UKIP's SUCCESS MEANS MISERY FOR OTHERS.

UKIP's success in Thursday's by-elections has certainly stirred things up.

In Clacton, it was always expected that the former sitting MP, Douglas Carswell, would win after switching his allegiance from the Conservative party to UKIP. What wasn't quite expected was that he'd increase his share of the vote and gain the support of almost 60% of voters, nor that the Liberal Democrats would be all-but wiped out, receiving only a miserly 483 votes.

In the Manchester constituency of Heywood and Middleton, a seat previously held with a comfortable majority by Labour, UKIP were expected to do well and, perhaps, get as much as 30% of the vote. In the event, they gained very nearly 40% and almost won the seat; Labour held on by their finger tips with a majority of just 617. To add to Labour's concerns, this constituency was held with a majority of over 11,000 in 2005 , a figure which reduced to 6,000 in 2010 and has now all-but disappeared.

Inevitably, all 3 main parties have done their usual 'head-in-the-sand' act and explained UKIP's success away as a blip or nothing to worry about. They remind us that this was 'only a by-election', that 'turn-out was low' or that 'there were special circumstances'. Who do they think they're kidding ? For the Conservatives, 'Dave' maintains a stance of telling us that a vote for UKIP is really a vote for Miliband, hoping that this thought will deter Tories from defecting. He also refuses, point-blank, to alter his own course or contemplate any sort of deal with his bete noire. 

Labour have always believed that UKIP were a threat to the Tories and, probably, of benefit to themselves; they've simply ignored the perceived right wing interlopers. However, a few recent by-elections and now the Heywood result have woken them up to the truth - that UKIP are a threat to any sitting MP who has failed to represent his or her constituency effectively or has simply 'toed the party line'.

As for the LibDems, UKIP are no direct threat to them. However, the LibDem vote has already been severely damaged by their coalition with the Conservatives and now an upswell in support for UKIP, seen as the 'anti-politics party', might well see their share of the vote fall to levels last experienced decades ago.

Immediately following the results Miliband minor has come under criticism for his leadership, or lack of it. Indeed, there's now renewed chatter about whether or not he's the right man for the job and whether the public see him as a potential Prime Minister. The strongly expressed opinion is that they do not. However, replacing him at this late stage in the Parliament is almost impossible, so Labour are stuck with him, like it or not, and the best that they might achieve is to bring in one or 2 old senior figures to bolster their front line.

Clegg is also untouchable, for now, as leader of the LibDems and it's difficult to see what he, or any alternative leader, could do that would make much difference to their short-term prospects. They are simply bracing themselves for a shocking result in next May's General Election and must contemplate losing many, perhaps half, of their current Parliamentary strength.

Which leaves the Conservatives and their incumbent, 'Dave'. They have another serious test to face in November when the electors of the Rochester and Strood constituency in Kent go to the polls. This is a seat previously held by another Tory defector, Mark Reckless, and it's likely to provide more pain for the Conservatives. Labour and the LibDems are likely to make little effort to win the seat and will leave it to Conservatives and UKIP to fight over, which may make life even more problematic for the Tories. Defeat for the Conservatives will ring alarm bells at Tory Central and will bring more and louder calls for the party hierarchy to respond to the UKIP threat. Recent polling suggests that UKIP will, indeed, win this seat as well though whether they'll hold it at the General Election is a different matter. Nonetheless, while 'Dave's position is not currently under threat, defeat in Rochester and failure to respond to the clamour from his back benches may well see him overthrown after May's elections.

Interestingly, all three main parties may well have new leaders by this time next year. There are jolly times ahead !

LIVING WAGE MEANS CUTS IN BENEFITS.

Miliband minor, reputed leader of something called "The Labour Party", has come up with another vote-winning wheeze; he's promising to introduce the "living wage" should his mob be elected to power in 2015.

 

Notwithstanding the nonsense of the "living wage", what Miliband has not exactly dwelt upon is that every penny extra which an employee would receive in their wage packets would be taken away by the benefits' system. The total paid to families in tax credits, housing and council tax benefits would be reduced to compensate for the extra employment income and, overall, the vast majority of recipients would be no better off. The one lasting effect of Miliband's proposal would be a significant additional burden on businesses, not to mention public services such as health, education and local government.

 

The additional wages, without additional productivity, mean rising costs, higher prices and inflation; people will not be better off. Miliband's policy in this direction is nothing but a cynical attempt to con voters into voting for his misbegotten bunch of hypocrites. Don't be fooled. 

MILIBAND : AN EMPTY MAN IN AN EMPTY SUIT.

Listening to Ed Miliband on television this morning laves one wondering how anyone could possibly vote for this man. To borrow from Winston Churchill "An empty programme came on and Ed Miliband was it's star"

 

While insisting on his rather silly re-branding of the old "New Labour" to his bright and sparkly "One Nation Labour", Miliband failed to answer any of Andrew Marr's questions though Marr, as a bit of a BBC leftie himself, also failed miserably to press home his own points. Miliband simply made a whole load of incredibly vague comments, which some will undoubtedly pick up as actual policies, and basically said that he'd make sure we were all better off, except those "very rich" people who'd pay for all his largesse.

 

Miliband is a typical, but rather poor, politician. He wipes away the past with a sweep of the hand as if he was in no way associated with it. He tells us that he would do everything very differently from his predecessors, notwithstanding that his real freedom to do so would be heavily restricted. He promises the earth with loads of sugary nonsense and, in common with all of his predecessors, would deliver nothing but misery for us all. In common with his recent predecessors of all parties, his overriding aim is to gain power and he'll promise whatever he needs to in order to achieve it, regardless of whether it's good for the country and its people or not or whether he could actually Implement it or not.

 

Shockingly, today's "Andrew Marr Show" also presented us with the maniacally left wing Polly Toynbee and the even more bonkers Caroline Lucas, with only the very middle of the road Matthew Parris as a counterweight. It was, in effect, a perfect example of the BBC's version of balance and political impartiality. I can't wait to see how they approach the Conservative Party conference nest week.

WILL MILIBAND AND HIS ILK NEVER LEARN ?

You can always rely on Labour to promise to spend money that isn't there.

 

With their annual conference about to get underway, Ed Miliband has finally come out with a few scraps in an effort to keep his followers happy. Unfortunately, the latest round of promises are nothing but political cant and attached to the usual rhetoric about 'taxing the rich'.

 

The only possible reason that Miliband and his clan should promise to reverse the current government's changes to housing benefit is vote-catching. That tenants in council-owned property have historically been able to claim a higher level of housing benefit than those in privately owned homes was a nonsense and needed to be stopped. The claims Labour has made about the change being a 'bedroom tax' are ridiculous and to reverse the change would be a shocking and unwarranted act. It will also cost money which the government does not have.

Something that would cost us all is his additional commitment to increase the minimum wage. Rather than extolling people to live within their means, or reducing taxes, it's always been Labour philosophy to hand out cash, someone else's that is, in a pointless effort to make the lower paid better off. All it actually achieves is a general uplift of all wages which can only be paid for by increasing prices, taxes and borrowing; the supposed 'poor' don't benefit in any way and everyone suffers, as we all know only too well from the efforts of the previous Labour government.
 

Next, Rachel Reeves, a horribly nasal and earnest shadow treasury person, has separately said that people earning up to £60,000 are not rich and will not be taxed more under a Labour government. That the first part of her statement is blatantly true can't be denied, but the second will deserve serious scrutiny. We already know that Labour, under the Blair / Brown axis, made similar promises about income tax and promptly increased national insurance. There is nothing to say that a future Labour government would be any less weasel-worded and anyone with anything will be well advised to think very carefully before accepting Ms Reeves words at face value. Anyone with an income of more than £150,000 pa, the 'rich' according to Labour, can expect to be absolutely hammered, of course.

 

Thirdly, another of  the old guard, Yvette Cooper aka Mrs Balls, has said that Labour would guarantee what she refers to as "wraparound" childcare for the parents of all primary care children, meaning that they would not have to bother about little Johnny or young Tilly at all between the hours of 8am and 6pm. Why this is considered to be a good thing escapes me. Far too many parents already give far too little attention to their children and pass them over to others at every opportunity, some of the consequences being the appalling behaviour of hordes of our teenagers, their addiction to their 'phones and the internet, their lack of meaningful educational achievement and their total lack of any moral compass and sense of decency or self respect. What we need is a reduction in the outsourcing of our childcare and much more input from parents, not even more state intervention and support.

 

How they would pay for all these promises hasn't been explained but I think we can all be pretty certain that anyone who has anything will find that they become poorer. Buying and owning a house will become even more expensive, indirect taxes will rise dramatically and inflation will soar. While you can take the boy out of Labour, there's no known way of taking Labour out of the boy, and Miliband and his friends still have a basic belief in a big state funded by excessive taxation, despite the shocking consequences of the Blair / Brown years from which we are only just beginning to recover.

 

We can only hope and pray that enough of the population has enough sense to ensure that Labour never again gets the chance to destroy our nation as it so nearly did between 1997 and 2010.