Cookie Notice

However, this blog is a US service and this site uses cookies from Google to deliver its services and analyze traffic. Your IP address and user-agent are shared with Google along with performance and security metrics to ensure quality of service, generate usage statistics, and to detect and address abuse.

Wednesday, 14 August 2013

UKIP and the Bloggers

If you've been following Richard North's last couple of posts on EU Referendum, or those of Autonomous Mind, both Blogs the editorial position of which is not so distant from this, the pain is almost palpable. Their disappointment at what they think UKIP should have been and the reality is intense. 

And yes, I've no illusions about either Nigel Farage or Godfrey Bloom. 

The point, though, is this. Richard and AM are formidable intellects who understand clearly the law and process around any modification of our EU membership. The rest of us aren't, and are mostly looking to give Cameron a massive kicking in 2014 for all the lies, the reversals and the disappointments. And the bigger the kicking he gets in 2014, the more chance that many of us will return to vote Cameron in 2015.

That's the reality, simple and unsophisticated. And it really wouldn't matter if Farage started wearing Lederhosen and an Onion seller's beret, became gay and played a descant recorder - he'd still be the vehicle, the mechanism, for delivering the kicking. Until 2014, he's teflon coated.


Anonymous said...

FFS, the whole rotten edifice is so bent as to be elliptical. Rotten boroughs, the Chartists, it's groundhog day all over again.

I dearly hope, though I do not expect that, my fellow countrymen and gentlefolk all - give the whole of gang of thieves - LibLabCon a good kicking at the next GE.

Musing as you do, thinking of the charade that is called Parliament these days.
In the HoC, the Cons never give the opposition a really hard time [except Dave v MiliTrot].
Tories sit with the yellow slime, the communists and ranks of common purpose fabians sit on the other side. The whole sorry rabble - are no different to each other in style, substance or personality.

Lap dogs, running dogs, nodding dogs [watch PM's question time] - OK there are a few good uns but by a long chalk there are not enough decent, honest, or worldly wise and experienced MP's - no wonder they let the EU walk all over them.

All said and done, until such times as we rid ourselves of the automaton political party researcher, parachute drop champagne Socialistas and group think EU statists, then the people will have no representation.

Failing to achieve real representation, or to give power back to the people who pay the bills - you and me, what we need, is control of the purse strings, to actually take George and his 'team' out of the equation.
Take George 'out' - now there's a thought, mind you he couldn't be worse than the Fife five knuckle shuffler, "hoots mon, I canae find ma moral compass".

There must also be, a separation of the powers between the executive and the legislature.

IN effect, what is needed, is the need to trash this crappy, corrupt and bent system.

In the meantime, throw in a spanner, seize up the grinder and vote UKIP.

DeeDee99 said...

I'm a UKIP member and I realise the Party is far from perfect.

However, it is the only Party available which stands a reasonable chance of not only delivering LibLabCON a good kicking in the ballot box, but also breaking up their cosy cartel.

We will not get any form of power returned to the people all the time The British Establishment has its solid tripartite grip on Parliament.

Tripods are wonderfully stable things; it's almost impossible to knock one over. Until one of the legs gets broken.

UKIP is aiming to severely damage, if not break, one of the legs.

It's all very well Dr North etc planning their Harrogate Agenda - and very laudable aims they are. But very few people are listening and most people, even if they heard what he has to say, won't understand what on earth he's going on about.

They DO understand Farage and UKIP because - for all his/our faults - we speak their language.

As Raedwald says, the first objective is to deliver the biggest kicking possible in May 2014. If the British people vote UKIP in their millions, it will be extremely difficult for LibLabCON to continue claiming that EU membership has the support of the British people. The next objective is to completely destabilise the 2015 General Election: we're out to cause chaos.

At least one of the legs of the tripod will be badly damaged.

Curmudgeon said...

The complaints about UKIP are a case of the best being the enemy of the good. Better an imperfect anti-EU party enjoys success than none at all.

Anonymous said...

I agree Raedwald... I reckon that Richard is a brilliant researcher... He has also written/co-written some very good books.

But it has to be said, I haven't even gone to either site, because I know what will be happening there... Particularly as it is Godfrey that is currently being discussed.

Richard was a member of UKIP and he wanted to stand as an EP candidate, but was passed over in favour of Godfrey and ever since, he has had a "special place in his heart" for that man.

Whilst I am almost in awe of the stuff Richard in particular comes up with, by his attitude I am often reminded of that scene in "Monty Python's Life of Brian" where John Cleese is being rude about any faction of Judaean liberation other than his own, whilst his own consists of a tiny (but perfect) claque.

Tony Harrison said...

Raedwald old chap, you are a sound bloke so how could you contemplate returning to the fold and voting for Cameron in 2015 - under any circumstances? He deserves a kicking in 2014 - and in 2015 as well. His Party deserves a similar kicking, or even worse, for having permitted this shallow third-rate PR creep to lead it.
You want to avoid a Labour government? Don't we all - but perhaps the way to achieve that, at least in the medium term, is to show that there really is an alternative to voting Con, Lab or LD.
If you vote for Cameron at all, you indicate approval for the man and his lack of principle. It is essential that everyone votes on principle. I shall vote UKIP in 2014 - and in 2015.

Anonymous said...

Having read some other comments now, I would like to make a couple of further points...

DeeDee made a remark about understanding Farage... I don't think that many people really do understand him, I have known him on a "shake hands" level for around twenty years, but my parents know/knew him very well, as does my son... I have often been somewhat disappointed by stuff that goes on in UKIP, and as a liberal right-winger, I have always regarded UKIP as a right-wing party (as opposed to the BBC's "far right"... they couldn't be further from the reality), but I recently attended a function organised by my son at which Nigel was the guest speaker, there were 300 guests.

And I suddenly realised, that UKIP is not partisan in that way, it welcomes people from all political persuasions/ religions and any other human spectrum.

The one enemy is "that lot"... the political classes, those that want to take civics/politics and remove the people from it. The EU is obviously a target, because it removes so much sovereignty, but the real question, is... Who let them have it?

Well the answer is our politicians, and our communist/communitarian bureaucrats. These are the real enemy.

One often used to hear Farage going on about "fag paper"... And it is true... the enemy is within. it isn't the EU... The communist/communitarian claque have ceased trying to attract our votes and instead they have taken over our language, they have taken over our bureaucratic institutions, like local councils, departments of state, the NHS, the social services and the education systems.

The LibLabCON in parliament has people from the same background... with their PPE's and their interchangeable relationships. Hardly any have ever done a proper job, and yet all of them deem themselves qualified to not only pontificate (I do that!), but also to rule through edict and regulation.

So that is the real enemy, and we must unite (warts and all) to defeat it.

Weekend Yachtsman said...

I still think Farage has made too much of a fool of himself. People at large are now convinced he's a shallow buffoon with poor judgment, particularly since the Bloom fiasco.

imho UKIP's best is behind them.

Dannyb said...

I'll go with Farage. He's done a better job than the soaring intellects and their surprising bitter jealousies.

Anonymous said...

Weekend Yachtsman...

F**king People's Front of Judaea?

F**k O**!


Peter Whale said...

Raedwald you are absolutely correct and sum up my view perfectly.The way that RN and AM parrot the same line against UKIP, Hannan, Carswell etc is putting people off their Harrowgate Agenda. To point out where policies are incorrect is fine, to denigrate personalities on the scale they do is obsessive. Their way or no way, that seems to be their message isn't that what we have got at the moment from the lilabcon. Let UKIP break the liblabcon status quo then there is a chance for the Harrogate Agenda to creep in.

Anthem said...

Have been sort of following the comments over on AM but got quite tired of reading them to be honest - childish squabbling.

It is quite clear that beneath the perhaps more valid criticisms of UKIP policy and procudure, there is a very strong clash of egos going on.

apparently Mr Farage doesn't like to work with people who are more intelligent and knowledgeable than he is. Hmm... I wonder who they could be referring to?

Now AM is saying that a political party is the wrong vehicle to take us out of the EU and that the NO Campaign is being headed by someone entirely unsuitable. Hmm... I wonder who should lead the cause, then?

As you rightly say, the whole point of this is to give the establishment a kicking they won't soon forget.

For all their faults (and I would suggest that they have less than LibLabCon combined) UKIP represents the only credible means of delivering that kicking.

As such, I would suggest to all that if you're not with LibLabCon then get behind UKIP and stop undermining the only chance we've got of restoring some semblance of sanity back to the country.

Bill Quango MP said...

It is also of vital importance to UKIP members – or it would be if the party were not shaping up to be closer to a cult than a political party. Cult members do not want analysis. They demand uncritical fealty.

They are not wrong. Clearly they are not wrong. The message and the man is far, far more important than the detail.

Miliband managed 3 years without a single serious policy.
Blair managed 4 and a landslide election win with the vaguest of vague promises and an 'aspiration' manifesto.
"Beppe" Grillo managed 25% of the vote on an anti-vote message.

So worrying about details or being concerned by a leader cult is not important. Getting popular support is.

Unfortunately Farage alienates as many as he attracts. He has a buffoonery about him. But not in that comedy, charismatic Boris way. More a kind of pub bore, golf club, office manager way.

Still...even with those limitations UKIP have done well.

And I like your strategy. Give the man the boost & publicity in 2014 --where it really doesn't matter what happens, then see how likely a Miliband or Mili-Cable coalition looks in 2015.

That's something very likely to happen that those who vigorously oppose voting for the 3 should consider. The what could be worse than Dave? question can be answered by that. A Miliband-Balls-Cable government is something I would consider much, much worse.

There is your answer.

Anonymous said...

It's really simple. I want to punish someone for deliberately lying to me. I don't care about the detail, I just want to damage someone's career.

Coney Island

visc said...

@right_writes: I agree the enemy is the political class but your analysis does not go far enough.

Your question "who let them have it?" is much wider. When the "them" is the EU indeed it is the our 'politicians, communitarian bureaucrats.' To that I would add corporatists.
Once we have dealt with the EU the same people will remain in power. You will see no change.

I would put the root cause at the modern political party system and our collective infantilisation.

We have abdicated our political responsibility, our freedom of action our individual sovereignty.

We have let the politicians do what they want, as long as they give us warm vague promises. But the problem is much wider than just the small clique of immediately identifiable politicians, but to Quangos, Corporates, Councils also.

We live in a culture of childishness, prostituting our sovereignty through mute consent.

Let us hope times are indeed a changing ...

visc said...

I also forgot to add blatant corruption - you only have to look at energy policy whether windmills or the latest fracking drive to see this in operation.

Elby the Beserk said...

Correct. UKIP are a means to an end, and I will be voting for them in the 2014 EU elections regardless. 2015 is a different matter, however - as matters stand I can't see me ever voting in a GE again. Except were it necessary to vote tactically to keep Labour out, as they are the worst of a very bad bunch. However, that will not happen in our part of the world, where Socialists are not welcome, and know it as well - I've been down this part of the world some eight years now, and not once have we been canvassed by a Labour bod for any form of election.

Anonymous said...


I of course stand corrected... I forgot the corporates... I am normally not so errant.

It is after all the holy trinity of fascism... Bureaucrat, Politician, Corporate leader.

Anonymous said...

Bureaucrat, Politician, Corporate leader indeed - tripartite national Socialism.

Carnwennan said...

Richard's chief issue with UKIP seems to be that they have failed to explain to the public just how difficult it would be to leave the EU. A problem to which only he has a fully thought through plan.

Surely for UKIP to highlight these technical hurdles would be hugely counter productive. Far from a priority... unless you like that kind of thing, which only RN and AM do.

If you are an intellectual hammer, every problem looks like a nail, even those that no one else can see.

Dave said...

It was a sad thing to see. Dr North and AM lost the plot. They let the topic slide into an argument about personalities instead of concentrating more on the policies. North and AM are, undoubtedly, experts on their subject and should have stayed well away from offering personal opinions about individuals.
The 'hate' eminating from Dr North was almost palpable and detracted from his substantial position - it made him look very much the smaller man for his pettiness.
And all this from their 'perceived' point of reference - racism. You CANNOT be racist against a non-existent country/people and trying to throw the racist tag at Bloom (regardless of what he really might be) only showed North/AM to be subservient to the PC meme.
For North to also deride Farage/UKIP for their 'do as I do' (or get out) methods then do precisely the SAME to those who failed to toe HIS line in the argument is hypocricy of the first order.
North and AM have 'got it' - they know the battleground, they have the weapons and the strategy - they shouldn't demean themselves by engaging in the lowest form of argument - insult.

Anon 2 said...

Carnwennan - idiot that I am, I'm under the impression that Richard's concern extends beyond the absent exit plan. It looks most likely that, when Farage leaves, UKIP is going to drop the exit idea altogether and go for 're-negotiation'. That leaves supporters up the stream without even a canoe, let alone the paddle.

As to an exit plan: well maps help. So do itineraries. So do good drivers.

Anon 2 said...

Dave - I thought the problem was that many of the commenters were responding to the racist meme. In fact, Dr. North closed the thread precisely because it had degenerated into a discussion of racism. He then turned the argument back to UKIP, its party-political policies, and its EU policies.

The personalities under attack? Maybe they're the ones who've set themselves up as targets. After all, the larger world (not just North and AM) is responding to them as Personas, and to their promises of UK Independence. If the words emanating from the masks prove to be empty (Farage) and irrelevant to UKIP's aim (Bloom) - do they deserve admiration or support?

If Falsity is not the case, then let's see them prove it. Surely that would increase UKIP's appeal and power-base?

Anon 2 said...

Further to the above - since we're on about a 'bloom' and sweet-sounding words, we can remember what the Bard noted:

The summer's flower is to the summer sweet,
Though to itself it only live and die,
But if that flower with base infection meet,
The basest weed outbraves his dignity:
For sweetest things turn sourest by their deeds;
Lilies that fester smell far worse than weeds.

(Sonnet 94; 9-14)

DeeDee99 said...

Responding to Right_writes

If you've been on hand-shaking terms with Nigel for years and have only just understood that UKIP invites (and attracts) people from all points of the political spectrum and Farage is basically anti the Establishment, then you don't know him/us very well at all.

We have consistently said that the enemy isn't the EU: they have taking nothing which hasn't been willingly given by the British Establishment. The enemy is within and is found throughout Whitehall, Westminster, the Quangocracy, The City and Corporate World.

As for Bill Quango MP: I'm voting UKIP at every election, including the General Election. I want to see LibLabCON destroyed. That means breaking one leg of the tripod and if it happens to be the CONs, then so be it. The Party has betrayed the British people for 50+ years: we owe it no loyalty.

G. Tingey said...

Under our system we vote for the CANDIDATE, not the party.
There's also the tactical-voting problem.
E.G. At the last GLA election, I voted Boris (though I preferred Paddick) just to make sure Ken didn't get in, having lost his marbles.
There are 7 houses between mine & where my local MP lives - & she ( Stella Creasey ) is very good - she has absorbed the local tradition of being good on localism. [ But then she actually comes from around here, anyway. ]
Libs here appear to have crawled up the pig's bottom of islam, & the supposed tories are hopeleesly either corrupt or RC or both.
Now what?

As REadwald sayas ... UKIP in 2014 - then I think, take a view?

Anonymous said...


Why the hostility?

I was making a general point... You seem to be just criticising for the sake of it.

What attracted me to UKIP in 1995 was the lack of PC, the idea that government was the problem, not the solution, the implication from that being that less government tends towards liberalism, both socially and economically.

When I had met Nigel a little earlier than that (perhaps not as much as 20 years ago, since we are being absurdly pedantic here), I formed a similar opinion of the man himself.

There are a lot of people that I don't like very much in UKIP, there are quite a large number of hangers and floggers for instance, and there are a good number of people that don't "like" one section of society or another. There are people who seem to derive succour from alienating people that are on the same side.

There were a lot of people that thought that they were more capable than they actually were.

It took me a long time to realise that these people were not just make-weights, they were there because UKIP is a "broad church" as the Tory party used to be fond of saying.

So the only point that I was making above, was not a criticism of your words, it was just that what you wrote was a reminder of what I hadn't mentioned.

However, if you are who I think you are, I have to say that your comments do not surprise me.

Ken Adams said...

It really does not matter what RN and AM think of UKIP, the point is we cannot vote for either of them as they are not a political party, so who do we vote for if not UKIP. We wont change a thing if we do not vote or if we continue to vote LibLabCon.

To me the important thing is to send a very strong message to the political elites that their time is coming to an end.

DeeDee99 said...


"However, if you are who I think you are, I have to say that your comments do not surprise me."

You'll just have to take it from me that you have no idea who I am.

I wasn't being hostile. I was just making the point that Nigel/UKIP have for a very long time made it perfectly clear that they are anti the British Establishment which has betrayed us over the EU - and anyone who agrees (from wherever on the political spectrum) is welcome in the Party.

I find it strange that someone can apparently know Nigel for so long and not have understood that.

Anonymous said...


Anon 2 said...

Yes. Well.
Picking up on the imagery of the 3-legged stool:
To accord with the label "United Kingdom Independence Party" - UKIP's prime objective should be to unseat whatever sits on the stool or driver's seat. That is the Monster, the EU.

Under the present system, severance of the legs from the stool-seat would achieve this most efficiently.

Using the still-attached legs for football practice would certainly destabilise the stool-seat. On the other hand, if (as seems likely) UKIP ends up reinforcing the Con leg --- then UKIP has operated under false pretences.

"Party" then emerges as the only true word in their title. And that's the bit that needs to come to an end.

The time has come for all good men to get rid of the Party System - and the ballot-rigging that supports it.

G. Tingey said...

UKIP may have just lost half their potential vote, because one of their prominent members is an idiot who can't control his mouth ....
( Godfrey Bloom )

Anonymous said...

"UKIP may have just lost half their potential vote, because one of their prominent members is an idiot who can't control his mouth"

Not really. Saying things that are true may be unacceptable in La-La land, in the multi-conscience tri-p[f]artite land that those with a high moral tone (but low morals) inhabit, but in the world that the majority actually LIVE in it made sense.
We send loads of money that we don't have, and loads more jobs as well, to lands that then use it to buy weapons or run space industries. And the politicians cannot understand the Blooms of the country ?
The people can.

JW said...

I am surprised that Richard North is being so vocal about this "Bongo Bongo" comment. I am certain that a trawl of EURef would reveal a collection of less-than-PC comments about other nations. As a starter for 10 I offer you the many times he has called the French "kermits" i.e. frogs. He may argue he was simply being provocative for effect but couldn't Bloom say the same thing?

Budgie said...

Raedwald writes: "Richard and AM ... understand clearly the law and process around any modification of our EU membership"

That is debatable.

Their insistence that Article 50 is the only way to leave the EU, rather than repealing the ECA, is disingenuous. For a start the ECA must be repealed even via the Article 50 route, because the ECA is what makes EU law legal in the UK (see Laws et al; the Metric Martyrs Appeal).

It is also disingenuous to maintain that the ECA repeal route must mean instant withdrawal and no negotiation. In fact ECA repeal would be at the end of a process, which must include putting in place UK laws to take over from EU law, as well as negotiations with the EU.

Moreover attempting to leave the EU via the EU's own Article 50, puts the UK in the position of being a supplicant. There is sufficient leeway, and the EU has previous form, for the EU to make it extremely difficult, both politically and financially, for the UK to withdraw this way. Article 50 is a trap for the unwary.

The Lisbon Treaty (which was folded into the TEU and the TFEU) is (are?) not like other normal treaties, which are agreements between sovereign nations. Lisbon's purpose is to over-ride a member nation's sovereignty. Consequently we cannot "withdraw" from Lisbon in the same manner as a conventional treaty like the 1995 Extradition Treaty with Brazil.

Anon 2 said...

Budgie: Perhaps you might go back and re-read Dr. North's proposals? I have done so, and I do not see where he precludes ECA repeal: quite the opposite. He does as you indicate - placing it "at the end of a process," but as part of an ongoing series of negotiations and adjustments.

He is not unwary, or unaware, of the complications involved in empowering the demands of the British electorate, should it require withdrawal.

Autonomous Mind said...

What is disingenuous, Budgie, is your appalling misrepresentation of the manner of withdrawal from the UK.

To claim that we insist 'that Article 50 is the only way to leave the EU, rather than repealing the ECA,' is complete and utter rubbish.

What we have argued is that the aim of many UKIP members - including a number of their MEPs and even their economic adviser, Tim Congdon - to withdraw from the EU by repealing the European Communities Act (ECA) is dangerously flawed.

Repealing the act also abrogates the many treaties to which we are signatory, bith directly with the EU, but also with other countries the EU has signed in our stead.

So on Day 1 of newfound independence, we will find we have torn up our ability to export to EU member states and all countries whose trade agreements are with the EU member states, not a newly withdrawn UK.

Therefore we argue that we must, via negotiation that is only guaranteed by invoking Article 50, agree the mechanisms that allow our trade to continue with the EU through access to the internal market, and with countries with whom the EU holds trade agreements signed on our behalf.

Your argument Budgie, that using Article 50 is a trap and makes the UK supplicant, is conspiratorial nonsense. It is also dangerous because of the harm that unilateral repeal of the ECA, before trade and political agreements are in place, will do to UK commercial and consumer interests.

When Article 50 was written into the treaty, there was never an expectation any country would seek to use it. We were all signed up to ever closer union, so why would a member state go into reverse? The EU would not want a reluctant member rattling the cage from the inside and causing trouble for the colleagues' progression of their agenda.

Budgie said...

AM stated above: "To claim that we insist 'that Article 50 is the only way to leave the EU, rather than repealing the ECA,' is complete and utter rubbish."

Yet AM said further on: "... we must, via negotiation that is only guaranteed by invoking Article 50 ..." and "... to withdraw from the EU by repealing the European Communities Act (ECA) is dangerously flawed."

AM, I think you make my point all by yourself.

AM also said: "[the ECA repeal route] is also dangerous because of the harm that unilateral repeal of the ECA, before trade and political agreements are in place, will do to UK commercial and consumer interests."

What part of my statement that "In fact ECA repeal would be at the end of a process, which must include putting in place UK laws to take over from EU law, as well as negotiations with the EU." don't you understand?

I would generally back Tim Congdon over the unfortunate Richard North who has a history of good analysis followed by poor judgement.

Peter S said...

Formidable intellects?.. I'm not so sure. From his recent postings on AM's site, I'd identify North as a very clever man who sorely lacks intelligence. Why else would someone who so clearly has resources to offer be so determined to spoil himself at every turn? If North wants to ascribe blame for the current position he has found himself in (ie, largely ignored) he'd perhaps do worse than looking in the mirror.

As for AM, one can almost set one's clock by the regularity of his 'going off on one' of his interminable anti-Fararge rages. Clearly, he gets such a delicious masochistic pleasure from these sessions that anyone daring to suggest rantous-interruptus might free him to be more procreative is brushed aside (and banned if they present him with too much of a home-truth to swallow).

By their words, both men come bearing a (by now, threadbare) bag of hurt. But they are also labouring under a large sackful of contradictions… we might wonder what the strapline of their 'Harrogate Agenda' will turn out to be - "Power to the 'Stupid' People"?

One suspects that UKIP's mature and highly intelligent BRITEX position of keeping its options open, for the time being, frustrates these two men more than anything else because it denies them something to attack.

Anon 2 said...

For those who have not read Dr. North's early draft of an eu withdrawal plan, he has provided the following:
All you have to do is type "exit plan" on EU Ref and you get plenty of reading matter. But very quickly you will come to this ...


Anon 2 said...

Unless you're prepared to read the blueprint, and to contribute to its development and implementation, then you participate in postmodern mis(s)-management methodology. You support ego-driven "leaders" who secure power by disabling their competition: which just happens to be people who have the brains, qualifications, competence, and drive to get on with the job. These 'leaders' treat such people as "useful idiots," but they misapply the principle.

Now. If the media and the 3-headed monster suddenly turn on the sottish 'leaders' - then the exploiters are hoist on their own petard. And about time too.

However, Dr. North and AM recognise that, to break this downward spiral of corruption, those who can must pull together. We must do what the Farages and Blooms refuse to do.

Full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes.

Autonomous Mind said...

I missed the word *alone* from my reference to repealing the ECA, which has only become clear with Budgie's triumphalist 'I told you so' comment above. Clearly I am to be condemned for trying to type a message too quickly and not spotting the missed word (something I do too frequently). Never mind. It doesn't matter any more.

Peter S also fires up his keyboard for yet another cycle of oppobrium directed at Richard and me. Never once has he offered in any of his comments on AM one contribution to a discussion, he has only ever sought to belittle or sneer at me. Never mind. It doesn't matter any more.

Go back to Nigel and claim your reward. I'm going. You've done your job well. You have silenced a critic through abuse without a single substantive use of evidence to correctly contradict any of the points I've made. You don't accept the warnings, so when it all falls apart you can find someone else to blame and abuse.

I will take no pleasure seeing the Eurosceptic cause defeated in the future due to its failure to provide a route to successful exit from the EU. I will take no pleasure from seeing a party that had so much potential, a party I wanted so much to be able to support, collapse from the inside through incompetent leadership and infestation by BNP exiles.

Peter S said...

AM - I have commented on a variety of issues on your blog - but I mostly tend to stick to things I know about (some of which you have agreed with). So it is simply untrue to claim I "only ever sought to belittle or sneer" at you.

There is a definite pattern of destruction on your blog... many commenters arrive asking polite questions and cautiously positing broader positions - only to be aghast at the petulance and raw passive-aggression of yours and Richard's responses.

If you are really unable to see this (yes, projection works that way), then all I can offer is that rage is called 'blind' for a reason. Perhaps at least you are able to reflect that hasn't got either of you anywhere so far... and is unlikely ever to. Sad.

Autonomous Mind said...

Actually Peter, you have only ever posted to rubbish the Article 50 route to leaving the EU.

And to describe me variously as... stranded in the middle of nowhere, dancing to the barrel of a toy gun, going to great lengths to demonstrate my lack of intelligence, readying my nose to sniff the king’s ‘finely embroidered’ backside, a fawning batman, longwinded, and posting all about ME ME ME.

Not bad in just 13 posts. Constructive, eh?

Peter S said...

As the majority of those comments described Britain - in its relation to the EU - it is disingenuous to claim they were directed at you (unless, of course, you believe yourself to be Britain).

While your trawling my scant archives, you might also mention my most recent posts - in which I suggest that as 'agreement' is the servant of 'need'... the first may come and go, whereas the latter is permanent and - left unmet - the only cause of revolution. Therefore, an exiting Britain can call the shots - knowing no government would dare expose itself to the risk of its populous left with unmet needs due of its refusal to negotiate new, reciprocal, agreements with a departing country inviting it to do so. You could also reveal that I defended North against accusations of 'arrogance' - claiming instead that he came across to me as remarkably 'thinned-skinned'.

Oh, but my efforts appeared for but a short while on your blog... before you banned them. I must be... wait for it... 'Stupid'.

Bruce said...

I see AM is moderating comments to his "I'm off" post. All the comments so far have been supportive of him. It's his blog and he can moderate it if he wants to. It would be a shame if he only allowed his sycophants to have the last word. For the record, I've tried to leave the following comment:

"You couldn’t get UKIP to behave the way you wanted and so left. You couldn’t get commenters on your blog to agree with you either and so left. The words “toys” and “pram” spring to mind. You and Richard share a common failing: you have a guid conceit of yourselves. You’re an excellent writer and penned some great blog posts but the closer you moved to Richard, the more rabidly anti-UKIP your posts became. I’ve been a regular reader of your blog for a long time and could see the shift in your choice of topics and style. You went from being an insightful and perceptive writer to Richard’s mini-me. It’s a shame that you either couldn’t see or didn’t care that you were alienating so many people who were naturally sympathetic to your views."

Anonymous said...

My attention to this Blog was drawn by AM, whose views I respected, but did not always agree with. I am a foreigner, Swiss, but deeply interested in the future of GB.

From outside it is clear that GB needs a BIG change, its leaders are completely out of touch with the people, so low moral, alone saps the entire land.

It is also clear in both North and AM's Blogs that they are now against UKIP, at any price. This is very, very foolish. The significance of Blooms remarks is not only are they true, I see Africans trying to deposit cash in UBS, Bleicherweg at leat twice a year, but they reflect what almost all sensible people think. The Alinsky-esque attempt to contol and limit debate by Blair may be his worst legacy. Nomatter, Plod didn't go round to Bloom's hous and thereby these silly hate speech laws are fatally weakened, not by repeal but by derision.

Again from the foreign perspective the EU malign influence is mostly within the UK itself, but that matters NOT. For you, you must get out!

Finally, note that the EU cannot survive Brexit, "bei Sonnenuntergang die EU fertig ist"

MFG, omb

Anonymous said...

Anonymous said...

Peter S said...

If AM believes enough in an independent Britain he will, no doubt, come bouncing back. Let's hope he uses the break wisely and reflects on the inevitable consequences of being sucked into Richard North's orbit. Once trapped there, all scope and agility were lost from his posts - which descended from intelligent and independent commentary into Scargillian rants. I'm still not sure he has ever had the slightest connection to UKIP - which makes his recent bucket-loads of verbal incontinence even less convincing and even more boring.

After such hard work and dedication, it clearly pains AM to see the wings come off his cherished site and it come crashing out of the blogosphere. In seeking the cause of its saddening malfunction, he might ponder the headline North chose to report it… "blogger down" reads to me like the words of a man who, at best, lacks empathy and, at worst, is taking the piss.

Of course, one doesn't have to spend long in the field of political debate before the term "useful idiot" is tossed into the cauldron. In his time off, AM might wonder if he has allowed himself to become one. As bitter as the answer may be, it would also mark out the clear boundaries of what must be refused on his return - if his blog is to rediscover its vital, autonomous voice.

Bruce said...

My comment on AM's blog (see a few comments above) hasn't seen the light of day but some made afterwards by his supporters have. I had hoped he might have been big enough not to moderate away comments but I suppose an inability to tolerate dissent was the reason for his decision to shut up shop.

Or is the plan to only allow supportive comments through so that he can turn around and claim that he has been so heartened by encouraging comments that he's decided to soldier on? Surely not?

Richard said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Bruce said...

Cheers, Richard!

Autonomous Mind said...

Bruce, I was directed to your comment by an email from another reader. I haven't seen any comment from you and have simply approved everything that has landed in the pending folder.

I will check the raft of spam that has backed up in case it's in there. Given the content you've written above it would seem the most likely place for it.

In any case, while you're entitled to sound off I don't appreciate your petty insults, unpleasant speculation, or the questioning of my integrity. I'll put it down to your need to compensate for something...

Autonomous Mind said...

Richard, I wouldn't waste your time with either of them. It's how they get their jollies and massage their self esteem.

Peter S said...

Richard said: "But your speculation typifies your posts. You attribute base motives wherever you can, sucking the vitality out of the debate, your "knowing" yet ignorant commentary tarnishing everything you touch."

We might wonder if the act of attributing base motives 'sucks the vitality out of the debate', or, if the accuracy of the attribution exposes the vitality as inappropriate to the debate it has become attached to? In the latter case, of course, the vitality would need to be withdrawn if the debate is to have any chance of running its stated course and not being hijacked for other purposes.

If one's vitality is limited to bashing an erstwhile political ally over the head at every opportunity - for some anciently inflicted wound which should have long since healed - then we can see it is not only of no use in a debate about Britain and the EU… but (for as long as it remains 'untarnished' by exposure to light) it continually subverts that debate into something else.

Having an 'interest in things military' no doubt includes the knowledge that NO campaign is ever fought but on the nonnegotiable grounds that petty grudges and gnawing grievances are left out of the field. Otherwise, the battlefield would become as chaotic, vindictive and bloodied with friendly fire as the EU debate has become.

Of course, in military terms, what is needed amidst this carnage is someone big enough to surrender to taking on the mantle of authority. As things currently stand, I can see no one who remotely fits the bill… can you?

Bruce said...

AM: "Richard, I wouldn't waste your time with either of them. It's how they get their jollies and massage their self esteem."

I'll have you know that my jollifications and massages are none of your business!

Vernon E said...

What lot of hissy children.

Richard said...

I guess Farage is looking a little less Teflon coated ...

Peter S said...

Richard said: "I guess Farage is looking a little less Teflon coated ..."

Carry on scouring, Richard. With a little more effort, he might end up as thin-skinned as you. That would leave us with TWO vessels unfit for purpose.

The problem with with having no Teflon, of course, is that things very, very stuck.

Peter S said...

whoops. '...things get very, very stuck'.

Scared of Richard's Brain said...

I have a lot of sympathy with you Richard. it must be hellish being a towering intellect with the answer to everything but nobody seems to pay you much attention. Worse than that, they actually pay attention to this guy Farage who everybody knows, cos you keep telling them, is as thick as two short planks. You need to think about that a little and try to understand why that might be. Is it because:
A. We're all too thick to realise just how intelligent you are?
B. We're all too thick to realise just how thick Nigel is?
C. We're not thick at all and, after careful consideration, have come to the conclusion, despite your warnings to the contrary which we understand, that UKIP is our best bet?
D. We recognise someone who is bitter and twisted when we see him and don't find them attractive qualities?
E. By the time the Harrogate Agenda is able to get us out of Europe Britain, according to the IPCC, will be under 26ft of water (or about three meters as it will be known then)?

Scared of Richard's Brain said...

E. Or even eight meters.

Vanessa said...

The trouble is some of us are so desperate seeing, as we do, the total demise of our country that UKIP represents the only alternative. I agree with all comments on EUReferendum and AM but where else do we go? The politicians are SO corrupt and dishonest at the moment.

The EU is worse - did you know that the Lisbon Treaty reintroduces the Death Penalty ? It is such an evil document and this is our Constitution now. HELP!

Anonymous said...

Can't believe the amount of nastiness directed at Richard North on here. He's done a lot for the anti EU side and his views on Farage are well shared by a lot of good people who also gave a lot to Ukip. There's always a jealous band of keyboard warriors who've never done anything who chuck around abuse from the cheap seats.