James Delingpole

Does Ukip believe in anything any more?

All the other terrain on the political map has been fully occupied. Classical liberalism has not

7 June 2014

9:00 AM

7 June 2014

9:00 AM

I’m worried about Ukip. It’s possible that my concerns are entirely misplaced but let me give you some examples of what I mean. First, a tweet from Ukip’s Newark candidate Roger Helmer (whose heroic stance on energy and climate change I greatly admire): ‘Meet Robert Jenrick, the Tory candidate for Newark: Gilded youth. Posh Tory boy. London property millionaire.’

Second, the party’s official response to a local newspaper interview given by Donna Rachel Edmunds, one of Ukip’s new councillors in Lewes, East Sussex, in which she argued — on perfectly sound libertarian principles — that businesses should be free to choose their customer base. So ardent Christian hoteliers should be at liberty to turn away gay couples as Jewish shopkeepers should be to refuse service to neo-Nazis. Ukip’s chairman Steve Crowther described this as ‘beyond what is acceptable’.

Third, the recent reactions of Nigel Farage when asked if he is a Thatcherite. In the past, he has been quite upfront about this: where Cameron is the heir to Blair, Farage has long seen himself as the true heir to Thatcher and leader of the Tory party in exile. Now, on at least two occasions, he has taken care to refer to his Thatcherite sympathies in the past tense. WTF?

Of course, I understand the theory behind what is going on here. Ukip cannot forever be the party of rebel outsiders. If they want to change the system they have to become part of it, and they’re not going to do that unless they play the political games regrettably necessary for gaining office.

In this light, Farage’s semi-renunciation of Thatcher can be understood as a sop to potential voters in former Labour strongholds like Rotherham, where the great woman’s name still tends to go down like a cup of cold sick. And Helmer’s crass appeal to class envy can — almost — be excused as a way of underlining the remoteness, complacency and QE-fuelled entitlement of Cameron’s Notting Hill Tories.

But strategically I think they’re making a huge mistake. Many harsh and unfair things have been said of Ukip in the last few weeks, but the one charge which sticks is that they’re defined by their negativity: they’re against unchecked immigration; they’re against the EU; they’re against gay marriage; they’re against Tory candidates with too many houses… Now the time has come for them to have the courage of their convictions and tell us what they’re actually for.

And this is where, again, I start to worry. I’ve been to Ukip conferences and I’ve been to Ukip fringe meetings and I’ve spoken at Ukip hustings and two things have struck me. One is that the membership have wildly different views about What Needs To Be Done: for some it’s a flat tax, for others it’s tighter immigration controls, for one of the candidates in Worcestershire it’s maintaining the ban on foxhunting(!). The other is the apparent lack of anyone like Margaret Thatcher had — a Keith Joseph, say, or a Norman Tebbit — with the ability to underpin party policy with some intellectual and ideological heft.

Farage — as well he knows — is not the answer here. He’s a man of instinct, not of the mind. This has served the party well in creating its general mood music (that of the man in pub who says what ordinary people really think). But it will be worse than useless in the face of arguments from some quarters that if the party is to build the electoral base it needs to come up with crap like it did last year at Wythenshawe and Sale when it put on its ‘red Ukip’ mask and promised to protect people’s welfare benefits.

There’s an obvious solution: what Ukip needs is a moment equivalent to the one in the mid-1970s when, shortly after becoming Tory party leader, Margaret Thatcher slapped down Hayek’s Constitution of Liberty on the table and declared ‘This is what we believe.’ What Ukip needs is an ‘-ism’.

It’s a shame that it has rejected Thatcherism because that would have been the ideal candidate. The only hard part would have been explaining to sceptical punters on the street that her philosophy could scarcely be more different from squishy, Tory grandeeism embodied by soft statist Conservatives from Macmillan through Heath to Cameron. That’s why the party sorely needs more ideologues of the Donna Rachel Edmunds persuasion: people capable of thinking from first principles and not being frightened — as Steve Crowther clearly was — by the strong, left-leaning cultural pressure always to think inside the box. If Ukip cannot fully embrace radicalism then it is nothing.

No really, nothing. What, pray, is the point of voting Ukip into power if all you’re going to get is another bunch of career politicians on the make, aping the cynical, vote-catch opportunism of the usual suspects from LibLabCon? You might get more grammar schools here, fewer wind farms there, but without a clear direction of travel you’d just get another party prey to the inevitable temptations of shoring up its power base with eye-catching initiatives aimed at grasping special interest groups.

Ukip will only succeed — and deserve to succeed — if it becomes the party of everyone. (Everyone apart from the quango-crats and Eurocrats and human rights lawyers and corporatists and renewable energy rent-seekers and welfare scroungers currently being catered for very nicely by LibLabCon). And the best way of doing that is by establishing itself clearly and unapologetically as the party of personal freedom and small government.

All the other terrain on the political map has already been fully occupied. Classical liberalism has not — and it’s about time it was. It’s the only political philosophy which acts genuinely in the interests of the ‘many, not the few’. Ukip could copyright that phrase — and, unlike the other parties, actually mean it.

Got something to add? Join the discussion and comment below.

You might disagree with half of it, but you’ll enjoy reading all of it. Try your first 10 weeks for just $10

Show comments
  • Streben80

    James dear boy, you worry too much. UKIP believe in Common Sense-ism – there is no point at all in lashing ourselves to Thatcherism, if only because just by association with that name we would end up exactly where the Tories are – dead in the North. There will be elements of Thatcherism no doubt, there will be elements of libertarianism too but there will be other positions which just ‘feel right’ – that is why many trust the instincts of Farage, maybe it is indeed Farage-ism.
    When Helmer had a go at Mr Generic it wasnt really about his wealth, it was about him trying to cover it up and pretend that he was ‘one of us’ – UKIP grassroots and many supporters dont like fakes – Helmer is nothing but happy with who he is, nobody could wear those suits if they werent.
    UKIP has for a while now started to concern itself with the social costs of policy, access to services, essentially the contract between state and individual and whether government is really delivering the basics, this appeals a great deal to the Left wing in UKIP who for the most part are willing to try a Rightwing economic model to try and deliver it, since the socialist attempt failed.
    I dont think UKIP got where it is today by filling a gap on the map, not our style.

    • global city

      Yes. Surely the principle should be that the state should be small and limited in scope, but what it should do it should do well…and effectively.

      One of the real tragedies about the massive ‘welfare’ state and social services, etc, is that they do not support anyone, except the legions of middle classes employed in them.

      Small but effective, as local as possible, support, not management and oversight, hollow out Whitehall domination, that is what UKIP should aim to instill.

      • Streben80

        We shall see, certain state provisions are such sensitive subjects that you have to frame the argument exactly right – hence Farage recently made a clear point about excess management in the NHS – a specific target and by making the distinction about those that are clinically trained and those who are not, he tried to separate them so he can attack the pen pushers, clear of frontline staff who are the people most associated with the NHS but actually only make up a part of it.

        • Kaine

          Who exactly do you think handles medical records, time tabling of theatres, staff payroll, organising shifts, and all the other necessary non-medical tasks that running a health service entails? Do you want doctors doing it?

          • Streben80

            Can you account for the necessity, productivity and salary of every member of non-clinical staff?
            This response is the usual protecting of interests. The NHS is a public service and scrutiny of whether it runs as well as it could would be welcomed by anyone that cared about the morality of spending taxpayer’s money. Sadly more often than not the people that make kneejerk responses to the notion of financial accountability like yourself dont care about the billions in tax they take from the poor, typical gilded leftwing weirdos.

          • Kaine

            Sure, give me £5million to commission PwC or Deloitte and I’ll be back to you in 6 months. However it’s rather dependent upon those who allege there are billions to be saved via NHS bureaucracy to demonstrate it.

            Gilded? I live in Gorton mate. I’d have to catch three buses to see ‘gilded’. I just have respect for those who work in the NHS, which is more than you seem to have.

          • Streben80

            I am not saying there are billions to save, show me where I said that? I am suggesting it is worth asking questions, you clearly dont like people asking such questions.
            I respect people in all public services but I dont consider the NHS a religion that must not and cannot be questioned, I know many who work in the NHS and they do not paint a pretty picture.
            When there are people who cannot heat their homes in winter it is a moral duty to make sure that every penny they contribute in tax is spent well. You may well not care about where the money comes from but I most certainly do, it comes from people, many who are suffering despite the so-called recovery but too many selfish people jump to defend their beloved institutions rather than the people who fund them.

        • HookesLaw

          There is no excess management in the NHS… This is the latest load of rubbish from Farage. NHS management costs are pretty low compared to other examples
          In any event the NHS is already going through a 20 billion efficiency drive.
          Despite your argument with Mr Kaine we know what a load of ignorant guff you are driving at. You are pretending that not only are there huge sums available to save – on top of the savings already being made although I doubt you are aware of this activity – you pretend that its easy.

          Further more the point you try to make is just another example of Farage’s dog whistles. Just another empty sound bite.

          • Streben80

            Oh I know it isnt easy, this current ‘drive’ is to cut frontline services which is already hurting.
            Interesting that you refer to UKIP voters as dogs, given that they apparently respond to dog whistles. Nice, typical leftwinger who just hates the common man and cant help but insult them.

      • bufo75

        “As local as possible”
        I shook off the dust of “the religion of my forefathers” when Sir John Houghton was allowed to preach on “Christianity and Global Warming” in Great Malvern Priory.
        The Church of England now stands for everything and nothing, will UKIP be allowed to go the same way ?

        • global city

          Yeuch! I didn’t mean it that way….. you could take a clue from my name thing on here!

      • MC73

        “One of the real tragedies about the massive ‘welfare’ state and social services, etc, is that they do not support anyone, except the legions of middle classes employed in them.”

        A very important point that is not made anywhere near enough.

    • Claire Finn

      “positions that just ‘feel right'” ???? And that’s not populist?

      • Streben80

        Populism, defined as “the political doctrine that supports the rights and powers of the common people in their struggle with the privileged elite”.
        By all means stick up for elitism if you like, they need people like you.

        • Claire Finn

          Is that the definition of populism?

          • Cyril Sneer

            Streben began his post with “Populism, defined as…..”

            This is what Streben believes the definition of populism to be. A cursory glance at the definition online would seem to support his post.

          • Streben80

            Often people use the word Populism as an insult, assuming that because it sounds like it should mean saying what people want to hear when infact it means something rather different.
            The trouble with some of those people who like calling people names is that they lack the nous to even look up the meaning of what they are saying. A general sneer would have been more accurate, if harder to translate online!

          • Cyril Sneer

            I totally agree. I’ve heard the term ‘populism’ come from the left, used in a manner to dismiss or as you say insult a certain view. Its correct definition certainly could not be used as an insult and I would say that if many on the left actually understood it’s actual meaning then they wouldn’t use it in such a manner.

            There is no excuse for their ignorance.

          • Claire Finn

            I’m not on the left and the Labour Party is guilty of populist (as I define it) policies too. Their rent regulation policies that do nothing to help anyone spring to mind.

          • Cyril Sneer

            I didn’t specifically accuse you of being from the left in my last post.

          • Streben80

            Claire, the type of politics you are talking about is called Popularism, not Populism.
            Two different things although given how often the latter is used to describe the former in the media, it isnt suprising that people have unwittingly assumed they are the same thing.

          • Correct. She conflates Liberalism with libertarianism, and populism with popularism. Either she’s American or not as informed as she makes out. Given that her online presence includes support for Ayn Rand related stuff, I’d say both.

          • Claire Finn

            You might want to argue the ideas rather than just insult. If I’m for personal freedom and a small state I don’t want the state telling me who I can hire/work for/rent to. And nobody has explained the economic benefits of controlled immigration without resorting to basically a Marxist zero sum mentality

          • I rest my case. if you can’t make an argument without bandying the word Marxist around, you are commenting from ignorance.

          • Cyril Sneer

            I totally agree. I’ve heard the term ‘populism’ come from the left, used in a manner to dismiss or as you say insult a certain view. Its correct definition certainly could not be used as an insult and I would say that if many on the left actually understood it’s actual meaning then they wouldn’t use it in such a manner.

            There is no excuse for their ignorance.

  • Claire Finn

    It’s going to be very very difficult for UKIP to position itself as the classical liberalism party when their main defining policy is anti-immigration.

    • Callum Traynor

      they will get more policies dont you worry xd

    • wimsb

      Jeez talk about regurgitation of the MSM smears!

      Are you reading from the Cultural Marxist prayer book? All the space that Disqus gives you to type, and all you can say is “anti-immigration”?

      If you don’t know, haven’t heard, haven’t read that UKIP is anti-UNCONTROLLED-immigration, then you are displaying absolute ignorance. If not, then you are just another LibLabCon tool.

      We don’t need unqualified cheap labour when we have hundreds of thousands, or possibly millions of layabouts drinking from the taxpayer teat on “relative poverty” which is a damned sight more comfortable than absolute poverty.

      We don’t need to be taxing British productive workers so they cannot afford to produce children with their genetic heritage whilst paying fat slags to be serial mothers the moment they leave school, or to import fast breeder jihadists.

      What we do need is to discriminate, in the best meaning of the word, whom we allow to come and work here. Engineers and scientists from countries like India where kids at school are motivated to learn, not told that education is a waste of time by their Labour-voting, sky football-watching, dole-collecting parents.

      In other words, UKIP is pro-immigration for people we NEED, anti-immigration from yet more wasters.

      • Claire Finn

        Err… being against UNCONTROLLED anything let alone immigration is not classical liberalism. If you want to be anti tax and anti welfare, fine but it appears you want to protect the welfare state for those with the right “genetic heritage”. They’re your words, not mine. I never called UKIP racist. I’m simply pointing out that being in favour of increased Government regulations on immigration (and against gay marriage rights for that matter) is inconsistent with classical liberal principles. And so are most of your “zero-sum” economic theories that you’ve used to justify it.

        • BarkingAtTreehuggers

          Bingo, discrimination on the grounds of free (unskilled) labour movement is not only inconsistent, it is downright disingenuous – because as we ALL know: a free market’s/economic zone’s basic and most fundamental prerequisite is the free movement of labour as guaranteed in the 1953 and 1957 Treaties of Rome.

          • Claire Finn

            Except for the fact that I think those treaties guarantee the free movement of *European* labour.

          • BarkingAtTreehuggers

            Correct, as the basic prerequisite of a federation of united European nation states is common values and common markets.
            movement leads to markets leads to values leads to union of hearts and minds (the hearts and minds bit is an added bonus).

          • Claire Finn

            Classical liberalism would not see anything inconsistent with having common values and common markets with any country: the Commonwealth, former colonies, anyone who wants to trade with us in fact.

          • BarkingAtTreehuggers

            Correct, only that one is history and the other the future.
            Why sweat so much about it and not get on with it (if one was such a liberal at heart)?

          • HookesLaw

            For people to move to work, not move and look for work. And Cameron has said he wants to see it revert to that. Its up to the UK and other countries to do more to make sure their own unemployed are available for work.
            But the single market is all part of that and if we were on the EEA like Norway we would still be a part of it all, but with no votes.
            This is just Farage’s big lie.

        • Cyril Sneer

          “….is not classical liberalism. blah blah blah”

          The post from wimsb was in response to your post “It’s going to be very very difficult for UKIP to position itself as the
          classical liberalism party when their main defining policy is

          Wimsb was responding to your anti-immigration statement. It’s clear for all that you regard any controls on immigration as anti-immigration. This is wrong. Sod liberalism, sod what you think about whether UKIP are a such and such party, your initial statement that UKIP are anti-immigration is clearly a LIE.

          • Claire Finn

            Well, you know what? Speaking as someone who wasn’t towing the MSM line and wanted to know if UKIP really were for more personal freedom and less state, you’ve done a great job of convincing me they’re not!

          • Cyril Sneer

            And you’ve done a great job in spreading a complete lie.

            Thanks for that.

            “Speaking as someone who wasn’t towing the MSM line”

            You equate controlled immigration as anti-immigration. That is spreading the MSM lie.

          • Claire Finn

            You’ve done a great job in confirming it. Not sure if UKIP will thank you for that.

          • Cyril Sneer

            Claire, your intentions are not honest. It wouldn’t surprise me if you were a member of the Labour party. I have done nothing to argue whether UKIP are liberal or not – all I have done is refute your post that equates anti-immigration with controlled immigration.

            The rest you have just made up and tried to pin it on me like an a-typical liberal progressive would do – i.e make false accusations.

          • Claire Finn

            I am certainly not that. I’m in favour of more personal freedom and a smaller state and this article gave me hope but clearly not.

          • Cyril Sneer

            Me too, but that doesn’t mean we have to open borders mass immigration.

        • uberwest

          If we have no border controls, and are in a minority of rich nations in a world of general poverty, as is the case, then we will quickly be swamped by poor people seeking to take advantage of our wealth, and abandoned by the wealthy seeking to protect their assets.

          Only a reckless idiot would vote for a party with such a policy.

    • global city


      You’ve sucked up the establishment mantra haven’t you?

      • dado_trunking

        No mate, YOU don’t know what to think anymore.

        • Cyril Sneer

          So controlled immigration is now anti-immigration???

          • dado_trunking

            No mate, it never was. And no one ever, in the history of post-war Britain at least, facilitated ‘unfettered’ immigration either (which is what most of your lot appear to believe)

          • Cyril Sneer

            I would say mass immigration to the tune of 500k a year is pretty unfettered.

        • global city

          Odd comment!

          I believe that the UK should have a similar immigration policy that Australia has…. now where have we heard that before.

          as I asked, ‘anti-immigration? Please explain yourself?

    • Cyril Sneer

      Since when has wanting controlled immigration on a points based system ever been anti-immigration?

      Do you actually have single original thought, or do you just regurgitate lies spread by your peers?

      • Claire Finn

        Excuse me? See my comment below regarding controlled immigration. You can disagree with me but you can’t call your position classically liberal which is what this article is about.

        • Cyril Sneer

          I’ll repeat – Since when has wanting controlled immigration on a points based system ever been anti-immigration?

          And no I won’t excuse you for spreading such utter BS.

          • Claire Finn

            I’ll repeat – wanting controlled immigration on a points based system is not a classical liberal principle and seeing as that’s your most popular policy It’s going to be hard to appeal to classically liberal minded voters without alienating your voter base which was the subject of the article.

          • Cyril Sneer

            That’s not what you said, you said: “their main defining policy is anti-immigration.”

            I don’t care whether you regard them as liberal or not, or anything else you have to say for that matter. Their policy on immigration is clearly not anti-immigration.

          • Claire Finn

            Original article was about positioning UKIP as a classically liberal (which is very different from conventional liberalism) party. The fact that most of UKIP’s supporters on this page appear not to want that just validates my point. YOU might not care what I have to say about that but anyone in the party who does want to appeal to a classically liberal free market minded voter might and I was hoping some of those supporters might have responded to this article.

          • Cyril Sneer

            Claire, I couldn’t care less what the article is about, I find the comments section of such articles far more illuminating. Proper journalism is pretty much dead.

            You said their main policy is anti-immigration, this is simply not true. And now you’re twisting and turning, jumping through hoops to try and divert my attention to something I couldn’t care less about. What I don’t like is the verbal diarrhea spouted by people like you in attempt to make a UKIP out to be something they’re clearly not.

            Can you confirm, do you think UKIP policy of controlled immigration is anti-immigration?

          • Claire Finn

            Yes, I do and it appeals to anti-immigrant voters who don’t understand that economics is not a zero sum game. Wealth is continuously created. It’s not a static pie that has to be evenly distributed between “us” and “them”.

          • Cyril Sneer

            Great, thanks for the post. If you equate controlled immigration with anti-immigration then clearly anything else you have to say can be disregarded as you’re clearly not right in the head.

          • Claire Finn

            Great arguing points you have there. Is there anyone who would like to explain to me how wanting less Govt regulation is consistent with wanting more regulation on who you can hire/work for/rent to?

          • Cyril Sneer

            UKIP have tapped into the mood of many here in this country in that there are far too many that have come here in such a short period of time and that there are serious questions to be asked of the level of integration or lack of integration of many of these newcomers. The British public have not been listened to, the British public want controls on immigration. That is it.

            I couldn’t care less whether you think small government but more stringent controls on immigration doesn’t add up in regards to a distinct ideology.

          • Claire Finn

            So when people criticise UKIP for having inconsistent populist policies….they have a point?

          • Cyril Sneer

            No Claire, they have an opinion but that doesn’t make it a right one.

            So you’re struggling with controlled immigration and small government?

            For someone to want controlled immigration but less government interference in their daily lives is something that doesn’t add up in your eyes?

          • Claire Finn

            No, it doesn’t add up in my eyes. And Solly gratia’s comments are exactly why they don’t add up in my eyes. You’re basing your “controlled” immigration arguments on incorrect economics. I have this same argument with people who want a strict Constitutionalist approach in America but also are vehemently against immigration. Here’s an article explaining why.


            You have to be for a smaller state for a reason not just because it “feels right” or is popular and not if your leading policy is contrary to it.

          • Cyril Sneer

            Is that your definition of populism? “it “feels right” or is popular”

            “You’re basing your “controlled” immigration arguments on incorrect economics. ”

            No I’m basing it on the sheer number that has come here in just 14 years that dwarfs anything before it.

            What is “incorrect economics” – something that is open to interpretation?

          • It ‘feels right’ and is ‘popular’ are reasons, just one’s you don’t like. We know why it feels right, and therefore why it is popular. But we can also square the circle and include control of borders, since that is what nations do, that is part of the function of government. A small-state still performs functions, unless you are going for a night-watchman state of the kind your libertarianism prefers. We are not libertarians, and Britain does not have a libertarian tradition equal to the American one.
            UKIP is not trying to fit into a pre-prepared spectrum of views, because we all know the left-right spectrum is nonsense. It will probably fall somewhere between slightly left social conservatism and economic liberalism, with trade off from all to get an effective manifesto – this means those of us who are religious will probably have to bite the bullet on drug decrim.

          • Every nation has the right to control access via its borders, that works in classical liberalism as well – as if we would get THAT! If you want classical liberalism sans frontiers then you are into neo-liberal globalism, which seeks to homogenize varied markets to their own ends. Classical Liberalism existed quite comfortably with British nationalism in the 19th century.
            However, the practice of 19th century Liberalism also gives the lie to your comment about the economically uneducated seeing the economy as a zero-sum game, since they have memories enough to know that wealth does not spread evenly, but congregates. It congregates particularly where wealth already exists. Trickle down does not work that well. the reason for Germany’s growth after the war was its social market model. You’ll find theorists like Tomasi and Gregg are recommending similar models today. Capitalism is all well and good, but it is immoral, and needs rules. The benefit of tomes like Human Action or Man, Economy and State is that they show you what would happen if you did certain things, so that you can then do them in fore-knowledge.

          • HookesLaw

            There are no classic liberals in UKIP. What we have is ‘classic make it up as you go along’

  • ‘This article first appeared in the print edition of The Spectator magazine, dated 7 June 2014’

    Very clever…………today is June the 5th !

    • Streben80

      My Delorean is parked outside 🙂

  • RichardBaranov

    There is in your own Breitbart, James, an article by Raheem Kassam: “What a Eurosceptic Wants: The Policy Preferences of cyberkippers.” It is a good start as a putative ideas tank for future UKIP policy. But UKIP is in the inevitable flux that accompanies a new political movement and, from that point of view, I think your criticisms somewhat unreasonable. Your almost sound as if you expect UKIP to spring forth like Athena, fully formed and perfect. UKIP isn’t going to produce its manifesto until September and then, perhaps, you will have grounds for complaint. Neither you or I, or anyone else for that matter, in terms of UKIP policy, are going to get what we want, because of the simple truism that ‘politics is the art of compromise’. But you are obviously sympathetic to UKIP, so I suggest that you put aside your ego and help UKIP out, and, if you can get the excellent Douglas Murray to chip in with ideas. I think that would be very well received by UKIPers everywhere. But at this putative point in UKIPs history your article sounds rather like an unreasonable kvetch.

    • bufo75

      “UKIP isn’t going to produce its manifesto until September”.
      Locally I have been running a monthly “Pub Forum” where a different aspect of UKIP policy can be dissected by all comers.
      The very first one was on “global warming’, now known as ‘climate change’ due to the lack of ‘warming’.
      At present with UKIP being a “broad church’ we’re worshipping alongside “Green Kippers”.
      In the Autumn we’ll see which of us should be excommunicated.

      • RichardBaranov

        Green Kippers should be flogged and exiled to Tower Hamlets.

        • Streben80

          I think it depends how you define being ‘green’.
          The enviromentalists are some of the least ‘green’ people about, they are just leftwing protesters looking for a cause but there are plenty of people out there who dont want polluted rivers etc, it is a natural human instinct to want to protect the place you live in. I see HS2 is set to destroy important woodland – you dont need to be Swampy the Tree Elf to object to that.

          • bufo75

            ‘Important woodland’ is staggeringly easy to create and, in the UK, very difficult to get rid of.
            I’m very proud of the 12 acre field I handed over to trees some 40 years ago, but I’m sure it would now be impossible to remove them.
            Here on the Malvern Hills the most time-consuming job of the ‘Conservators’ is keeping trees at bay.
            There is a solid phalanx of Silver Birch, Sycamore, Rowan and Ash ready to charge to the top and ruin the ‘skyline’ if given the chance.
            I’m not talking ‘ancient woodland’ planted centuries ago, but trees are just as resilient and potentially ‘invasive’ as magpies, Jackdaws, Wood Pigeons and Sparrows.

          • ‘Green’ is a political movement, and the name of a political party.
            ….Is that clear enough for you? As to what is meant by ‘green’?….Do you think there is anyone isn’t concerned about the environment? Or pollution?

          • Streben80

            I wouldnt personally hand over ‘green’ to the tree huggers any more than I would let the Tories have ownership of conservatism.
            Much of politics involves tags which fail to describe what they actually are. I think only UKIP comes close in that respect.

          • The meaning of ‘green’ is as clear as the meaning of ‘red’. The treehuggers have it in totality, and they can keep it.

            …There is no colour blind confusion here.

            Concern for the environment is not ‘green’ and ‘green’ does not necessarily concern itself with the environment. ‘Green’ is not purple and plums are no more welcome than watermelons.

          • dado_trunking

            What about bounty bars?

          • They have a lovely bunch of coconuts.

          • Streben80

            You surrender to the political definitions of the establishment if you like, I would rather not be a puppet of theirs but each to their own.

          • The ‘greens’ have been quit keen to market their definition, and infiltrate the established parties with their brand. They have shown themselves to be quit good at infiltration, one way or the other, to the extent that UKIP is the only party thus far that hasn’t been infiltrated.

            …Best of luck.

          • Streben80

            The greenmentalists would never manage to hide in UKIP – first hint of a love of wind turbines and they would be told to get lost.

          • dado_trunking

            The coal merchants for one don’t care. Honestly …

          • Do you know any?….. Check out their gardens.

            Do this with the greens too (It’s often good for a laugh)

          • dado_trunking

            Duke of Devonshire, not a bad little garden…
            easily beaten by our heir to the throne though, green he is from head to his toes.

          • RichardBaranov

            If you are truly ‘green’ you would unreservedly support fracking. It is the most environmentally friendly source of energy. Almost two million hole world wide have been fracked and not one has contaminated ground water despite propaganda to the contrary. I thoroughly recommend this documentary, FrackNation : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w1TKVRRhsGo and since I live in one of the villages that is a high priority for fracking l I say, ‘yes, in my own backyard.’

          • Streben80

            I dont know enough about fracking to have no reservations, that is for people with relevant degrees in the subject, but I have not seen much evidence so far that would make me resist should they wish to frack where I live ( they dont ) – I am more worried about incinerators tbh.
            Note for the future, only leftwing thought police tell people what they should and shouldnt think. I will reach my own conclusions as an individual.

      • dado_trunking

        Only A Sith Deals In Absolutes
        You have crossed over to the dark side without even noticing.

    • global city

      Green kippers are bad for your health.

      Also, isn’t that how they ended up with a ‘manifesto’ so many hundreds of pages long though?

      • RichardBaranov

        There was no manifesto of the sort you suggest. Stop reading mainstream propaganda and inform yourself. It isn’t becoming to behave like an intellectual lemming.

        • global city

          Now, now! That is what I actually wrote, if you had only bothered to read it properly.

          The results of many ‘brainstorming sessions’ were left all over their website, making it impossible to identify what was part of their 16 page manifesto and what of the rest was ‘manifesto’.

          • RichardBaranov

            Sorry, I wrote that in haste. My unreserved apology.

          • global city

            That’s fine. I’m an inveterate ‘skimmer’ myself all too often! 🙂

      • Streben80

        Actually I think it was Campbell-Bannerman that gave us the doorstop of a manifesto – and look where he is now…

  • I’m more worried about the UKIP ‘plums’ at the moment……purple on the outside, green in the middle. The ones (they know who they are) with the solar panel subsidy gatherers on their roof, or the wind folly proposals on their land (that they might still have a family interest in or they might possibly not…maybe. If you can put a thumb on them, you pull out a plum.

    Come on UKIP, don’t plumb the depths.

    • dalai guevara

      Ahh Fenny, I knew you had it in you. Well done for sticking to principles, not party lines. You cannot of course say one thing and then do another when it suits you. That is one of UKIP’s biggest disconnects or turn offs, to use energy speak.

  • global city

    Don’t be stupid James.

  • sharon332

    James you are right and you are wrong.

    UKIP should be a Classical Liberal/Small-c conservative party.

    We’ve seen how selfish liberalism can be at times and a libertarian party would only ever be a fringe party.

    Many regard the conservatives as an elitist and selfish bunch that look out for the best interests of the aristocrats and upper class. The conservatives cannot win over Labour heartlands. You’ll notice that the only hope for the conservatives nowadays is to go after the gay vote, graduates, feminists and middle class ethnic minorities.

    The immigration issue shows just how unpopular open borders are. If we pay
    taxes then we have a property right in the country and people are right to
    oppose open door immigration. Payment of taxes means that we have a vested
    interest in schools, roads, infrastructure investment etc. The people are right
    to reject the notion that they should simply forget about that investment,
    accept uncontrolled immigration and wonder around Europe looking for work as a
    result of open door immigration. Further many state schools do not even teach
    languages very well. Your average state school educated person cannot speak a
    european language and this is well documented however those who were educated in private school can often speak 2-3 European languages. This demonstrates just how selfish liberal middle class elitists can be as they have devised a policy which really only benefits them and disadvantages those at the bottom. Further there are many libertarians who oppose uncontrolled immigration including Ron Paul.

    You have to ask yourself why socialists in America have succeeded in capturing
    the hearts and minds of some Americans and have been able to advance socialism.

    Regrettably the selfishness and self centeredness of liberals has aided the
    cause of socialism. Open door mass immigration is selfishness. A classical
    liberal party will only ever be a fringe party.

    However there is a gap in the market for a Classical Liberal/Small c conservative party. Classical liberals can win the hearts and minds of the working class who have been left behind by Labour. Working class folks in Labour heartlands will be the ones who will support the cause of sovereignty and patriotism and they and will accept a smaller state and reduced benefits. Most working class folks are interested in simple things like community and family and they want to work.

  • sharon332

    The irony is that graduates are probably more likely to vote in favour of remaining in the EU and would refuse to accept any arguments against it due to extensive brainwashing by socialist teachers and lecturers in schools and universities. However a working class blue collar who didn’t go to university would be more likely to take a common sense approach to the issue and see the risks of the EU.

    Many working class people are starting to understand that socialism and a bloated welfare state really doesn’t work. Labour has abandoned its core vote. Classical liberal policies if explained well can appeal to blue collar workers. But a political party must have a social conscious and must provide some minimal safety nets which don’t equate to a bloated welfare state. Working class people are starting to understand that acentralised state equals loss of freedom however some remain rightfully worried about following liberals who have demonstrated extreme selfishness in the past.

  • Cyril Sneer

    “they’re against unchecked immigration” = They’re for controlled immigration.

    “they’re against the EU” = They’re for an EU exit.

    ” they’re against gay marriage” = (not all kippers I note) they’re for civil partnerships with the same rights as married couples.

    “they’re against Tory candidates with too many houses” = they prefer a representative from that area who is in touch with their electorate.

    “Now the time has come for them to have the courage of their convictions and tell us what they’re actually for.”

    It’s been pretty clear since day one what they’re for.

    • Then why not say “we’re for controlled immigration” rather than saying “we’re against unchecked immigration” and so on? Far better to present a positive argument than a negative argument. Let’s persuade people to vote for us in our own right rather than always as a protest vote against the other parties.

      • HookesLaw

        What they actually say in their dog whistle is ‘we don’t want Romanians moving in next door’.

      • Cyril Sneer

        They do. They regularly tout points based immigration but it is the media that portrays it in a negative way. So much so there are people out there who truly do think UKIP are against all immigration. It is the media that is at fault.

  • bufo75
    • BarkingAtTreehuggers

      The outcome of that discussion is conclusive.

      Thatcherite libertarianism and discrimination on the grounds of free labour movement which is a fundamental prerequisite of free markets are NOT, I repeat, are NOT compatible. There is nothing further to discuss.

      It is, as always, as simple as that.

  • drnono

    Mass immigration is a policy of classical libertarianism is it not?.
    Why should firms not be free to bring in workers from wherever? Who am I to stop them etc…The article states there is no economic mantra against neo-liberalism,
    Thats not true. The consequences of firm having a costless ability to import workers, have been extensively illustrated as a bad thing in economics by Hardin in 1968 who wrote a paper on the ‘wicked foot’ of capitalism (which won the Nobel prize). He outlined the fact firms would simply act rationally import as much Labour as possible, lowering wages and living standards forever.

    UKIP can only hope to move from the extremist libertarian fringe who were responsible for the recent nonsense manifesto, and engage with Labour voters concerned with primal issues. Mass Immigration, Housing, Energy and other bills, decent welfare support , hopefully ridding ourselves of a overpaid bloated public sector – which undue costs dwarf any welfare bills, and regulating and jailing the bankers.

    As for James wanting a purist party…All larger Parties are a coalition of diverse interests. The Conservatives represent the Land and Capital factors of production, concerned with keeping wages down, rent seeking high (banking and now actual rents), and have traditionally used working class concerns (immigration, Housing – RTB) to gain popularity and swing the vote away from Labour. Labour represent the Labour factor of production – concerned with wages, employment conditions, Social Welfare, Social Housing.

    However, since the 1990’s, Labour changed drastically – to support unlimited mass immigration. Because there are no private sector unions of any consequence, and nearly all the party funding comes from the public sector. They do not represent the private sector worker, as they did in the past, but now only represents the Public sector with its huge wages, job security, golden pensions, and whose goal is to crush the private sector with unlimited competition, evermore job insecurity, lower wages, and no pensions.

    UKIP only exist due to this discord within Labour, in Labour abandoning the private sector worker and his concerns. The ones who have woken up to what Labour are now about, have switched to the nearest party which outlines it will stop Mass Immigration. There is plenty more working class Labour/Tory to come, but UKIP will have to start to represent more and more of their practical interests – and not the interests of a libertarian fringe.

    • Claire Finn

      Wow, that’s quite a Marxist analysis there: Land, Capital and Labour all fighting each other in a zero sum game. Economics (and reality) doesn’t work like that.

    • jamesdelingpole

      Wow. Lots of words.

      • BlueScreenOfDeath

        It is a tale. Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing.

    • BarkingAtTreehuggers

      Not all entirely correct but enough to upset the author.

  • c777

    I think most politically aware people understand what UKIP stands for, small government, low tax, less state interference, I also think that message needs to get across more to those who are not so politically aware, UKIP at the moment are still finding their ground, as to how far they are prepared to go to broaden their appeal, I do hope they don’t make the same mistakes the Conservatives made and lurch to the Left.
    The published manifest in September should settle that.

  • robert d

    Ukip = new word meaning – hypocrites

    • Cyril Sneer

      No, that’ll be liberal progressives.

      • robert d

        Sneer by name sneer by nature?
        Not sure what your point is but I would much prefer to be progressive (any sort) than hanker after a past that never existed.

        • Cyril Sneer

          No, because there isn’t anything progressive about Liberal Progressives.

          I’m 39, and I distinctly remember an England a damn sight better than it is now – that was before mass immigration pre-year 2000, before Nu-Labour opened the borders without any remit from the British public.

          If you deny this past existed then you must be some wet behind the ears kid who has only ever known mass immigration.

          • robert d

            OK so let’s play top trumps. I’m in my 60s and remember England in the mid/ late 50 and it was a horrible place. Housing was a disgrace, food was limited, money was very scarce, the class system ensured no mobility and only a few outside the public school system ever broke through, child abuse was rife and woman had little or no support from ‘a domestic’, rape was almost impossible to convict, landlords could control the lives of those who rented from them, in many instances church goers were controlled by their priests / elders, beatings in schools alienated children, many teachers had been ’emergency trained’ after the war and quite a few were damaged good.
            Things have gradually got better although the greed filled generation promoted by Thatcher remains one of the low points of the past 50 years.
            The England you dream didn’t exist.

  • jaz

    The age of miracles has not ceased. Finally Delingpole has written something with which I agree. When you look at the debate among UKIP supporters and their projections onto the tabula rasa it is clear (to me at least) that without some very astute leadership the party is going to tear itself apart. The problem with appealing to malcontents is that, well, they are malcontents.

    We have already seen this. UKIP’s potential inability in the EP to form a group will leave it out in the cold.

    UKIP is defined currently by its negativity. Everyone knows what it is against, but what is it for?

    • Cyril Sneer

      ” Everyone knows what it is against, but what is it for?”

      To be against something usually means you’re for something else.

      For example: “they’re against unchecked immigration” = They’re for controlled immigration.

    • Britain

      • BarkingAtTreehuggers


        • What part of ‘Britain’ Doesn’t make sense?

          • BlueScreenOfDeath

            It’s the purple puppy troll, and has at least three of its sockpuppets running on this blog alone, Fen.

            Best to ignore it completely.

          • I know it, but my sock drawer is such a tangled mess at the moment I’ve given up trying to match them.

          • BarkingAtTreehuggers

            Babes, why don’t you go frack baby frack (as you so aptly proclaim) yourself?
            What is stopping you?
            Still no deal with the plebs, two years on?
            Jeez Louise!

          • BarkingAtTreehuggers

            It is not BRITAIN they defend nor do they speak for it.

    • jamesdelingpole

      No. “Delingpole” hasn’t written something you agree with. What happened is that you found a sentence you liked and focussed on that to the exclusion of all else. Don’t worry: I’d say your problem is shared by about 80 per cent of the commenters below most of the articles I write.

      • jaz

        It was just that one sentence I was talking about.

        And if 80% of commenters don’t get what you are talking about then perhaps you should have a think about how well you do your job.

        • BlueScreenOfDeath

          “And if 80% of commenters don’t get what you are talking about…”

          But you are not 80% of commenters are you, jaz? Not by any stretch of imagination.

          You’re another newly-minted anti-UKIP troll, probably another recruited EU spoiler on €3.50 per hour, with more posts than votes – always a significant indicator.

          • Guest

            When will this FAQ be made to eat his own words?

          • jaz

            No, I am about 5% I would imagine, but “Delingpole” seems to worry that 80% of people don’t understand him (his words not mine).
            Where do I sign up for €3.50 an hour? You seem to know a lot about it.
            Maybe if I post a few random “Vote UKIP” or “I hate Mooslimes” I can bump my count up a bit. That seems to go down well among your kind.

      • Saikourufu

        I’m one of the 80pc… The prob with Ukip is that it is led by crypto-Christians/crypto-British people, nice sensation, no real spine…

        • La Fold

          what the flock is “crypto-british” when they are at home?

          • Saikourufu

            Are people that are heirs but not successors… Culturally they are as empty as the average continental european, they don’t know nothing about britains history and politics, they were just born ‘here’…

      • sharon332

        I really enjoyed your article James. UKIP should build policies which would entice the types of people who would be attracted to the
        American dream and who believe in the Commonwealth. This includes blue collar workers, self-employed, libertarians, the ambitious working class and the working class interested in preserving a sovereign Britain and concerned about community, culture and preserving social cohesion. Also the patriotic, and that should include the lads who attend football matches and who support the English football team.

        The trouble with graduates is that too many have been brainwashed in Schools and universities staffed by Leftie teachers and lecturers and that is why so many graduates support the EU vision and the whole climate change industry. The self-employed, blue collar workers and working class would be more capable of utilising common sense to see the problems with the EU vision and oppose
        corporatism which harms the middle class. The leftie education system produces too many people who lack common sense.

        Cameron is more likely to attract the graduate vote and the types of people who would vote to stay in the EU. Apparently Lib Dems and Labour voters voted for the Tories to keep Farage out of Newark. This is bad news for Brexit supporters as Lab and Lib Dem voters who could vote Cameroon are the types of voters who
        would vote to stay in the EU.

        This is now a battle between those who believe in an Independent Britain vs.the Europhiles.The Challenge for UKIP is to build a coherent set of ideas, values and policies which would attract the types of people who would vote to leave the EU, and explain why limited government is key to preserving freedoms and allowing a
        more creative and innovative society.

        I totally reject Donna’s stance and UKIP were right to apologise on her behalf. Blacks and ethnic minorities remember the signs which
        stated no blacks, no gays, no dogs. Classical Liberalism needs to evolve and that is why i said that it is best when in coalition with small-c conservatism.

        Many ethnic minorities are attracted to the American Dream and not Europe. But America evolved and you would not see any signs in America which state no gays no jews etc.

  • la catholic state

    If UKIP want to be for something…..let them be the party of the traditional family which is the only living engine of society….and the pro-Christian party.
    Minorities need not be discomfited. They come to Britain precisely because it is a stable Christian country.

    • Well, it’s clear a lot of us are projecting our hopes onto UKIP. we won’t all be satisfied, and contrary to the article, it’s not simply finding an ideology – or platform – but about changing the way politicians do politics and how they engage with the public and how we engage with politics generally. If UKIP can deal with the Russell Brand attitude to politics that pervades this nation, then they will have accomplished at least one good thing. I hear people talking about politics now who weren’t interested before.
      UKIP aren’t our saviours. If we want politics cleaned up and made representative again, we all need to be involved.

      • la catholic state

        It’s not projecting our hopes….it’s shaping the party that we feel we could vote for. That’s what I intend to do.

        • It wasn’t meant to be a negative statement. We are directing our attention at UKIP because it is an avenue for us to work through. But there are differences: libertarians, ex-conservatives, ex-labour, Christians. If UKIP tries to be all things to all people it will fail. We’ll have to compromise on some things. As i’ve said elsewhere, i think Christians might have to compromise on some drug de-criminilization, for instance, unless the party doesn’t go down that route.

          • la catholic state

            Sure. But still…..a pro-Christian party could keep everyone happy, especially in time to come.

          • Claire Finn

            What time is that? The apocalypse? Lol

          • la catholic state

            In just a decade or so. Duh. Lol.

  • Sparky

    It isn’t true that all the other parts of the political spectrum have been occupied. We have a politics which runs social liberalism to social conservatism. Classical liberalism is missing yes, but so is fascism, communism, anarchism, even socialism (because Labour is not really a socialist party in any meaningful sense).

    • Claire Finn

      Okay, he skipped the ones that involve concentration camps and death squads.

      • Sparky

        Yes. Because anarchists are famous for their love of death squads. As are all socialists ever. That Tony Benn loved nothing more than a good concentration camp.

        • La Fold

          No he just called the great leap forward a ‘mistake’. Divet.

  • goatmince

    That video … hook, line and sinker to James.

  • Saikourufu

    Very good article james. The problem with Ukip is two fold: the fall of christianity and the appearance of mass-men has created a generation that does not know what it believes in. This is the reason why they are in the mess that they are.

    The mass-men problem has been already extensively descríeis by Ortega y Gasset in his The Revolt of the Masses (1930): “everywhere arose the man-mass of which this volume is concerned, a type of man made in haste, mounted only on a few abstractions, and therefore, identical from one end of Europe to the other. To him is owned the sad aspect of stifling monotony that life is taking across the continent. This mass man is a man previously emptied of its own history, without bowels of the past and, therefore, docile to all disciplines called international.”

    This general ignorance of basic ethics, Christian morals and British history is the reason why so much people fell attracted to Ukip but fail to have a structured idea in what they actually believe and why.

    There is only one solution. Ukip needs to set a structured portfolio determining what it believes and carefully explaining the rational behind it, it needs to make sure that all activists learn it and Ukip also need to be proselitist and time and time again explain what they believe and why.

  • Thank you for your kind words James. But we have an -ism: Classical Liberalism.

    • Mike Thomas


      Classic Liberalism allowed the Huguenots to settle in England and an Act of Parliament demanded their naturalisation. Farage is a Huguenot name after all.

      Classic liberals were pro-free trade and extolled a single market. They were tolerant of religion and enshrined the rights of all individuals.

      UKIP can’t just cherry pick the bits of classical liberalism it wants and then slap down a social authoritarian edict on the bits it doesn’t.

      That’s the problem with UKIP that James identifies – they are the ‘anti’ party. It’s all well and good wanted to get rid; it is easier to destroy than to build.

      What are UKIP going to build?

      • sharon332

        A libertarian party would only ever be a fringe movement. Most blue collar workers, self employed etc are small-c conservatives. The only way for UKIP to become a national party is to embrace small-c conservatism alongside classical liberalism. Most Americans are also small-c conservatives.

        I don’t support Donna’s stance and i think that it would be hugely offensive to have a sign which stated no gays, no blacks, no irish. Libertarians have been mariginalised into a fringe movement because they are perceived as being selfish, uncaring and self absorbed.

        • I also think that a sign saying ‘no gays, no blacks, no irish’ would be hugely offensive. It doesn’t follow that it should therefore be the same thing. Law and morality are not synonymous.

          • jamesdelingpole

            Go Donna!

          • sharon332

            I’m actually a big fan of yours James and i thank you for bringing common sense back into the world and raising issue with the whole climate change hoax and the EU. However i disagree on this issue and think that signs saying no gays etc are harmful to the libertarian cause.

          • wilfulsprite

            Why should it be harmful? There are gay-only establishments, and they are not considered to be ‘harmful’ to the current equality policies for some reason.
            Business is business, and the vast majority of businesses would not turn away gay people (or any other kind of people).
            If there are businesses which exist to provide a service to a particular sector of the population, then why should that be considered harmful?

          • sharon332

            Perhaps we should raise issue with the gay only establishments? my point is that the cause of the Classical liberal is a noble one, but it gets easily sidetracked through lack of judgement on certain issues.

          • sharon332

            Hi Donna, thank you for your reply. I understand but because of past history regarding slavery and civil rights just the simple idea that shop keepers could put up a sign which states no gays is harmful. It sends the wrong message. It creates a fear in the minds of ethnic minorities that racism could follow as a result of such signs. Libertarians must be sensitive to culture and history. Now I’m not a namby pamby political correct type and I have a problem with the lawyers who exploit the civil rights industry and civil rights groups who use political correctness to silence debates. However you have to be careful and understand that sometimes great care must still be taken when adopting some libertarian positions. Understand that many people are still angry about issues such as slavery and will pounce on libertarians who fail to
            use careful judgement and fail to understand that sometimes you cannot always neatly transplant free market ideas onto every situation as human beings have feelings. Socialist will use such signs to denounce libertarians and promote their socialist views of the world including the European Court of Human rights and the EU, when in fact Classical liberalism is the best way of preserving freedoms.

          • I’m not transplanting free market ideas onto the situation, I’m saying that if what you want is freedom and equality, the way to go about that is not to curtail freedom and promote the rights of select groups above those of others. The word ‘equality’ becomes meaningless if we only apply it to certain people. We can’t be selectively equal.

            Incidentally, Britain did more than any other nation to *abolish* slavery. Every culture throughout history has seen slavery as a normal way of life, until the Brits came along with their highfalutin ideals of freedom, equality, fair play and the like. If you’re going to use history to justify your policies, at least get your history right.

          • sharon332

            You are right about the role which Britian played in bringing about an end to slavery. You’ll be surprised that we actually share a lot of common ideas. I like your common sense approach. The best way to protect freedom is through classical liberalism and not socialism which leads to enslaved and oppressed people. Perhaps we will have to agree to disagree on the issue re signs. Classical Liberalism should be popular but it is the small mistakes such as promoting the ability to place signs which loses it fans.

        • CBinTH

          You say in one paragraph what I struggled to say in lots of paragraphs.

          The thing about small-‘c’ conservatism is that it’s based on an instinctive idea of what is normal (on “common sense”) and not on an abstract ideology, which means that many small-‘c’ conservatives hold views with which a fundamentalist free marketeer might disagree. For example, the NHS is still overwhelmingly popular, and the public have mixed views about tuition fees, privatised utilities, and even immigration or the benefits system, let alone a standardised rate of income tax.

      • Mike, this charge is often leveled at Ukip. Whilst it is true to say that libertarians believe in free movement of all people, it is also true that we do not live in a libertarian society. For free movement of people to be a successful policy, a whole host of other conditions also have to be in place, including a complete lack of government protectionism over industry, a vastly reduced benefits system, and so on. Those conditions are not in place.

        You say that Ukip can’t cherry pick classical liberalism, but libertarians do the very same thing when arguing in favour of free movement of people whilst failing to address the other factors that make the policy unworkable in the real world.

        • you_kid

          Nonsense – for an ideal world to exist we need it to be free of bigots, more like.

          The argument does not stand up at all, of course principles apply – what you cannot say is that you were libertarian but then curtail the main driver of the market which is the free movement of labour *within an economic zone*.
          I make the latter distinction for a reason.

          • sharon332

            The EU is Corporatism and nothing to do with free markets. The EU is crony Capitalism therefore your argument doesnt stand up.

          • you_kid


            The EU is the largest and most successful multi-cultural trading block on the planet. Better get over it, fast …

          • CBinTH

            Are there any other trading blocks you can name, with such poor economic performance?

            Or is there another way of judging what is “successful”?

            And what constitutes the best sort of “multi-culturalism”? The EU may include many distinct European national cultures, but it seems to have difficulties dealing with non-European cultural minorities, both in the sense that many national governments have less than perfectly liberal* policies/electorates, and that EU policy as a whole reflects this – which is the main reason Turkey was not suffered to enter the Union.

            Meanwhile, the USA has a more homogeneous identity, but is much better at absorbing immigrants from all over the world – I have seen with my own eyes how these people are quickly converted into ultra-patriotic “Americans” and are accepted as such, – and its relatively homogeneous culture is nevertheless much more of a genuine cultural soup than can be found within the EU.

            * I myself feel that perfectly liberal policies would be inappropriate, but this doesn’t change the fact that you can’t praise the EU for its successful “multi-culturalism” without noting that this multi-culturalism is often exclusive of non-European cultures and is, anyway, often a somewhat shallow level of “success”.

        • maninthewilderness

          Donna, could you clarify why you think that we need a complete lack of government protection over industry for free movement of people to be a successful policy?

          • Because protectionist measures such as CAP make it much more difficult for poorer countries to develop their economies, driving immigration predominantly in one direction.

          • maninthewilderness

            Thanks for that clarification.

            That is an important point that needs to be heard and remembered. Our problem is not that the governments of our competitors (e.g. countries in Asia) are being protectionist – it is that our government in the UK is being protectionist – forced to subsidise our industry by the EU.

          • you_kid

            More dumbfounding nonsense of the worst kind – will this piffle never end?

        • Mike Thomas

          I think you miss my point.

          You cannot have the core tenets of classic liberalism with the social protectionism like limiting the movement of non-UK nationals. That is very illiberal.

          So remove the need for CAP by either downgrading UK EU membership to EEA status or leave altogether. Which one would it be? Leave altogether and transit to what and how? Downgrade to EEA and preserve the four freedoms?

          In short, you cannot have your liberal cake and eat it. Yes, remove the market distortions, even leave the EU altogether, but what is going to come in its place?

          UKIP has said it will limit immigration, great, how?

          • greenacre

            UKIP wants to adopt the Australian immigration system. Any true libertarian should weep with gratitude at this idea, as, unlike the current EU system means that 28 nations (predominantly white & Christian) can move among themselves freely, whilst every other nation on Earth has to get visas; whereas the Australian system means that everyone has to get a visa, and thus treated the same.

            Really, the EU free movement of people policy is borderline apartheid.

  • neilcraig

    I’m afraid I have to say James has a point. Farage’s charm is a major asset but for long term success UKIP, or any party, has to be able to offer policies that the others don’t. That means policies we have to fight uphill to promote. Fortunately if they are good ones that is possible.

    • CBinTH

      “free market liberalism is ideologically the hardest sell because an awful lot of people would like some cuddly socialism to work” – this is why the young libertarians who’ve joined UKIP are now leaving, or receding into the background.

      Good riddance. Such people were merely fair-weather allies anyway, less interested in UKIP’s central premise (the overriding need to preserve the sovereignty and national identity of the UK) and more attracted for the opportunity to whine about how unfair it is not to have a flat system of income tax. Their parents were presumably the type who bring their children up to accept their own personal prejudices as a gospel truth, without any understanding of context or nuance or any consideration for the merits of other points of view.

      UKIP doesn’t need “policies” because its very existence is a virtue in terms of highlighting one (or two) particular issue(s) and forcing other parties to better reflect public opinion on those matters. That is its role – to help save its country. It has no viable future as an electoral party generally, and even if it did, to adopt policies on topics other than the issue of national sovereignty would dilute its support and distract from (and thus betray) its original cause, along with many of the UKIP voters who did not hold views compatible with whatever wider views were adopted.

      You say the Conservatives could not possibly steal free market clothes if UKIP were to adopt these. But these were the very clothes the Conservatives wore thirty years ago, so they could easily readopt them (many would argue that they already have) – unless you mean the radical flat tax libertarianism I mentioned earlier.

      And the problems with an ideology based around classical economic liberalism or economic libertarianism are that they, firstly, contradict the instincts of ordinary UKIP members (who not only mostly want to renationalise the railways, but are prone to advocate interference in personal liberties, such as the wearing of the burkha), and secondly, that they would alienate the vast majority of the nation, who benefit, as you note, from some form of cuddly socialism.

      Generally speaking, anyway, IMHO I think that any ideology tends to be dangerous, when taken to its logical conclusion, and that people should mine them for ideas but never become committed to them.

      • neilcraig

        We disagree about where we are, or indeed can be going. Up till Cameron refused Lord Pearson’s offer to stand down in return for a real referendum promise it was possible UKIP could be simply a Tory pressure group. At that moment it became certain that it could not function as a pressure group because, short of being replaced the Tories would never accommodate themselves to such pressure.
        In turn, if UKIP remained simply a 1 issue pressure group it would never get much support. People vote on a while range of issues and even most people who want to quit the EU do not think that more important than all the other issues put together. So to make progress UKIP has to have policies on other issues.
        f one believes, as I do, that free marketism, not spending billions on windmills, not having unrestricted immigration, promoting technological progress, low taxes etc make for a better country it is not any sort of self indulgence to say so. Indeed I would say it is patriotic to promote those, if they are beneficial.

        UKIP has grown beyond its origins. It was a forced growth – forced by the intransigence of the political elite. We are now where we are, and I am glad.

  • wilfulsprite

    What has Farage actually said about Thatcherism? I must have missed that.

  • John Moss

    UKIPs flip-floppery over it’s stance on welfare and tax just show it up for what it is. A Bucket Party, repository for the “none-of-the-above” votes which used to go to the Lib-Dems, the BNP etc.

    I fully expect, somewhere, a UKIP candidate to argue for staying IN the EU.

    • wilfulsprite

      What is the Tory and Labour policy on welfare and tax please?

      • sharon332

        The Tory and Labour Party receive instructions from their masters at the EU. Their policy is whatever the EU commission tells them it should be.

    • saffrin

      No worries, UKIP’s flip-floppery I put down to ducking provocative media questioning.

  • timinsingapore

    What about ‘I’m no racist, call me old-fashioned, they wouldn’t like it here, my old dad would turn in his grave, it’s not natural somehow, they’re all the same, we didn’t know what we were joining, mine’s a large one, don’t mind if I do’-ism?

  • Nick BW

    **** get lost

  • Chris Kimberley

    public schoolboy, son of a millionaire farige was too scared to run in newark so he put up another ukip millionaire, public schoolboy, oxbridge educated gimp to go against the tories own millionaire, public schoolboy, oxbridge educated gimp,-same old politics
    (delingpole even got to earn his oil industry commission by inserting his daily global warming denying quip in the article)
    this is all more predictable than the plot of a nicholas cage movie

  • Jackthesmilingblack

    Still bad-mouthing the UKIP, Jimmy? Get with the programme, Sunshine. Nigel`s fun-loving boys have been rehabilitated.

  • greenacre

    I support UKIP, and am a party member, yet sympathise with James’ point of view. I was a little taken aback by what I saw as a sudden switcheroo by from “We need to get out of the EU if we want to govern ourselves.” to “Immigration. Immigration. Immigration.”

  • Andy M

    I have been a staunch defender of UKIP, simply because I find bias and unequal treatment to be something extremely irritating, so the way they have been attacked by the media across the political spectrum has infuriated me. However, looking forward to the next election in 2015, I have to say, I would be very unlikely to vote UKIP. Not because they don’t represent my views on immigration and the EU – infact they do – but because if we drop the political agendas and just look at the situation for what it is, we know UKIP won’t get into power and we know that honestly all that will happen is it will hurt the Tories and cost them the election.

    Hurting the Tories I don’t have a problem with, but allowing Labour to win the election is simply too much to bare. We have to avoid a Labour government at all costs. So I only see two ways of this happening: trying to force the Tories to make a coalition with UKIP by continuing to mount pressure on them so they know they will lose too many votes, or voting Tory. As much as they aren’t much different to Labour, they are still by far the lesser of two evils.

  • F. Hugh Eveleigh

    I am a UKIP voter and I agree with Mr Delingpole’s argument. Of course there are complexities and minutiae which cloud specifics but yes, the party must have a central core to its philosophy and this philosophy must encompass independence (of the EU), small government, open trade, libertarianism and freedom in its widest sense. This is not Thatcherism as such but its roots might well be based on much of what Hayek proposed in his Road to Freedom. We are undoubtedly at some sort of political crossroad in the UK’s history so UKIP does need to delve deep into its inner being and formulate a coherent philosophy upon which individual variants can be based.

  • Bob339

    Sad to note that the Spectator is employing some of the worst writers in Britain. Delingpole, Parris etc. It is also giving space to rats like Mandelson. Wake up and start sacking deadwood Mr. Moore or you will go under!

  • warmingmyth

    “Ukip’s chairman Steve Crowther described this as ‘beyond what is acceptable”

    Steve Crowther is not a libertarian and does not even appear to believe in freedom of speech. It would be much better for UKIP if someone who was a libertarian and did believe in freedom of speech was the party Chairman.

  • uberwest

    No one makes the case for small government and lower taxes. I don’t ever remember hearing a politician pointing out the advantages that would come from not having to hand over 40% of your salary to a bunch of dodgy cynical careerist politicians and bureaucrats. Ukip have to try and convert the nanny stater voter base somehow or what’s the point of them?

    Having said that, I’d be happy to vote for them and have that all sorted out after they were elected and in government, just to give the sham Tories and the traitor parties a vicious kicking.

    • sharon332

      UKIP should to start talking about the British Dream in the same way that Americans talk about the American Dream.

      Small government and localism should be promoted as a means of ensuring freedoms and sovereignty. Big government and centralisation of
      power is alienating many people of all classes from the established political
      parties. The working class may grow to hate big government in the same way that many working class republican voters in America hate big government. A connection must be made between big government systems like the EU and the loss of sovereignty in Britain.

      The message must be sent out that big government creates big bureaucrats who pose a threat to freedoms and who also threaten the sovereignty of the country. Thus the best way to protect communities and ensure a vibrant Britain is localism and small government which takes power away from government and places it in the hands of the people who know best.

      The EU has caused a lot of anger and now is the time to promote the benefits of small government and classical liberalism. But small c conservativism is also needed to help reach out to the masses angry with the established status quo.

  • The Colonel

    This is a ridiculous argument about UKIP,s policies.I am a UKIP member and do not agree with all of their policies,and I assume that would equally apply to members of all of the other parties.Ask anyone outside the MSM the Labour or Tory policies on housing,finance,education the NHS etc and they would struggle.Then ask them on the subject of mass uncontrolled immigration and the majority apparently agree with UKIP,s stance.
    Amongst the UKIP intake of MEPs are some very credible people such as Diane James,Suzanne Evans, Patrick O,Flynn etc.These have all experienced to actually have worked for a living opposed to the Tory and Labour spad infested front benches.
    Of course UKIP will not form a government in 2015 but I prefer to put my trust in the
    long term policies in the one party I can personally believe in.

  • Mike

    UKIP believe primarily in getting us out of a corrupt fascist style union of control freaks and freeloaders, namely the EU. That’s all we need for now as all the other things that need fixing hinge on that single objective and all the other subservient wishes of us and UKIP will follow on from an EU exit.

  • jeffersonian

    “If Ukip cannot fully embrace radicalism then it is nothing.”


    (For Dan Hodges this statement wouldn’t even compute.)

  • John Hawkins Totnes

    You have hit the nail on the head James.

  • pobinr

    For sure the EU doesn’t believe in democracy

    The case against Europe: One MEP reveals the disturbing contempt for democracy at the heart of the EU > http://tinyurl.com/phd36dt

    Your forefathers fought for the freedom & democracy being taken from us, but you’re more concerned with bashing UKIP !

    Some words from a Southampton Resident on the UKIP leaflet.

    ‘My Name is Albert Griffiths and I was born in 1924 in London. My father was injured in the first world war and had to have both legs amputated. He could not provide for all six children on his small pension, so I was adoptedby a family and moved to live with them in Romford, Essex when I was nine.

    At age 14 I was sent to a training farm where learned about looking after animals and crops. I also joined the Dagenham Sea Cadets. We were issued with old carbine rifles that had been used in the American Civil war!

    In 1942 I signed up for the Royal Navy as a trainee radio operator. I was assigned to HMS London and sailed on Arctic Convoy PQ20, taking essential supplies to northern Russia. The weather conditions were quite bad. I was later posted on the Wild Goose, which sank more German U boats than any other vessel. I took part in the Normandy landings, and that was a traumatic experience. I left the Navy in 1946, but continued to work in radio for many years.

    I support UKIP because I am fed up with the people’s voice not being heard and even now, in my senior years will strive for an independant self-governed country.’

    • Urban Jungle

      Romford was in Essex during the 1930s but ceased being so in 1965 when Romford became a part of London. It is the principle town in the London Borough of Havering in east London.

  • Laura Zamora

    !!! How Dr.Ukaka Save My Broken Heart Of Marriage Today !!!

    My Name is Robert Rivas .I will love to share my testimony to all the people in the forum cos i never thought i will have my girlfriend back and she means so much to me..The girl i want to get marry to left me 4 weeks to our weeding for another man..,When i called her she never picked my calls,She deleted me on her Facebook and she changed her Facebook status from married to Single…when i went to her place of work she told her boss she never want to see me..i lost my job as a result of this cos i cant get myself anymore,my life was upside down and everything did not go smooth with my life…I tried all i could do to have her back to all did not work out until i met a Man when i Travel to Africa to execute some business have been developing some years back..I told him my problem and all have passed through in getting her back and how i lost my job…he told me he gonna help me…i don’t believe that in the first place.but he swore he will help me out and he told me the reason why my girlfriend left me and also told me some hidden secrets.i was amazed when i heard that from him..he said he will cast a spell for me and i will see the results in the next couple of days..then i travel back to US the following day and i called him when i got home and he said he’s busy casting those spells and he has bought all the materials needed for the spells,he said am gonna see positive results in the next 2 days that is Thursday…My girlfriend called me at exactly 12:35pm on Thursday and apologies for all she had done ..she said,she never knew what she’s doing and her sudden behavior was not intentional and she promised not to do that again.it was like am dreaming when i heard that from her and when we ended the call,i called the man and told him my wife called and he said i haven’t seen anything yet… he said i will also get my job back in 2 days time..and when its Sunday,they called me at my place of work that i should resume working on Monday and they gonna compensate me for the time limit have spent at home without working..My life is back into shape,i have my girlfriend back and we are happily married now with kids and i have my job back too,This man is really powerful..if we have up to 20 people like him in the world,the world would have been a better place..he has also helped many of my friends to solve many problems and they are all happy now..Am posting this to the forum for anybody that is interested in meeting the man for help.you can mail him on this e-mail; freedomlovespell@hotmail.com i cant give out his number cos he told me he don’t want to be disturbed by many people across the world..he said his email is okay and you can also contact him on his web site: freedomlovespelltemple.yolasite.com

  • Philip

    The UKIP needs you, James Delingpole. Suck up your slightly-hurt pride and try again.