto in the UK and America. Is it possible for people sick of it all to put down weapons and actually work together against the common foe?
You can appeal to far more people with devolution from Westminster and more localism which is what UKIP are offering. When a incredibly centralised government isn’t dictating everything from Westminster you can have differing governance across the country so more of the public get what they want.
All I know is that people must have control of their own destinies and that govt should get TF out of our personal lives. Idealism versus realism:
As always in politics, it’s ‘events’ dear boy, events’ which determine what will be debated. Purity is all very well but when we have such scandals like Rotherham and Bristol actually in the national news, and many other places where these things happen but are not reported, then the point has been reached where it is about change and taking the power away from those who have let these scandals happen.
Phew. Not sure which is the best way to do all this. Lastly, otherwise this will go on forever – I get sense, in that Breitbart comments thread, that I’m reading real people who care, not wonks but people who want things to be OK in the country.
Let’s end with this: