Our new UKIP MP Douglas Carswell has reportedly said that UKIP needs to show an “inclusive face” and not blame immigrants for Britain’s problems. He added that dislike of foreigners is “not merely offensive, but absurd”. And for good measure he made a point of saying that “We should never make the mistake of blaming outsiders for the failings of insiders in Westminster”. Absolutely right. (Nor should we blame energy utilities for high energy prices that are the fault of legislators and regulators)
I think Douglas will find very few UKIP members who disagree with him. Until his celebrated election to Westminster, the centre of gravity of UKIP parliamentarians was of course in the European parliament. In Brussels, we employ many non-Brits (I hesitate even to use the word “foreigners” — these are good friends and colleagues, and they certainly don’t feel foreign). We work with them day-to-day. It’s become almost a cliché for me to add “My lead staffer in Brussels is Italian, and our Leader Nigel Farage is married to a German”.
And we are forging alliances with politicians from other European countries — the sort of people who may well be in government in their own countries, and may be useful contacts, after Independence Day. As Douglas rightly says, there is nothing splendid about isolation, and we are determined to remain good friends, allies and trading partners of continental nations after we leave the EU.
Of course it is a constant theme of our opponents that UKIP is “anti-foreigner”. Perversely, they seek to conflate a managed immigration policy with anti-foreign prejudice, when of course it is no such thing. Indeed the immigration policy operated by the Coalition today is profoundly discriminatory — it discriminates in favour of unskilled Eastern Europeans, and against highly qualified Commonwealth citizens. Mass immigration has created huge strains on our social cohesion and social infrastructure — but Douglas is right. We must blame the politicians who conceived and implemented the policy, not the immigrants who took advantage of it.
We have certainly had recent embarrassing examples of UKIP members making unacceptable comments, and (again, as Douglas says) we must show that these comments are unacceptable to our Party — and we do. And no doubt some UKIP members are attracted to the Party in the mistaken belief that “managed immigration” is a euphemism for anti-foreigner sentiment, despite all our efforts to explain otherwise.
It is important, however, both for our Party and for or ethnic-minority members, that we should avoid giving any impression that we allow any credence to the mistaken accusations of our opponents in this regard.
I watched the interview of Douglas Carswell by Emily Maitliss on Newsnight’ last night, drawn in by the novel item in which they imagined the results of the next election and what role UKIP might play. I should have known better. Why a woman from ‘The Spectator’ allowed herself to be part of this charade baffles me, but there she was in a fifties-styled room with an old wood-encased TV set pretending to watch next May’s events (why this presentation? – who knows what goes on in the increasingly deranged collective psyche of the BBC?). The imagined scenario was that UKIP got only 6 seats, whereas the SNP got 25 and the LibDems 22; the less said about this BBC wishful thinking the better.
Then followed Carswell’s interview in which Maitliss asked boring predictable questions such as “Farage said he didn’t feel comfortable on a train when he couldn’t hear any English spoken – would you feel uncomfortable with that?” Carswell replied that he wouldn’t and that he felt perfectly comfortable with Britain as it is today. Would it surprise Mr Carswell to learn that the majority of UKIP members are in UKIP precisely because they DON’T feel comfortable with Britain as it is today, and feel even more angst about how it might turn out in the future if present trends are allowed to continue? I campaigned for Carswell in Clacton last year, but maybe I wouldn’t have bothered making the journey from the North East if I’d heard him say that beforehand.
UKIP should stand by its original policies and principles. No cowing down to the ‘liberal progressives’!
Hugo I am pleased to see your interesting suggestions and also note your first hand observation that the public just want their country back and self government for the benefit of the British people.
However, whether anybody else or not has noticed, I believe the whole game changed the other day when I understand Cameron and the nation got an honest straight from the shoulder dose of honesty from the chief Hong of the EU Commission (You know that nice chap from Luxembourg, where I believe a commission has just expressed doubts about Amazon and others being illegally supported in their tax affairs) J.C.(Jesus Christ?) Junker(Could he be the originator of Junk bonds?)
Apparently he said something to the effect that the time had come for a divorce, Britain`s marriage with the EU was drifting apart, there was a particular problem that the majority of EU sentiment was for ever closer union and we had made it absolutely clear that the UK was against it and what`s more the UK would not be allowed to negotiate any repatriation of competencies and the free movement of EU citizens was sacrosanct.
Cameron cannot continue to offer this obviously dead in the water policy of negotiation then a referendum, unless he amends it to an immediate post election in/out referendum alone, he will continue to haemorage support.
This is UKIP`s chance, why not point out that the GE is the only guaranteed referendum we are likely to get and why waste valuable time kicking the can further down the road in persisting with if not a marriage but an experiment that hasn`t worked.
A vote for UKIP will mean certain exit from the EU and the ability to get on with our lives and make our own mistakes and triumphs apart from people who say they no longer want us.
Just as a bytheby what is the UKIP current position on TTIP(?) which Cameron is still gagging for and apparently holds such dangers from multinationals being able to act outside participants own laws?
Well said Roger T. It is sadly, beginning to look as we need to monitor any backsliding on ‘promises’ and ‘guarantees’ even closer.
Carswell should get on with his job of representing his constituents, and leave people to think what they will. He should not be under the immpression that M.P’s will lead or draw the agenda of how people will live and think only, with their permissin.
If he thinks that, he might just as well have stayed in the paternalistic, self-interested, EU fawning establishment party that usd to be known as the Conservatives
Amen to that!
Hello Roger. I agree. As someone who helped Douglas get elected, and met the people of Clacton, who are moderate and regular members of the public, they just want their country back and self-government, for the benefit of the British people.
UKIP could benefit hugely, from offering the electorate a phased approach, this would help many people in switching to UKIP and not feeling smeared, also difficult for the media to attack:
1) A, September 2015, referendum for the UK running: agriculture, fisheries, home affairs, justice, less money to EU, while staying in the Single market, i.e. an EFTA/EEA/Single market referendum. In addition, say any ‘new’ eastern European immigrants, can only get a 1 year working visa, after which they return to their country, unless they meet a points system criteria for needed skills.
2) Also a 2017 referendum, for In/Out, or EFTA-bi-lateral
With a Survation poll, last July, showing a margin of 71% pro-EFTA/EEA, to 29% EU/EEA, this would help UKIP get more votes, and energise voters and give a positive vision of where they UK would be going with UKIP in government.
The chance of gaining an extra 2 to 4 million votes, and up to 100 UKIP MPs, is worth a phased approach.
I – maybe it`s me am not a very happy bunny
I am having nightmares of UKIP turning vanilla – no longer fighting a revolution tooth and claw against united vested interests.
I hear silence from our crew of MEP`s are they smarting under Lord Hill`s charge of rudeness?
And the Duo in Westminster, as I stated below, I thought Carsewell`s remarks were giving succour to the enemy.
Now Nigel got up in the European Parliament the other day and alluded to “the enemy within” – he did it advisedly – it wasn`t his first go that was so roundly castigated by all the somnolent failed guilty parties
Have we heard backing in substantial form from any of the above parties – ZILCH
Oh yes Cameron has reacted with another useless fudge today, but he has not tackled the issue comprehensively.
What about the treatment of Muslim women in this country in their own homes – it`s a scandal as big as the” grooming” episodes
What about the m
Muslimisation of schools – not just in Birmingham.
What about the No go areas of Sharia Law that already exist in this country – that`s what brought France to its knees.
Come on UKIP give Nigel some support he`s on to a good thing, when he`s got the lot against him without an answer.
I assume our Muslim members to a man do not support any of the concepts that the fundementals are dishing out.
I`ve only heard the Quilliam foundation so far taking in my opinion a decent view.
UKIP’s complaints about immigration (in particular from the EU) are not aimed at the individual immigrants but at their impact on our economy and national life.
Of course there are some foreign criminals and undesirables who should never have been allowed to come to this country and who should be returned immediately their true risk is detected – the same unfortunately applies to many people with British nationality who go overseas to commit crimes.
But incompetent politicians have allowed so much uncontrolled and unplanned-for immigration that there has been severe consequences for the British education, health and welfare budgets in particular and it has also impacted more widely on our culture and many other parts of our national life such as housing and employment even when the immigrants are honest, hard-working, educated and skilled people.
The coalition government brags about how many jobs it has created but tries to conceal how many in UK are still unemployed because the new jobs were filled by immigrants.
While I agree with the points made by both Roger Helmer MEP in this article, and by Douglas Carswell MP which gave rise to this article, let me add that it is now time to resist the automatic, knee-jerk label of ‘racist’ in any form, especially in the articles in the MSM and ehre especially in the local MSM.
While we must of course attack the politicians – national and local – who are the guilty party to let the circumstances arise in which we find ourselves across the country, it’s time to point out again and again the pernicious role played by the media, locally and nationally.
And it is perhaps time for us to point out that calling criminals to book for their crimes is not racist. After all, Rotherham and other town and cities do show that criminals do belong to certain groups and being mealy-mouthed about clearly naming them does their own communities no good at all.
As Paul Nuttall pointed out – we speak for those who haven’t been listened to for decades, and if we do so sometimes robustly, then it is because the people do so themselves. We’ve had enough of ‘Westminster Speak’!
Lets just get this Immigration business straight..
UKIP has always been the leading if not only organisation drawing the attention of the Nation and the three colluding failed old parties to the condition of the whole country that most services were under strain because it was “Full up”, particularly due to the free flow of cross internal border immigration,which due to EU rules they were unable to do anything about.
The conspirators, have acknowledged their incapability, by trying everywhichway to infer that UKIP is only talking about non-EU immigration.
This business of hating immigrants, of course anybody in their right minds would hate Imams who purvey their fundamental rubbish or the body traffickers,or the criminal element whose least crime is pickpocketingand there are legion of these – perhaps some of them don`t know any better, they are treated like pigs and outcasts by their own governments, but that is no reason they should come here..
Of course you cannot blame those whose wages in their native countries are a small percentage of what they can get here.
But I do feel Mr.Carsewell is making an error in seemingly paying attention to a taunt which is manufactured by the guilty parties, along with the “Racial” taunts which were rebutted at Rotherham.
Never be magnanimous to your enemies when you`ve got `em beat.
It just gives them wriggle room.
,
As with the end of WW2, we were magnanimous to the German people, but not to their leaders, many of whom were hanged. Similarly, the leaders of LibLabCon will have to answer for their “crimes” against the British people, but with their followers we need to be more gentle!
As has been proven by various Tories insulting UKIP voters, it doesn’t work! That principle cuts both ways.
I had intended to avoid mentioning the Germans, but as the obersomethingor others of the EU we should not, exclude their original vision and concept of the EU as a method of winning the war by other means, sorry short on documentation but that is my belief.
As to magnaminity as far as I can determine that was only a device to counter the expansionism of Uncle Joe (secretly supported by the USA in getting rid of our Empire).
As for the demise of German Leaders and primarily their knowledge and responsibility for the implementation of the “Final Solution”
I never have “bought” the line that the mass of the German population knew nothing about the what was going on and thus I think they have a guilty secret that makes me personally look askance at any input from this nation.
Just curious, I thought I might have had a reaction on this, even if it was to tell me I`m the only “odd-ball” in UKIP – or am I just offending against PC and UKIP is not now officially against PC – sort of Vanilla.
Faint heart never got Roger a fair lady”.