You are currently browsing the monthly archive for July 2007.

SIR Alan Sugar today agreed to sell his Amstrad business in a £125million deal with broadcaster BSkyB.

The Amstrad chief executive and chairman, who is majority shareholder at the set-top box maker, said he could not “imagine a better home” for the business.

Amstrad and BSkyB already have a close relationship as Sir Alan’s firm supplied around 30 per cent of the set-top boxes purchased by Sky in the year to June 30.

Sir Alan, centrepiece of the Job Application programme ‘The Apprentice”, is touted by the BBC as one of our greatest living entrepreneurs, if not the greatest. Lately, of course, he has been found a niche in Macavity’s Lair as some sort of adviser on business.

Question: if he is so good an entrepreneur, why is he having to flog off his core business to Rupert Murdoch?

I think we should be told


The Sunday Times reported this week (here) on disgraced ex-Labour Minister Peter Mandelson who, despite the dishonourable and discreditable circumstances of both his resignations was remarkably given a fat cat job with fat cat salary and fat cat pension arrangements as EU Trade Commissioner by Vanity Blair, has achieved the singular distinction of receiving a reprimand from the EU’s Ombudsman who last week issued a formal censure after a two-year investigation into Mandelson’s refusal to name the lobbyists he had met.

The European ombudsman ruled that Mandelson’s office had been “wrongly blanking out the names of industry lobbyists” in documents released to the public. It said that “disclosure of names of individual lobbyists is essential”. The failure to reveal this information “would constitute an instance of maladministration by the commission”.

Apparently this is standard practice in the corridors of power at EuroNabobery HQ where the all-embracing let off of “data protection” is laughably used to excuse this prevalent bit of secrecy. If there was nothing wrong in any of these relationships there would be absolutely no reason whatsoever for them to be hidden from the general public. So the fact that they go so far in trying to hide the facts of who they are meeting strongly suggests that there is some discreditable reason for their so doing.

But what is worse is that Mandelson remains in post despite being censured for what must, on any view, be seen as a gross act of maladministration.

Of course New Labour apparatchiks are not gentlemen and have no concept of personal honour. Rather they seek the substance and the trappings of high office and once they have their snouts deep in the trough they are deeply unwilling to get them out again: just ask Lord Kinnock whose pension arrangements must be the envy of the age!

Hopefully this scandal will now mature into something more significant and we may yet rejoice in the spectacle of Mandelson’s third resignation for impropriety at which point perhaps the stake will finally be driven through his heart.

One of the remarkable features of the reviving of the Constitutional Treaty by the EuroNabobery is that, almost to a man. they are so smug and satisfied with the feat of obfuscation they believe they have achieved by producing an unreadable and incomprehensible ‘amending’ Treaty that they are almost bursting with pride at their activities, so much so that they cannot wait to blurt out or commit to print the extent of their smugness and the truth of what they are trying to do. I was initially puzzled by this: surely it is madness to tell everyone just how deeply you have conspired and striven to lie, cheat and deceive the European voter as to the true nature of what they are doing?

My puzzlement has gone. I am quite confident that, in their hubris, they actually believe that they have gotten away with the biggest and most wicked lie since European Jewry was methodically conned into calmly boarding so many cattle trucks on trains bound for the East on the premise that they were being ‘resettled’. Thus they feel uninhibited about boasting of their cleverness to those at hand whom they mistakenly (fortunately for us) slavishly share their cheating weasel ways. Equally fortunately some of their interlocutors are not the co-conspirators they believed them to be and these gallant cascittuni*, some of whom must be risking dismissal at least, make sure that evidence of EuroNabobery’s anti-democratic plot makes it into print or onto YouTube as soon as possible. Yet as more and more of these self-destructive statements filter out, you might have expected Emperor José Barroso the First to have issued a self-denying ordinance clamping down on these serial breaches of the code of EuroOmertà.

That His Serene Smugness has not done so must be evidenced by the fact that the latest EuroNabob to be filled with the hubris thing, the European Commissioner for Agriculture, Mariann Fischer Boel, has admitted that the old and revived texts were “as close to each other as was possible”.

Meanwhile MEP Hans-Gert Poettering, President of the European Parliament, another of the serial conspirators who has already been fingered in the these columns, has written a letter to the Daily Telegraph in which he explicitly confirms that the so-called amending treaty is essentially the same as the original constitution. Indeed he expresses his satisfaction at the outcome. Yet he goes on to try and insist that Vanity Blair’s ‘Red Lines’ are worth the paper upon which they were written, something that commentators have already demonstrated to be utterly false, often by reference to utterances of some of Poettering’s fellow conspirators.

The text of the letter I reproduce here:

Sir – You report me as saying that the EU’s new Reform Treaty is in essence a repackaged European constitution (“Brown’s EU fraud exposed by letter”, July 28). The implication of your article is that the Government in London has engaged in some kind of “fraud” against the British public.

At the June Summit in Brussels, I did indeed argue vigorously for maintaining as much of the substance of the existing constitutional text as possible – a position repeatedly asserted by the European Parliament and many governments – and I am naturally pleased with an outcome that achieves this.

Although some important changes were made to the document, a great deal of what was best in the original draft constitution has been retained However, it is important to recognise that the situation in the United Kingdom is quite different to that in the other 26 member states.

Compared to the draft constitution, the Reform Treaty involves a de facto British opt-out from the Charter of Fundamental Rights, as well as a much wider British exemption in Justice and Home Affairs (JHA) than previously conceded.

Since making the Charter legally binding and extending Community competence to JHA were two of the most important features of the original constitution, the deal struck by Tony Blair in June means that – for better or worse – much of its substance will simply not apply in Britain.

Now the only puzzle left is why these anti-democratic Boyars still think they have hoodwinked us all.

Meanwhile The Caliph of Downing Street and his Whirling Dervishes spin around and around ever faster and faster as they endlessly chant the mantra “The constitutional concept, which consisted in repealing all existing treaties and replacing them by a single text called “Constitution”, is abandoned.”

Eventually, like a top, they will spin off the very floor to disaster and ruin.

*cascittuni is the name given by Italians to those who inform on The Mafia or the Cosa Nostra in breach of the code of Omertà.

Mr. Cameron has gone on the BBC to tackle the criticism that has been welling up in the wake of his ill-judged decision to go to Rwanda whilst the worst floods in living memory were affecting his and many other Tory constituencies in the south-west of England.

Firstly and easiest to deal with was a man called Ali Miraj who, until yesterday had not been heard of by 99% of the population.

This gentleman has apparently stood twice in the conservative interest. In 2001 he picked up 7.6% of the vote at Aberavon and came in fourth. Aberavon is as safe a Labour seat as you could wish for and there was no disgrace as such in that but one might hope he could do a little better than fourth.

In 2005 he stood at Watford. Watford was held by the Conservatives throughout the Thatcher and major eras, often with substantial Conservative majorities before falling to Vanity Blair’s Red Tide in 1997. In 2001 the Conservatives were still in second place, 5555 votes adrift of Labour with 33.3% of the vote. The LibDems were in distant third with 17.4% of the vote. In 2005 Mr. Miraj was such a successful candidate that he turned 33.3% of the vote into 29.63% pushing the Conservatives into third place behind the LibDems who now have 31.23%.

Traditionally, before the days of ‘A’ Lists and Golden Parachutes, you fought a no-hoper first time out to show your mettle before being given a safe seat to fight or at least a thoroughly winnable marginal or former Conservative seat that might well be on the cusp of returning to the fold. Mr. Miraj spectacularly failed in Watford, producing what on any view is a disastrous result in a seat where the Conservatives must have aspirations to win if they are to form a government.

You do not normally get given safe seats after that sort of débâcle. Yet he remained on the list of candidates and continued to apply for such, applying to the seat of Witham, a new seat with a notional safe Conservative majority. Mr Miraj claimed that when he applied for the seat, Bernard Jenkin and two other Tory MPs, John Whittingdale and Brooks Newmark, had told him: “Good luck Ali, but I would be shocked if they didn’t pick a white middle-class male.” No other evidence was forthcoming to support this assertion and Mr. Jenkin denied it. Mr. Miraj expressed some complaint at the time that amounted to a veiled accusation of ingrained racism on the part of Tory Associations.

Now he turns up at Mr. Cameron’s office and, if you please, requests a peerage at the earliest opportunity, something which, alas, is no longer readily in the gift of the Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition. But the mere fact that he felt that he could go and ask for such a thing and must have fully expected to receive it suggests a man of considerable arrogance with an enormously high view of his self-worth. When told the reality, that no such offer could be made, he goes off in a huff and engages in a bitter attack on the man he has just asked to give him a peerage.

This was a petulant man who cannot understand why his talents are not automatically recognized and immediately reward. The truth is he is a two times loser who has realized he is past his sell-by date throwing his toys out of his pram. Little real attention ought to be afforded him. If David Davis had said, the earth would have moved. Interestingly his website is offline right now: skulking in the undergrowth no doubt.

As it is, well, for him oblivion beckons.

Lord Kalms is a David Davis and erstwhile donor. He perhaps should have spoken to his protégé first and then adopted the same supportive position that David Davis did over the weekend. Lord Kalms does not stand at the heart of the party and does not sit on its inner councils and one wonders why he felt unable to speak privately of his misgivings as opposed to rushing into print.

With these two what grates is that they allowed themselves to be used by the enemy’s AgitProp arm, the BBC, to attack the Conservative party. It is to be hoped that the men in suits will have been round to seem Mr. Miraj and told him that he need not bother applying for the post of Town Rat Catcher in future as a refusal will only offend him yet again. David Davis can doubtless be persuaded to speak to Lord Kalms and point out the error of his ways.

Graham Brady is in a different position. I reckon he was treated very poorly at the time of his resignation and the manner in which he was trashed to the press was redolent of the very worst forms of Alistair Campbell’s Red Terror. He could and should have been much more sensitively dealt with and few in the party now think that the Grammar Schools issue was anything other than a serious misjudgement by Mr. Cameron and his team in terms of how it was handled. He is Northern MP and is plainly irritated by what has happened. He ought to be told soon that he has not completely blotted his copybook and a way will be found to get him back into a shadow post as soon as maybe. Time to kiss and make up.

I for one feel that we must now exercise self-discipline. I have been forthright in my criticisms in the past few weeks but we must assume that Mr. Cameron now understands he has to trim his sails somewhat. We need to see the whole picture as far as detailed policy is concerned. Hopefully this will have something for everyone in every corner of the party (I hesitate to use old labels such as centre right, right, hard right, centre left and so on since I myself have views that range across the whole spectrum and doubt that such labels are very meaningful today except to BBC producers who like to label anything they do not like as ‘far right’) so that there is enough to entice back voters who have disappeared off to the left, whether to Blair or to the Nut Cutlet & Sandals Brigade or to the right where they have abstained or voted UKIP.

For my own part I intend to try and abjure criticism for now on and urge all who want to get Labour out to do the same. Mr. Cameron has to do his part though, showing that he is responsive to our concerns and does not arrogantly dismiss them out of hand and that, having heard the rumble of unhappiness, he is going to produce a manifesto upon which everyone in the party feels comfortable to fight. We can and must get over this rocky period and get on with the business of opposing Macavity and his Nincompoops.

In the broad picture of things, I am reminded of the great French soldier (yes, they did have them once, before they became cheese-eating surrender monkeys!) Ferdinand Foch, who became in 1918 Allied Surpreme Commander, at a critical moment of the First Battle of the Marne in September 1914:

Mon centre cède, ma droite recule, situation excellente, j’attaque.*

Perhaps Mr. Cameron might like to think and act in the same way.

* “My centre is giving way, my right is retreating, situation excellent, I shall attack.”

The visit of Harry Patch, at 109 years old said to be the last surviving British Infantryman to have seen action in The Great War, to the battlefield of Passchendaele where, as a Private Soldier of the 7th. Bn., The Duke of Cornwall’s Light Infantry, he took part in one of the greatest battles in history, is a deeply poignant moment.Understandably he remains bitter at what he saw then and sees now as the grave waste of men’s lives, especially amongst the PBI, the Poor Bloody Infantry. From his viewpoint it must have seemed like that and no more than that.

This is no place to contemplate the full history of that war, yet it is worth making the point that this was a war which was the first instalment of the struggle to prevent Germany, whether Wilhelmine Imperial Germany or Hitlerite Nazi Germany from dominating and enslaving most of Europe.

How sad that he should be alive to see Tony Blair carelessly sign away that which a million of Private Patch’s comrades died to preserve: The United Kingdom’s independence as a Nation State.

Ironically, given Private Patch’s strictures, the army of which he was a member went on in July 1918 to become quite simply the finest fighting Army this country has ever produced. Then its commanders had finally cracked the puzzle of how to defeat the machine gun the howitzer and the trench mortar and the BEF swept across Northern France and Belgium pushing the defeated German Army back towards the German border. Had the Armistice not come into force on 11th. November of that year, the BEF would have been marching in triumph up Unter den Linden in Berlin by Christmas.

He is the last of those fine men that represents the lost generation of the Edwardian period. It was once mooted that the last to go should be given a full State Funeral. It is to be hoped that that will still happen, so that we may say goodbye once more and pay our last respects to those gallant young men who gave their all for us, a last chance to honour them and grieve for them.

28th. Battalion Canadian Infantry
Younger son of William John Winder & Fanny Garrett Winder (née Drage)
of The Grange, Holcot, Northamptonshire
Born 1892
Killed in Action Vimy Ridge, France

16th. September 1916
Commemorated upon The Vimy Memorial
and upon the

Village War Memorial, Holcot, Northamptonshire


EU Referendum has an excellent post HERE which I commend to all who pass these portals on the topic of the internet and the EU referendum.

From what one reads the internet is being used in significant ways in the USA in elections from those for President of the USA down to town rat catcher, ways in which we are yet to become adept. When the time comes, it is to be hoped that the umbrella organisation which is set up to mastermind the anti-treaty campaign will set aside a sensible chunk of its budget to help us get the message out and the voters in.

I am absolutely certain that in such a campaign we must seek to dominate cyberspace with our message and that the internet will be a crucial medium in educating the public given that the Government propaganda machine and the propaganda arm of the Labour Party and the Europhile party (a.k.a. The BBC) will bring to bear its significant weight against us.

Talking of the BBC, one of the pleasures of such a campaign will be to see how such an institutionally leftist and Europhile organisation squirms as it desperately tries to pay lip service to the concept of partiality but at the same time outrageously supports the pro-treaty campaign. They will not, because of their addiction to Europe and leftism, be able to avoid breaching their duty of impartiality and we shall have to keep a daily, nay hourly check on all their output to suppress as far as possible their bias. If they overstep the mark, I believe the outrage will be such that they find it to be a defining moment in the history of the BBC, the moment when the worm turned and the sentence of death and dismantlement finally gets passed on it.

As to the Referendum itself, EU Referendum is entirely right to make an issue out of the use of the weasel words ” the constitutional concept……is abandoned”. The full quote is:

The constitutional concept, which consisted in repealing all existing treaties and replacing them by a single text called “Constitution”, is abandoned.

Macavity, The Squirt Milliband and other weasels are trying to make out that this means ‘officially’ that the constitution itself has been abandoned. Not so. All it means that the idea of spelling it out clearly in one document so that people might actually understand the enormity of what is about to be done to them and their independence is abandoned, to be replaced by an incomprehensible document that only anorak lawyers can understand which amends all the other treaties in such a way that the constitution remains de jure and de facto intact.

I beg to be forgiven for suggesting above that the original constitution was actually clear enough for ordinary mortals to understand. That was considerably to overstate the true position which is that the Constitution, several hundred pages long and couched in EuroNabobSpeak, was about as digestible as a wet carpet. But one could chew through after a few hours of concentrated thought and discern its true nature, namely that here was a Nation State in foetus.

The solution the EuroNabobs came up with, to have an obscure and totally incomprehensible document which has to be read in conjunction with a whole raft of other documents, was, let us admit, a masterstroke of sorts. Yet, in its very deviousness it has alerted those of us who suspect that the plan is one of EU Statehood all along to the true purpose of the document signed up to by Vanity Blair in the dog days of his Quisling Ministry.

This is where we on Planet Blog can help: to disseminate as much information to the inquisitive public on what the treaty really means.

And when it comes, then we must work as hard as we can for as large a majority as possible so that once and for all we can begin the process of disengaging our great nation from the tyranny that is the EU.

The death today of Phil Drabble aged 93, countryman and presenter of the long running BBC programme One Man and His Dog from 1976-1993 saddens. Although he spent the first half of his life as a factory worker in the Black Country, climbing up the ranks to management level, it was as a countryman that he will be remembered. Initially he did not want to take on the programme, thinking it would not attract any viewers. he must have been amazed and gratified when it attracted eight million of them.

The programme continued until 1999, a solitary beacon of light amongst the dross of reality shows and output chasing the ‘yoof’ audience. The BBC, of course, only cares for the countryside as a backdrop to its producer’s holiday homes. Anything which might smack of approval, for example, of hunting or shooting would never see the light of day and anything it does do on the countryside tends to be about Rambler’s Rights to swarm at will over field and dale, the evils of factory farming or greedy farmers milking the subsidy system.

Mr. Drabble brought to us an enthusiasm and explanation of one of the most ancient of skills, sheep herding with a dog and so enriched our lives.

This story here on the Yellowstone National Park Grey Wolves and the beneficial effects that having wolves on your doorstep can have and just how important each piece of the jigsaw is to the whole reminds us that wolves used to live here too.

Wolves have long been eliminated from Britain and any attempt to reintroduce them is met with howls of fury by sheep farmers and the like. I am unconvinced and think that we could do a good deed for the environment and therefore on behalf of all people if we took the bold step of reintroducing them.

The good news story in The Times is only half-told though. For example, wolves have been hunting and eating the elk and elk leftovers provide food for animals such as ravens, eagles, and bears which also therefore flourish. Wolves also scare elk from streams. With fewer elk near the water, plants that normally grow there, such as willows, can grow taller. Taller trees means more diverse habitat for other animals, especially birds. In addition taller trees provide more food for beavers whose population has increased as a result. A good article on the benefits of the beaver can be found here but beavers are, on balance, good for their environment as well, though there are some downsides.

Wolves have such a big effect on Yellowstone because scientists believe wolves are a keystone species. Keystone species are species on which a large number of other plants and animals depend.

Scotland, and indeed parts of England groan under a surfeit of red deer. They do enormous damage to the land and especially to commercial tree plantings. They will, of course, take some sheep, but that would be a small price to pay (and the Scots farmers will not be slow to ask for their compensation, you may be sure!) for a significant and quite rapid improvement in our habitats. Perhaps we ought to revisit this idea.

The Wolf Trust may be found at this site. They advocate the reintroduction of the wolf, making a sound case that the objections of Scottish farmers, , whilst sensitively to be taken into account, should not, ultimately be allowed prevail, given that they receive huge sums of subsidy without which much hill farming in Scotland would be unviable. Whilst sympathising to an extent with the hill farmers, it seems to me that the greater good can be achieved by allowing the return of the Gray Wolf to our hills and forests.

And then, time also for the Lynx and the Beaver.

Anyone who thinks that removing Mr. Cameron at this juncture is the answer to the present drop in the polls and the sudden outbreak of critical coverage is, I believe, wrong.

One has to contemplate the message that that would send to the electorate about order and stability in the conservative party which I surely that the party is both divided and unable to find a leader who can stay the course. Such a perception will lead inevitably to the electorate either turning to the parties of the left or centre-left or, in the case of those on the right who are unable to stomach the idea of voting for socialism, staying at home or voting for UKIP (if that increasingly moribund organisation continues to exist much longer) and yet another piece of electoral oblivion for the Conservative Party. Anyone who believes otherwise is, I am afraid, misguided and wholly mistaken.

What has gone wrong in the past three months? Much of it comes down to poor judgement and a failure effectively to manage events as they occur.

The first thing that went wrong was the issue of Grammar Schools. This started to run as a story because of the cack-handed way in which David Willetts set out policy on schools. He should have started by praising the contribution Grammar Schools have made and reassuring those areas that still have and continue to want to retain Grammar Schools that they would continue to be supported from the centre. Nothing should have been said to denigrate Grammar Schools as vehicles of social mobility but it could easily have been made clear that for areas where no Grammar Schools exist another route to excellence would be tried.

There followed a failure to close the story down straight away. That is down to Mr. Cameron and the Party’s news managers. Mr. Cameron’s mistake was to stick his fingers up the nostrils of supporters of Grammar Schools by using words like ‘pointless’ and delusional’ in a dismissing their arguments in a manner that was perceived as offhand and arrogant. Intelligent people in our party who espouse a particular policy rightly expect a higher level of courtesy and debate than that. Forcing one minister to resign for a strong expression of opposition to this policy but not so doing to another who was more discreet in his opposition despite that opposition becoming public was also unwise, particularly in the way Graham Brady was trashed by the Spin masters which left a nasty taste in the mouth. The story was then allowed to run and run and Mr. Cameron must take the personal blame for not knocking it on the head after a week at most. Instead it was left to fester.

The second mistake of the year was a curious assumption that Labour’s unpopularity under Blair would inevitably carry over into the Brown era. I would far rather that Blair had soldiered on to the end as he obviously planned to do before giving Brown a few months in office before the next election was suddenly upon him. I am convinced that Blair would have been the most unpopular person on earth by then and Labour in so bad a position that recovery was impossible.

We had forgotten that John Major (surely one of the worst Tory PMs ever) managed, despite being awful, to win by not being Margaret Thatcher and that, many Labour supporters, who had either abstained or voted LibDem did so because of Iraq, would almost certainly move smartly back home if Brown gave even a small sign of changing course on Iraq and ditching some obviously unpopular policies. Brown has done precisely that and by dint of sleight of hand has fashioned a handsome dividend in the polls.

We were extremely complacent about Brown, believing that the rough ride he had been getting earlier this year would also carry over into his premiership. Some in the party advocated keeping a low profile during the Brown coronation waltz to the throne. I think that was a grave error. We should, instead, have matched every puff for Brown with a relentless period of attack on him, his policies, his way of doing business and his Camarilla of Scots and Northern chums and chumettes. At every turn there should have been attacks on the pension scandal, gold sales, stealth taxes, Macavityism, Stalinist methods of doing business, his control freakery, the illegitimacy of his position as a Scots MP ramming through policies for England for which he remains immune from accountability from English voters…Instead he was given a free ride.

The third mistake was the conduct of the two by-elections. One need not go over again the detail of why those went badly. These were two seats which we not held in modern times and, save in the event of a 1983-like event for Labour, are unlikely to do so. Our aspirations should have been lowered to coming second in both and giving Brown a serious fright in Ealing Southall. If one was to pick one particular mistake there, aside from the candidate, it would be the decision to use the phrase “David Cameron’s Conservatives” which was made me cringe and was inevitably a hostage to fortune. So it proved.

Finally, a perception had been allowed to grow that we were did not seem to be attacking the enemy enough or indeed at all. Of this perception Mr. Cameron’s ill-judged decision to swan off to Rwanda whilst the country was going through its worst floods in living memory was but a symptom: it seemed to me to be an obvious decision to make but Mr. Cameron was persuaded otherwise. All he had do to was remember Jim Callaghan’s unfortunate trip to the West Indies during the “winter of discontent” in 1978-79 to realize that there are no votes in nice foreign trips, however good the motive, whilst there are serious problems of this kind at home, only grief.

This year has seen a number of occasions when Labour seemed ripe for attack but the Conservative party seemed not to be utilizing those to best advantage. An unfavourable comparison with the period 1994-1997, when Labour attacked anything that moved if it had a Tory label on it and kept attacking until the last vestige of juice had been extracted from it, can properly be made.

So what now?

Firstly, those of us who have been critical of Cameron must believe that our concerns have been heard and, more importantly, that they will be acted upon. If that is so then Mr. Cameron deserves a further period to show leadership and good judgement and we need to exercise self restraint in allowing him further time to demonstrate that the show is on the road again and that we are eating into and suppressing the Labour lead in the polls. Therefore a period of self-imposed abjuring of criticism is necessary.

Secondly we urgently need policies and to this end the policy review groups must complete their tasks as soon as possible so that, by the time of the conference policies are in place for presentation.

Thirdly, let the attack dogs loose on Labour.

After an excellent showing in the last round of European elections, UKIP has been on something of a roller-coaster since then. The ludicrous Robert Kilroy Silk, effectively sacked by the BBC for some unwise remarks about some or other group of foreigners, had got himself elected as an MEP and proceeded forthwith to believe all the press and media hype about himself to such an extent that he felt inclined to mount an immediate coup against the UKIP leadership. Said coup, consisting of himself and a couple of neutered chihuahaus, collapsed with all the glamour of a dead whoopee cushion and PermaTan went off to found something called Veritas. Since then he has been quiet, thankfully.

Various financial scandals have since beset UKIP. Now they apparently have admitted to having but £5000-10000 in the Bank at the moment, so plainly the arrival of an articulate and personable leader in Nigel Farage has not enthused those with money to spend.

What ever may be the outcome of all this, one does urge UKIP supporters to thrown their hand in with the Conservatives at the next election, even if only as a one off, so as to ensure that, as fellow patriots, we are able better to ensure a referendum on Europe.

I should add that Mr. Farage was the recipient of an email from me to which he did not bother to reply. As I am quite capable of trashing such discourtesy, he should be grateful of the praise I have given him here. Other politicians who do not trouble themselves to be courteous and reply should pay attention.

Blog Stats

  • 3,833 hits
July 2007
« Jun   Aug »