Britain

Sandi Toksvig’s Hitler Joke & The Birth Of The British (Left Wing) Tea Party

Samuel Hooper2 Comments

Nigel Farage - Hitler Moustache

 

When is it okay to make obscene Hitler comparisons and to mock cancer survivors, while still claiming to be an enlightened, privilege-checking, compassionate progressive?

Well apparently if your name is Sandi Toksvig and you are speaking at the Hay Festival – the “Woodstock of the mind“, according to Bill Clinton – then you have a license to do just that while still being taken seriously as a decent, responsible individual.

The Spectator gives an account of Toksvig’s inflammatory off-the-cuff remarks:

Toksvig saved her most cutting remarks for Nigel Farage. ‘I watched the count for South Thanet and I found myself cheering for the Tory candidate,’ she told the audience. ‘I hate Farage for that, I really do. He made me cheer a Tory, the b—-rd.’

She then went on to refer to the testicle the Ukip leader lost to cancer, joking about what Farage and Hitler have in common: ‘Farage kept having pictures of him defaced with Hitler moustaches. I mean he’s not really like Hitler. Okay, he has a German wife, he hates foreigners, he only has one testicle and he was defeated.’

Imagine now that Sandi Toksvig had launched a crass verbal tirade against a senior politician of any other party while living it up at the Hay Festival. Suppose that she had made a joke about David Cameron’s late son, Ivan, or chortled to herself as she regaled her audience with a wisecrack about Ed Miliband’s deviated septum. Hell, imagine that Toksvig had just made fun of Ed Balls’ mild stammer.

If Toksvig had done any of these things it would have been a national scandal – guaranteed front page stories in all the national newspapers. Forget any more lucrative gigs on BBC Radio, Toksvig would have counted herself lucky to work as a volunteer on hospital radio after so openly and tastelessly mocking an establishment party leader.

Continue reading →

Who Should Be Able To Vote In The EU Referendum?

Samuel Hooper1 Comment

UK British EU Flags - Brexit - European Union - Secession Referendum

 

It goes without saying that the loudest voices on the pro-European side are desperate for the coming EU referendum to be open to EU nationals currently living in Britain, as well as British citizens. From their selfish perspective, subverting our democracy in this way is a price well worth paying in order to inflict their desired outcome on the rest of us.

But now the europhiles are reaching for another rhetorical weapon in the fight: the fact that Britain, through a number of bizarre constitutional quirks and the pernicious rules of the EU, already allows select groups of favoured non-citizens the right to participate in our democracy.

Mihir Bose, writing in the Guardian, is already taking a gleeful victory lap on the subject, suggesting that eurosceptics are somehow being craven or ideologically inconsistent for objecting to the idea of EU citizens voting to keep Britain chained to Europe while not speaking out against these other cases of non-citizens receiving the franchise:

What [eurosceptics] neglect to mention is that even now you do not necessarily need to be a UK passport holder to vote in a general election. Indeed, for decades the UK has allowed citizens from other countries the right to select members of parliament, a right that even extends to citizens of three EU countries. They are part of a much larger group of 72 countries that includes all Commonwealth territories, British overseas territories and British crown dependencies. Fiji and Zimbabwe may be suspended from the Commonwealth but their citizens resident here have not lost their right to vote in UK elections. The three special EU countries are Ireland, Cyprus and Malta. They enjoy this privilege because while they may now be part of the EU, they once had an older allegiance to a much greater union: the British empire. The sun set on the empire long ago, but its legacy lives on.

What makes all this fascinating is that while Eurosceptics are happy to raise all sorts of scare stories about the EU, these other voters are an issue they are reluctant to discuss. Indeed, as far as the UK electoral franchise is concerned, this is now the great elephant in the room, as I was made well aware during the recent election. At one husting, I had the chance to raise this issue with three panellists from the main parties: Michael Gove for the Tories, Ivan Lewis for Labour and Baroness Kramer for the Lib Dems. Lewis disapproved of my even raising the issue. Baroness Kramer, who did not seem to know that non-citizens could vote, justified it on the grounds that this was a wonderful example of British eccentricity. Gove just said that he did not want to see any change in the franchise.

More fascinating was how Ukip reacted. Some weeks before the election, at a British Future event, Douglas Carswell, now the only Ukip member of parliament, made a very reasoned speech to show that Ukip was not an anti-immigrant party. But when I raised this issue, he made it clear that this was not a question Ukip would touch, remarking that the British system was so complex that to lift the carpet would mean all sorts of things would crawl out. How strange to hear this from a party whose leader, Nigel Farage, makes so much of the fact that he is prepared to go where no other politician dares.

Continue reading →

Voting UKIP – No Buyer’s Remorse Yet

Samuel Hooper7 Comments

 

Having made the immensely difficult decision to abandon the Conservative Party (which itself has largely abandoned its own conservatism in the successful hunt for centrist votes) and lend my vote to UKIP in the general election, I have been waiting expectantly for Ukipper buyer’s remorse syndrome to kick in with a vengeance.

Surely by now, in the cold light of day – and following a period of rather amateurish internal warfare over the party leadership – I should be consumed with confusion and shame at my actions? Well, two weeks on and I’m still waiting.

In some ways, this is only to be expected – UKIP actually declined in terms of Westminster representation, and to suffer buyer’s remorse one has to actually have gained something. And since a majority Conservative government was the least worst option of all the possible outcomes involving the major parties, again there is little cause for regret – we will finally have our EU referendum and a few more token efforts will be made to restrain the growth of the state.

But this isn’t why I have no regrets about my voting decision. I stand behind my choice because nearly every objection to UKIP’s policies – both in politics and the popular culture – is based on a two-dimensional cartoon villain caricature of what it is to be a small government eurosceptic, and because so very many of the people leading the anti-UKIP mockery are virtue-signalling simpletons who couldn’t construct a coherent political thought if one came packaged with IKEA-style self-assembly instructions.

Take this effort by Russell Howard, released just before the election, shown in the video above.

Continue reading →

Traditions Are The Foundation Of Our Future – We Destroy Them At Our Peril

Guest Contributor1 Comment

State Opening Of Parliament - Queens Speech

 

By Ben Kelly, blogger and editor of The Sceptic Isle.

A healthy respect for tradition and custom is a guarantor of stability and a means of conserving what is good and worth preserving about our country, its culture and its political system. I therefore find it regrettable that so many people pour scorn on tradition or are utterly baffled as to why it is so important. It is of particular concern when these sentiments are expressed by members of the ruling class.

Whenever I hear self-proclaimed “modernisers” lamenting the traditions of parliament such as the rituals and dress I get very nervous. It seems peculiar to me for them to join an institution with such a strong intent to transform it, to tear up its very roots. It isn’t that I fear change or that i’m against reform and refreshment when it is necessary, but I am very much against change for the sake of change. The same resentment of tradition can be seen in all walks of like but it is particularly troubling to see amongst modern politicians tinkering with centuries old traditions without the appropriate reverence.

Nothing pains them more than the awesome historicity of ceremonies such as the opening of parliament and the Queen’s speech. They look around the Palace of Westminster and see too many humbling echoes of the past and the last thing self-aggrandising “modernisers” want is to be humbled. They hate the ceremonial dress, the pomp and circumstance, the rituals that act as stark reminders of what has gone before, from the searching of the cellars to the slamming of the Commons door in the black rod’s face.

Continue reading →

The Battle For UKIP’s Soul, Part 2

Samuel Hooper3 Comments

Douglas Carswell - Nigel Farage - Battle for UKIP's Soul

 

Only a few short years ago, this blog would never have imagined uttering the shocking words “I agree with Nigel Farage”. But in the ongoing internal warfare within UKIP, Farage’s latest intervention is a welcome one.

Yesterday, this blog wrote about the coming battle for UKIP’s soul, as evidenced by a growing movement within the party urging them to move to the political centre, a potentially fatal error of judgement.

This misguided movement should be distinguished from other calls to change the tenor and tone of the party’s messaging – this blog fully supports a calmer, more reasoning style of political engagement by eurosceptics and advocates for individual liberty, but not at the expense of jettisoning core commitments to smaller government and increased personal freedom.

And on this front, Nigel Farage’s latest statement gives some encouragement. From the Telegraph:

Nigel Farage has refused calls to move to the centre ground as tensions with his deputy and only MP grow ahead of meeting with MEPs this week.

The Ukip leader said he would continue to speak out on controversial topics like immigration, despite pressure from his deputy chairman Suzanne Evans and Douglas Carswell.

In television interviews on Sunday, Miss Evans had said that Ukip “needs to go” more into the centre ground, while Mr Carswell said Mr Farage had to moderate his “tone”.

But a defiant Mr Farage told The Daily Telegraph: “I will continue to lead Ukip as I have, broadening policies.

“They don’t want the party to attract opprobrium but if you take on the political class on tough issues you attract opprobrium.

Quite right too. The constant scorn and attacks, just for holding political opinions that would be considered perfectly common sense and mainstream in other countries such as the United States, can become wearing after a time. And as the ad hominem attacks increase the temptation to moderate the message can be very strong indeed. But it must be avoided – for now is the time for eurosceptics and believers in smaller government to stay the course, not dilute their message.

None of this is to argue that UKIP should not tone down the anti-immigration rhetoric or stop courting controversy where it can be avoided. For instance: though the impact of EU migration on the unskilled British workforce is undeniable, there is probably no further mileage to be gained from pointing this out. And though it may be quite right to insist that the National Health Service should cater for British citizens and taxpayers first and foremost, using the example of foreign HIV sufferers was always going to attract the ire of Britain’s virtue signallers and professional outrage-mongers.

So by all means, UKIP should stop doing the things which unnecessarily drive up the party’s negative ratings, and even prepare to take a back seat in the coming Brexit campaign if this will give the broader eurosceptic movement the greatest chance of success. But  it would be unpardonable to change the manifesto commitments to national defence, refocusing international aid, simpler and flatter taxes, welfare reform and smaller government just because they do not fit with a “centrist” political strategy.

Nigel Farage was quite right when he said that opposing the bland British political consensus will attract opprobrium – you know you’re really closing in on the target once you start taking heavy enemy fire. Perhaps UKIP’s leader has started following this blog, which said precisely the same thing (in almost the same words) only yesterday:

Suzanne Evans apparently now believes that UKIP and conservatives in general are to blame for the often hysterical response of many people to right-wing ideas, and that they need to change their “brand” so that people want to “sing and dance” about their beliefs rather than remaining shy Tories or shy Ukippers. But this misses the point. To avoid public opprobrium would be to adopt the same tired, worn-out centrist policies which have led the establishment parties to such unpopularity and irrelevance.

UKIP received just under thirteen per cent of the national vote in the general election because that is currently more or less the ceiling of support for eurosceptic, quasi-libertarian thinking in Britain. But the correct response to this fact is not for UKIP to change the policies to encompass a larger number of potential voters. The correct response is to engage in debate and win over more people to the pro-sovereignty, pro-personal freedom worldview – raising the ceiling rather than lowering the ambition.

UKIP’s future currently stands on a knife-edge, both in terms of ideological direction and the party’s continued political viability – though the two are inextricably linked. On the one hand, there is the impulse to welcome the new ranks of ex-Labour supporters by adopting a more left-wing, big government approach, but on the other is the fact that any move to the centre or embracing of the stale post-war consensus is likely to result in UKIP ultimately becoming seen as just “more of the same”.

The short term political benefit of reducing negative headlines and winning over fickle left-wing voters without doing the hard work of really changing hearts and minds in favour of an anti-big government, pro-freedom agenda is just that: a short term solution. It may temporarily increase support and polling numbers, but only at the expense of shredding UKIP’s hard-won claim to represent a genuinely different political choice.

Britain has more than enough parties eager to bang on about “our NHS”, mindlessly defend the public sector and blindly support the EU, all as part of their grubby quest for centrist support. We do not need another such party.

And UKIP must follow Nigel Farage’s lead and resolutely refuse to become just another party of centrist compromise and disappointment.