Reading About the UKIP Success

I’ve been reading a lot of comments in various places about the election results. All sorts of reasons have been proposed. Those people who dislike the ‘bedroom tax’ (especially those affected by it) say that is the reason. Others say that it is ‘austerity’; many say that the Libdem wipe-out is because Clegg kowtowed to Cameron in the coalition. Needless to say, not one person mentioned ‘the nanny state’ as a reason to turn against all three major parties. 

The Libdems suffered disproportionately when compared with tories and labour, even though both of those parties suffered also. There may be a reason for that which, again, has not been mentioned.

Who knows how many voters have been voting Libdem for years simply as a protest vote because they like neither the conservatives nor Labour? These voters do not need to be the same people all the time. It is possible that the protest vote is a constantly changing group, with people moving in and out of it all the time.  There again, who knows whateffect the revelations about Cyril Smith may have had? 

But perhaps most of all, people have seen that, when the Libdems got a shot at governing, they turned out to be no different from the other gangs. They blathered about the bonfire of the quangos, but did nothing. In fact, the added their voices to those of the quangos, demanding more and more persecution of citizens who drink or smoke or are fat. 

I wonder how many people have seen pics of Farage smiling broadly while holding a pint and a fag? There are some 10 million smokers and countless drinkers. Drinkers cannot have been totally unaware of the demand from Libdems for unit pricing, PP and a ban on smoking in cars. Couple that awareness with the demonstrable ‘horse-trading’ in the coalition (abandonment of principles) and failure to rein in the EU, along with the clear indications that the Libdems were not a safe protest vote, then you have to ask, “Where are people to go who want to protest?” But when I say ‘protest’, I do not mean simply as a vague antipathy to what has been happening. I mean more as a real way to stop the nonsense, especially the EU. Tories will not do it; Labour will not do it; Libdems will not do it. Who will? 

We also forget that there are some 2 million e-cig owners in the UK. It may well be that most smokers are a-political and shrug their shoulders when the Health Zealots turn the screw up another turn, but e-cig users must surely be much more aware, especially of the EU’s betrayal. A person who has consciously determined to ‘do the right thing’ by stopping smoking and using an e-cig instead must surely be astonished and dismayed by the attack of zealots in the EU on e-cigs. To a man, e-cig users should be absolutely determined to rid us of these fascists.

=====

I have mentioned before that there is no problem in leaving the EU because it is founded on nothing more than a mere treaty. The Government of the day, being Brown’s administration, signed the Lisbon Treaty. No Government can commit future Governments, which means that there is nothing to stop the Coalition ‘lapsing’ the Lisbon Treaty, and reverting to the previous arrangements. The EU commission might pull its face, but there is no reason that other States, with which we trade, should not accept the ‘de facto’. 

=====

What is important, in my view, is to roll back ‘totalitarianism’. I am not using that ‘-ism’ in a vague, political sense. I am referring to ‘one size fits all standardisation’. If French people like their bananas straight, they can have them; if Brits want bent bananas, there is no reason for them not to have them. Likewise, there is no reason that e-cig users should not be able to use juice with a 30% concentration of nicotine if they wish to. All that is necessary, as regards regulations, is that the concentration should not be such as to be poisonous. There is no need for frightening propaganda – establish the facts. But we must also remember that the whole EU attack on smokers is unethical. Again, that shows ‘mission creep’ of the highest order, and it is that sort of thing which UKIP voters object to (even if they are not fully aware of it!). 

=====

So when we think about why voters have voted for UKIP, there are far, far more considerations than the feelings (and in many cases, the causes which are said to have generated the support for UKIP are nothing more than emotions) of people who dislike the bedroom tax and such. Nor is UKIP solely about immigration, either within Europe or from the rest of the world, as Cameron has tried to suggest. If that was so, I would personally regard UKIP as unrealistic. Odd, is it not?, that the EU wants to punish smokers by standardising fags at the lowest common denominator level, while ignoring the differences in social security levels? You would think that one of the first things to be standardised, in order to ensure that general mobility was not based upon ‘benefit levels’, would be social security provisions. But NO – the World Government Zealots press on, risking war and devastation on an unimaginable scale. World Government would mean ULTIMATE corruption, since there would be no way back. 

If the EU is intended to become a sort of USA, it is already behind the times. We must remember that ‘the dream’ of a United States of Europe, as a competitor with the USA, the Soviet Union and the Asian communist bloc of China et al, no longer has force since the blocs other than the USA have broken up. Why have they broken up? It can only be that POLITICAL union is impossible, and the reason for that is that ‘totalitarianism’ (one size fits all) is not possible for groups of people who live in countries with very varying climates,topography and natural resources, to say nothing of different cultures and religions.

I am rambling somewhat, but I think that the rambling is positive. You see, I regard Farage as an orator in the mould of Cicero. What makes orators special is that they can be passionate about FACTS. Cicero famously declared, “Cartago Delendum est”, meaning, “Carthage must be destroyed”. And so it turned out. Farage is a Cicero. He makes factual sense while being passionate. That is not the same thing as Clegg being weepy about the Libdem losses, or Cameron saying what his tutors have told him to say, ’emphasis immigration and thus imply that UKIP is racist, thus you will gain ethnic votes’.  

=====

It remains to be seen whether or not UKIP is more than the oratory of Farage. I hope that they have their strategy right. I hope that they see that the EU is not, in itself, a bad or dangerous idea. It is more that it has become a monster and, in view of the break-up of the communist blocks, a dinosaur in political terms. Thus has it become a vehicle for persecution, whether it be persecution of Cypriots or Smokers or Drinkers or Fatties. 

Would it not be wonderful if our Parliament declared that all prohibitions of pleasures were abolished, in defiance of every puritanical dictat? Remember that the puritans do not themselves create or enforce laws. They do no work and pay nothing. Others do the work and pay.

THE TOBACCO CONTROL INDUSTRY RELIES ENTIRELY UPON THAT SCAM.

We should think about this idea again and again and again.  

Advertisements

4 Responses to “Reading About the UKIP Success”

  1. Harleyrider1978 Says:

    The true reason is always the one they don’t want exposed.

  2. Moss Says:

    So very true Harleyrider, even though numerous people have a pretty good idea!

  3. michaeljmcfadden Says:

    Junican, thank you for an interesting and thorough analysis! Our own flings at breaking out of the mold on this side of the ocean haven’t been as successful. I think our two established parties have such a chokehold on the populace that a UKIP type party over here would face a very steep hill. Actually, our Libertarians are fairly close to UKIP in a number of ways and yet they’ve had a very, VERY hard time securing any wins. The two big parties have managed to instill the idea too firmly that “A vote for anyone else is a wasted vote.” into people.

    :/
    MJM

    • Junican Says:

      I suppose that we are used to having three main parties and sundry others. We also have a tendency to see unhappy MPs group together and form a new party, as the ‘Social Democrats’ did several years ago (now amalgamated with the liberals as the ‘liberal democrats’).

Comments are closed.


%d bloggers like this: