Ukip’s Patrick O’Flynn on the ‘genius’ Nigel Farage and why Douglas Carswell’s votes won’t set party policy

The party’s economics spokesman is one of those driving Ukip towards professionalism

8 November 2014

9:00 AM

8 November 2014

9:00 AM

Interviews with Ukip bigwigs used to happen in pubs. But times are changing. When I meet Patrick O’Flynn — the party’s economics spokesman, and until recently chief spin doctor — it’s in a juice bar.

O’Flynn, a former political editor of the Daily Express who studied economics at Cambridge, is one of those driving Ukip towards professionalism. Ukip, he says, is the only party he’s ever joined, and it is ‘not part of the Conservative family’. That is why he rates its chances in northern Labour seats: ‘We didn’t close down any coal mines or steelworks and we’re not known as the patrician Home Counties rich people’s party.’ He claims, rather extravagantly, that voting Tory north of Birmingham is likely to save a Labour MP: ‘If the Tories really want to stop a Labour government, then perhaps, unilaterally, they should stand aside in those seats.’

O’Flynn is nothing if not a Farage loyalist. He refers to the leader as ‘our genius’ and is insistent that he is still calling the shots even though the party now has an MP, Douglas Carswell. When I put it to him that Carswell’s votes in the Commons must now define Ukip policy, he replies that this would involve ‘according Douglas total power to set Ukip policy on everything, which clearly isn’t the way it is going to work’.

No other party claims that Westminster votes don’t reflect its official policy positions — not even the Greens, who like Ukip only have one MP and a leader outside the Commons. But O’Flynn is adamant that Ukip is different. ‘Well the Greens don’t have a leader like Nigel Farage, do they? We have an incredibly strong leader who is undoubtedly the most important reason for our success and has connected with a huge slice of the electorate.’

‘He’s a strong leader with strong views,’ O’Flynn continues, and he’s ‘going to remain the dominant figure in setting the direction of the party, I’ve no doubt about that.’ In other words, Carswell ought to remember that Ukip only has room for one leading man.

But O’Flynn isn’t entirely uncritical of how his party handles itself. He concedes that Ukip’s new alliance in the European Parliament — with a Polish MEP who once discussed the circumstances in which it was permissible to beat your wife — is far from ideal. If the deal wasn’t needed to preserve Ukip’s group privileges in the European Parliament, he says, he ‘would rather not’ have done it. And unlike Farage, he does not attempt to defend the Ukip calypso, in which the DJ Mike Read sang the party’s praises in a mock Jamaican accent: ‘Ultimately what you have here is a white guy singing a song which included a reference to illegal immigration in a Jamaican accent.’ His explanation for how that mistake got through? ‘It would now almost never occur to someone in Ukip that we would be perceived as racist, because we very obviously are not.’

Indeed Ukip, according to O’Flynn, is ‘the one party with a non-racist immigration policy’, because it wants to treat people from all countries equally. He complains that the current system means that ‘potentially high-value people from India or New Zealand can’t come in and yet someone with frankly nothing to contribute who comes from one of the EU countries can’. So Ukip’s ambition for the next election is ‘to be the party that can give immigration a good name again’.

The rise in the tax-free allowance, he says, has changed the ‘cost-benefit analysis’ of bringing in low-paid immigrant labour. ‘They will be paying zero income tax and maybe paying £500 or £600 National Insurance. But there is in-work benefits, there is housing benefit, if they have children there is child benefit, a school place on top of which the pupil premium is another £500. This is great for Starbucks’ costs and profits. But it’s terrible for the public realm.’

O’Flynn seems deeply suspicious of big corporations. He says that with companies having turnovers equivalent to the GDP of developing countries, the government should be ‘asking the question about whether the private players are playing in the national interest’. He wants a national-interest test for foreign takeovers of UK companies. It’s a far cry from the free-trading libertarianism that used to characterise Ukip.

The people that O’Flynn wants to stand up for are the striving classes. He accuses ‘Conservative trust fund kids’ of not understanding them, saying he was pushed into politics not by Europe or immigration but by George Osborne’s decision to take child benefit away from higher-rate taxpayers. It’s because of their own circumstances, he says, that the Prime Minister and Chancellor ‘bought into this idea that anyone earning £40,000 a year spent their child benefit on cappuccinos’. O’Flynn is adamant that Cameron and Osborne don’t understand how much money people need to get by these days. In the south-east, ‘If you have no inheritance or family wealth behind you and you are trying to get on the property ladder and you have a couple of children and just one person in the family working, then even £60,000 might not get you very far.’

Even a few months ago, asking what Ukip would do in the event of a hung parliament would have seemed like fantasy politics. But with the party now on course to win a handful of seats, it seems negligent not to. O’Flynn’s response is that it would go down the route of ‘confidence and supply’, not full coalition, and ‘demand an early in/out referendum’.

Strikingly, O’Flynn is insistent that, for now, the general election is more important  for Ukip than an EU referendum. In the hunt for Westminster seats, it aims to create a ‘set of political ideas’ that commands the loyalty of 20 per cent of the electorate, with ‘concentrated clusters of support’. But then, ‘If you create for a referendum a brand that only commands 20 per cent support, you’re in a lot of trouble. So it’s a completely different challenge when we get to an in/out referendum.’

When I ask O’Flynn if he would stand for leader after Farage goes, he downplays the idea: ‘I would only stand if people convinced me that I was the person who could best take things on.’ This just goes to show that he’s already learnt how to give the perfect politician’s answer.

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
  • cargill55

    UKIP at 23% in the latest Ashdown constituency poll shows people are sick of the self serving deceit of Liblabcon whose policies have given us mass uncontrolled immigration of over half a million a year for 15 years, broken state finances with a state debt if £1.4 trillion added to by £100 billion a year, dysfunctional multiculturalism and political correctness directly responsible for the Rotherham catastrophe, illegal wars, dysfunctional housing and energy markets, illegal immigrants flooding in, collapsing state services and infrastructure provided by a bloated inefficient state sector, a degraded military, a broken anti democratic political system and our democracy and sovereignty given away.
    It’s time to sweep away the self serving, crony supporting , nepotistic left wing LIblabcon consensus that’s wholly failed Britain and support UKIP.

    • Earthenware

      But don’t you feel “enriched”?

      • Jules Wright

        Actually “enrobbed”.

        • David

          Nice one ! I go for plain “deceived”.

        • Aberrant_Apostrophe


    • Alexsau91

      Liberal-SDP Alliance in 1980s polled as high as 50%, look where they are now. (Or indeed where they were in the 1980s) UKIP can barely manage 20%, the latest poll had them at 13%. If you think UKIP will get anywhere close to 20% in 2015 you need your head examined. A poll by ICM found UKIP to be by far the least liked party in the UK, 5% worse than the Lib Dems, so don’t assume that the majority agree with UKIP or their lies.

      2015 will come, the largest party will be Lib or Con. Second Largest will be Lib Dems, or maybe the SNP. Then the DUP, and Sinn Fein… and finally in 7th place will be UKIP.

      UKIP will be nowhere in 2015, or indeed 2020. They’ll achieve as much as the SDP did. Why? Because they stand FOR nothing, and stand AGAINST everything. They say one thing in the north, another in the south. They offer simple fixes to the problems you list above, because those left behind in our modern society are hopeful and are looking for a solution that the Lib and Con fail to offer them. It is a strategy, for sure. What is as bad… worse is that they are becoming enfranchised by the biggest liars and hypocrites out there. They are putting their faith in a party that can’t and won’t change things for the better.

      Labour and the Conservatives will endure, as they always do. Throughout the 70s we had disenfranchisements, unstable government… a breakaway new party offering quick fixes. What followed this new era of politics? 31 years of majority government.

      • Valleon

        Highest Poll for UKIP was 26% over a fortnight ago, which I think was ComRes but could be wrong.

        Labour paper The Mirror invites its Labour readership tonight to tell them who they will be voting for at the GE: 76% of them say UKIP !

        SDP did rank highly after the Winter of Discontent, but there was no euphoria over them, and don’t assume that the media here – just because you may think UKIP are now getting too much coverage for their one MP status – are covering any of it. The media are purposely capturing nothing of how the people everywhere are stirring for UKIP – the atmosphere and discussion for British hope is crackling for the first time in people’s lifetimes – all through UKIP, which has become the Party of Choice rather than of resort, as it has often been painted by lazy hacks.

        SDP merely offered some Labour supporters (I include ‘Liberals’ of yore here) a way toward the centrist route, and a leaning away from Trotskysm; that is why it quickly subsided.

        Other than U K I P and SDP having both reached the ramparts for different reasons, there is no comparison, and I hope you’ll remember your post here, its desperate dreamy off-the-cuff predictions, because UKIP will continue all the way until Mr Farage is in No.10.

        • global city

          Also, the whole point about the SDP was that Kinnock began taking the Labour party the way the people felt it must go, thus removing the need for a new centre-left party. Smith, then Blair completed that step away from the far left that created the space for the SDP.

          Cameron needs to go in the other direction from his modernisation if he is ever to discount the advance of UKIP.

          it ain’t going to happen.

      • Revolutionkid

        No comparison UKIP are a far far bigger threat than ever seen before ignore them at your peril….

      • global city

        You have to deliberately close your mind to what UKIP have actually said to be able to flap out that tired old ‘for nothing, against everything’ idiot’s mantra.

        Are you an idiot?

        To take just a few examples

        They are FOR a politically sovereign parliament and national institutions

        They are FOR free trade

        They are FOR rebuilding the much better Common Law system

        they are FOR a whole raft of bilateral and regional trade and cultural associations

        They are FOR a much deeper relationship with the new Commonwealth (lots of brown people there, don’t you know?)

        They are FOR a points based system of immigration control

        They are FOR an independent press

        They are FOR a more federalised UK, moving much more deeply into aspects of direct democracy than the other parties

        They are FOR developing a proper defence infrastructure

        They are FOR smaller government and a lower tax take

        Everything they have come out ‘against’ they have complemented by issuing statements or policies on what they are FOR instead.

        Talking of lies…. your post was full of lies.

      • It may have slipped your attention that the Liberal Democrat are now in government. So that is what became of them!

      • pp22pp

        What is new is mass immigration of people no one in their right mind would want to assimilate. Things can only get worse and Liblabcon are like rabbits caught in the headlights of an oncoming truck. Do you really think that the political model of the 1970’s will fit Britain in 2020? Britain is a violent, divided and oppressive society and its politics will change to reflect that fact.

        The Front National in France is a better analogy. Always despised and dismissed it is still there and beginning to look like the one political force left standing.

      • HeavensGremlin .


  • Exactly: this guy is smart enough to realise that UKIP doesn’t actually want an in/out referendum, because UKIP would lose it and that’d be a mess.
    Does it get any slipperier to have a party saying that the way its MPs vote is not its policy? I thought UKIP had policies on everything: libertarian free trade, plus, as a bonus, a “national interest test” on foreign takeovers….hmmm….liblabcon don’t have anything on these guys!

    • HamtunscireKippa

      Smart enough to realise that you have to build a consensus over an appropriate period of time, gosh, that will never catch on.
      If the way MPs vote is policy, the Tories and Labour are both for and against just about everything, given that they often rebel.
      Cameron must be for AND against a referendum, Miliband must be for AND against a mansion tax. Love the clarity.

      • or, specifically, cameron is for an in/out referendum, and miliband is for a mansion tax. and neither party would have the chutzpah to say that 100% of it’s MPs don’t represent its views.

        • global city

          Gooo yah….ooo, Oooo, OOOOOO!
          What football team do you support?

    • global city

      I wonder if tit gets past the disqus censor?

      You’re an incredible tit!

    • Revolutionkid

      Britain will vote “out”

    • Grace Ironwood

      National interest test on foreign takeovers issue.

      These tests are rarely triggered but they are valuable in that they can forestall entities like Chinese communist Stae sovereign wealth funds capturing major national interests or security risks to essential infrastructure.(hacking anyone ???)
      So these national interests tests – They needn’t be sinister, I’ve seen these decisions and they’re right out in open, the subject of robust national debate. Yelling !
      They can have interests trying to be just protectionist or sentimental . They can put China’s nose out of joint.

  • Gareth Mailer

    What UKIP gets, which the representatives of the black hole (LibLabCon) don’t, is that immigration isn’t a uniform success.

    There are two arguments here, the economic and the social. While the former was tackled yesterday in what can only be described as an exercise in confirmation bias, the latter hasn’t been addressed, at all.

    The £4 billion surplus purportedly generated by EEA immigrants is a bit of a fallacy (and conveniently the £120 billion shortfall from non-EEA immigrants has barely been looked at by The BBC and the rest of the establishment MSM), for a range of reasons, notably:

    1. It doesn’t account for the downward pressure on native wages.
    2. It doesn’t account for the net contribution the state will have to make as the immigrant population gets older.
    3. It doesn’t account for state subsidies to educate first generation immigrants.
    4. It places the cost for what it describes as ‘pure’ public goods (defence spending, executive and legislative organs etc.) on the native population.
    5. It makes quantitative assumptions all over the place i.e. some of the benefit figures cited are merely estimates.


    Most importantly, it doesn’t account for the disparate nature of migration throughout The UK. While immigrant populations may have assimilated relatively well down South, up North they haven’t done as well.

    Why? It comes down to the type and pace of immigration. Certain cultures – Pakistani, Somali, Turks etc. – have headed North. These immigrant cultures have brought their own customs and their own way of life with them, and to the detriment of local communities.

    Other immigrant cultures – Hindu Indians, Chinese, Sikhs etc. – from educated backgrounds and urban environments have headed South.

    Now it’s not quite as simple as this, of course some immigrants have assimilated very well up North, and some haven’t assimilated very well down South (you only need to look to Tower Hamlets; immigrant populations are innately tribal, they’ve congregated together, they marry within, they socialise within and yet this ‘tribalism’ is abhorrent when found in the majority).

    But the larger problem is that since 1997 and up to 2010, we’ve ushered in 4 million migrants. The pace of EU migration has quickened in the last few years, too. Both sides are trying to present this holistically and while I have a lot more sympathy for UKIP’s cause than that of LibLabCon, they are also in danger of simplifying the problem.

    While their solution may be correct – restrict immigrations on a skills basis as is done in other countries like Australia (this is enough to be deemed ‘racist’ apparently) – I believe they’ve got some of the symptoms or causes wrong. The British public are concerned with the following:

    1. The double standards. Why is diversity being prioritised over solidarity? Why is tribalism applicable for minorities but not the majority? Certain towns do resemble foreign environments and if you have lived in those towns your entire life, you have every right to be annoyed.

    2. A lot of people are concerned about what has happened across borders. You only need to look to Sweden, or France. In Sweden, citizens are now constitutionally obliged to follow a policy of multiculturalism. The word ‘assimilation’ is deemed racist. In Stockholm there were mass riots among the immigrant populations in 2013. I could talk about Sweden becoming the rape capital of Europe – largely due to its expanded definition of what constitutes rape, but not entirely – but I’m afraid of challenging people’s delicate sensibilities.

    3. People are sick to death of being told they are racists or xenophobes for simply exercising human nature. Yes, like it or not, modern science confirms human beings are group based primates – they extend trust to outsiders with a great deal of caution. The same approach – misrepresentation of views and false accusations – has been adopted across many left-wing movements, including feminism. If you have anything bad to say about it, you must believe “all women belong in the kitchen.”

    Never mind it erodes of equality of opportunity for men, promotes double standards (i.e. men-only spaces are sexist, women-only spaces are equality) and infantilises women.

    What I’m trying to say is that the immigration debate is multifaceted, and it’s not helped that it coincides with a supranational organisation which has adopted quasi-overlord status in recent years.

    Unfortunately, UKIP is the only party willing to discuss it, and these very sensitive social issues, while prioritising the group in society which should be prioritised, the majority. I appreciate minority rights are a very important facet of society, but not to the detriment of the majority and not to the extent age-old prejudices are reversed and used against the majority.

    Forced marriages, Sharia courts, the trojan horse scandal, the pace of immigration, FGM, Muslim extremism, the changing social fabric of local communities…it goes on and on. Add to that The EU summoning directives here, there and everywhere, the majority no longer feels as though it has control.

    And when that solidarity is undermined, so too is the moral obligation we feel towards each other, and towards The UK. That’s only bad for all of us.

    • John Carins

      A comprehensive argument. It is as if the threads of our social fabric are being removed one by one. Soon there will be nothing left of our once great tapestry.

      • Valleon

        Very much on purpose. Characterless nations devoid of nationality, as much a part of the UN’s Communist bedrock as the EU’s bloodline of Gramsci Marxism, Frankfurt School 11, Coudenhove-Kalurgi et al. Beyond nightmares and now at our eleventh hour consciousness – at our hands to destroy and reinstate to the great nation we once knew.

        • John Carins

          That is very informative. Thank you.

        • Damaris Tighe

          ‘Characterless nations devoid of nationality’: another version of ‘just a piece of paper’. As you imply, the destruction of nations & marriage are part of the same ideological spectrum.

        • Grace Ironwood

          It has been intentional, Coudenhove-Kalurgi is outlandish.

    • Valleon

      Yours, Gareth, is one of the best posts I’ve yet read, anywhere.

      You might’ve also mentioned how it seems the Lib-Lab-Con establishment have conjured up the best and most innoccuous of the immigrants as the worst of the problem – selecting them on our behalf as what they think are our bete noir – as to purposely sidle past the transplanted races proving most detrimental to our nation, or certainly the ones whose presence has fuelled the entire disenchantment and anger. (The anger being both from those indigenous and the successful immigrants, alike).

      • Gareth Mailer

        Cheers, Valleon (and completely agree with your point about selective scapegoating).

      • Tim Reed

        “Yours, Gareth, is one of the best posts I’ve yet read, anywhere.”

        I agree. A far better, and more incisive, summation of the issue than we are accustomed to seeing above the line in many an outlet.

        • Gareth Mailer

          Cheers, Tim.

    • Jingogunner

      Its not possible to be a devout Muslim, study the Noble Qur’an and pray 5 times every day without also being an extremist. Islam is not just submission to Allah, it is Deceit. Most Muslims will lie very blatantly and relentlessly when challenged on what the Noble Qur’an actually teaches. Most Muslims hold extreme ideas about unbelievers and women and most Muslims lie about what they really believe. Extremism flourishes not because a minority of Muslims misunderstand the Noble Qur’an, but because majority of Muslims DO understand it.

      • Grace Ironwood


      • ptolemy

        Curious how many armchair experts there seem to be on Islam, yet if I asked you for an in-depth explanation of Hinduism or Buddhism you’d know nothing.

        Most Mosques allow observers during services, so what’s stopping you finding out what Muslim Imans actually preach each week?

        • Ivan Ewan

          Hinduism and Buddhism aren’t exactly relevant because Hindus and Buddhists aren’t regularly slaughtering people for the crime of “Hinduphobia” or “Buddhaphobia”. If we want to survive as a culture distinct from Islam, we have a distinct interest in studying Islam’s codified doctrines.

          Also, most people don’t have time to learn Arabic, which will almost certainly be used to mask instructions to slay the idolaters, and so on. Most people shouldn’t have to learn the language. We know there’s strong support for IS among British Muslims and even higher levels of support for implementing the Sharia as law of the land. A lot of polls have been taken on this subject. Channel 4 exposed a few mosques a few years ago.

          Basically you’re just kicking the ball into the long grass, as an exercise in fatuous sophistry.

          • ptolemy

            Culture and religion are not synonymous. Are you saying a Muslim could not love the same music, sport, or literature as you? Muslims span a huge range of ethnicities and cultures.

            Would you profess to be an expert on Chinese literature without knowing Mandarin? How would you know the difference between Catholicism and Anabaptism simply by reading a Bible? Or between Sunni and Shia for that matter?

            14% of under-25s in Britain view ISIS in a positive light according to one poll. 3.3% of these are Muslim, so where’s that 11% from (if you assume every young Muslim supports ISIS)?

            Basically you’re using the excuse that you can’t be bothered to learn Arabic (a beautiful language) to invent Hollywood fantasies about a boring, apolitical, materialistic Muslim family who live down the street.

            Go ahead and tremble in fear, thinking that every British Muslim wants to chop your head off, and abuse your children. The rest of us will sit here laughing at you.

          • Ivan Ewan

            While you’re attacking your straw men, I’ll be doing something else. Possibly talking to someone capable of reasoning.

          • ptolemy

            Using the fact that you can’t speak Arabic as an excuse for never having visited a Mosque? All these foreign types have got a bloody nerve not speaking English. Tally ho.

          • EricHobsbawmtwit

            They aren’t, but don’t forget that Sikhs managed to get a play shut down (Behzti) because it was critical of their religious beliefs and culture. Islam doesn’t have a monopoly on oppressing freedom of expression in the UK.

            I say this even though Sikhs generally find integration in the UK easier than Muslims; they enjoy a good single malt.

          • Ivan Ewan

            Hi, reasonable person. Yep, sometimes people of different beliefs exert pressure too, but compared to Islam’s contemporary surge of jihad – it’s statistical noise, and little more than a warning not to leap into the arms of any culture at all just for not being the number one top threat today.

          • ptolemy

            “Reasonable person” agrees with me. See above.

          • Ivan Ewan

            Difference is, he speaks in the language of debate, whereas you have spoken, and continue to speak, like a petulant child having a tantrum.

          • ptolemy

            Translation: you find my questions impossible to answer, so you attack me instead.

            I’m still chuckling over your view that Islamic prayers are preached in Arabic to mask their nefarious messages. Shows the extent of your cultural understanding.

        • EricHobsbawmtwit

          That’s actually a very good point.

        • Jingogunner

          Actually I am also an expert on Hinduism; I spent 3 months studying Hinduism in India in 2013 and will be returning again in 2015. Muslims are liars by the very nature of what Islam actually is and during my many mosque attendances I have witnessed a large number of Muslims making Jihad statements of hatred and intolerance. During public services the imams are careful to retain a moderate tone.

          • ptolemy

            25% of the world’s population are liars? I’ll have what you’re smoking.

            Were your Mosque attendances a geographically distributed survey of the whole UK, or did you just go to Finsbury Park Mosque while Abu Hamza was there?

    • global city

      It also treats the tax and other contributions that a working immigrant makes to the immigrant, rather than to the job. The economy created the job…so the tax would be paid regardlessof who took it.

      If it had gone to a ‘native on the dole’ then the government would have won twice over.

    • Grace Ironwood

      The Brits are unhinged about racism. I think you are going to have to crash through and drag the goalposts back , as our conservative governments have.

      Australia’s system is non-racial and beneficial.With the exception of one group which has failed wherever it has gone. Lots of intermarriage and high achievers from south east asia. Giant numbers of hostile immigrants transforming country is hugely destructive for UK. Europe.

      Our left screams racism and “ashamed to be Australian” I see that Aussie system is of interest and well-thought of by other countries.

      Sometimes judged harshly by Sudanese on UN Human Rights committees . 🙂

      • Gareth Mailer

        Thanks, Grace.

        We’ve got to admire any country which suspends migration to protect its citizens from Ebola!

        Right or wrong, the Australian Government, as it should, makes the protection of its citizens and their way of life its first responsibility.

        We all complain about it over here, and we are all – the majority – very concerned about being perceived of as racist (as exemplified by a recent case in the town of Rotherham, where public officials were too afraid to speak up about the molestation of 1,400 white girls through fear of being branded racist), while immigrant cultures openly, blatantly and freely discriminate in favour of their own.

        The average person will agree that racism is wrong, however it’s the misrepresentation of the right, and conflation of opposition to mass immigration with racism and xenophobia, which is causing the problem.

        The left has played divide and rule and identity politics for far too long over here; it’s women vs. men (feminism), it’s young vs. old (recent example, we’re attacking over 55’s for holding onto their homes), it’s all religions vs. Christianity (people are conscientious about stereotyping Islam despite groups in society attacking secularism, but they don’t have a problem attacking Christianity), all ethnicities vs. white people, or “multiculturalism” (even the mention of the word ‘white’ is deemed racist) etc.

        “If you are against multiculturalism you are xenophobic”

        “If you are against mass immigration you are a racist”

        “If you have anything bad to say about feminism, a movement which is impervious to any criticism, particularly when it affords women opportunities men don’t have, then you are a misogynist.”

        “If you are against The EU you are an archaic isolationist”

        Discredit the person, not the points they are making. It’s an epidemic; it’s thought control. The BBC should just start the 6 o’clock news with: “Good Evening, it’s 6 o’clock, and we’re about to tell you what to think and how to think it”. It’s The Biased By Ommission Corporation. They only ever report one side, particularly on issues as sensitive as immigration.

        It’s all manufactured oppression for political gain (facilitated by the establishment, notably The BBC and other MSM outlets); every left-wing movement does the same thing. I’m one step away from calling it cultural Marxism, were it not for the negative connotations!

        It’s a new type of voter – they don’t vote based on policy or even political allegiance, they vote based on the extent of their perceived manufactured oppression relative to the ‘oppressive majority’.

        You can look at the sinister policies implemented like that admitted to by Andrew Neather, former senior adviser to Blair, when he said mass immigration was all about “rubbing the right’s nose in diversity”. The ushered in 4 million migrants between 1997 – 2010, and it was all done for political gain.

        They knew mass immigration would cause social tension, they knew it would place downward pressure on native wages (particularly among the working classes), but they knew they could get away with it by appealing to ‘white guilt.’

        Apologies for the rant.

        • AJH1968

          Thankyou for posting both your prose and the content of your posts are excellent.

          • Gareth Mailer

            Thanks 🙂

      • HeavensGremlin .

        Good post and yes, the Aussies have nailed it. In the UK we have simply lost that core of Common Sense that still lives in Oz. That is thanks to the Liberal-Left and it’s systematic unpicking of our once great country.

        • Hagen vanTronje

          Very good comment, the liberal left did it on purpose and to our eternal shame, we let them get away with it.
          Ever wonder why Blair & co did their best to disarm us ?

    • David

      Gareth – do you have a website with your very eloquent and lucid thoughts on? If not, you should have; you’ve obviously given this a lot of analysis.

      • Gareth Mailer

        Cheers, David.

        Unfortunately not. I have had that very idea in my head for the last six-odd months, I will definitely do something in the New Year.

        I will probably opt for YouTube with transcripts posted on an external website.

        • David

          Please do so. Youtube plus a WordPress or Blogger blog would be ideal. Then we can chime in with comments. It’s important to take the fight to the enemy in the battle of ideas! When it’s going then post links to your blog in the comments section of The Speccie, CIF, etc.

    • Lawrence Newman


      What about MGM, which is legal ….

      • Gareth Mailer

        Absolutely agree.

    • sebastian2

      Very interesting post Gareth. Thanks for raising the Swedish experience – which will end in tears, I’m sure, as Sweden’s friends and allies look on in horror.

      • Gareth Mailer

        Cheers, Sebastian.

        For all its international acclaim Sweden, and the manner it operates, terrifies me.

        If you haven’t seen it already, there’s a fantastic documentary called ‘Brainwashed’ which you should check it out – it’s Norwegian, and explores the disingenuous ‘rationale’ behind many Scandinavian social engineering policies.

        You can watch the whole thing here: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xp0tg8_hjernevask-brainwashing-english-part-1-the-gender-equality-paradox_news

        • sebastian2

          Yes I’ll follow up on this. The debate about mohammedism is gaining strength, I feel, and we’re beginning to see it for what it is rather than for what it claims to be – and it’s claims are unsustainable. The root question for all, is “Is mohammedism perfect?” (This is an enduring mohammedan boast, central to their beliefs.) Clearly it isn’t. Clearly it’s flawed. Clearly it’s mortal. Clearly it is vulnerable to critical scrutiny. And clearly it takes its proper place among other questionable ideologies that have caused great damage and suffering. We just need to say so and cease this ridiculous appeasement.

    • HeavensGremlin .

      That’s the best post I’ve ever read on here. Well said.

      • Gareth Mailer


    • callingallcomets

      Well done for that post Gareth. I am afraid that I tend to avoid the comments because they either have been hijacked by Telemachus and his enemies or Koran obsessives. It’s good to read a sound and sensible post

  • Diggery Whiggery

    “It’s a far cry from the free-trading libertarianism that used to characterise Ukip.”

    Only if you have no idea what those terms mean. Free-trading libertarianism is about being pro-market not pro-business. Supporting huge companies with corporate welfare, look the other way tax giveaways and regulatory moat building is corporatism James and it’s rife.

  • HamtunscireKippa

    Patrick was viewed as a good catch when he joined and he hasnt disappointed, you do need people with a plan, something that the UKIP of old often lacked. The UKIP of 2014 has a far more solid direction which helps the grassroots feel confident in the party, membership is still rising, in my area it is up 7% this month. Must be doing something right.

    • Patrick Gearon

      The UKIP of old? They wrote the script but couldn’t effect it Purity renders impotence.

  • John Carins

    The biggest fear is that time may not be on UKIPs side. As UKIP attempts to build support and Westminster MPs there may be a Referendum that votes “yes” and or more political integration into the EU. In this scenario, extracting Britain from the EU would be more difficult. Irrespective of the number of UKIP MPs elected, the best chance will be to win a Referendum (if we get one) or to hope that the decision is taken elsewhere e.g another EU country pulling the plug and the whole thing collapses.

    • if i was a kipper my biggest fear would be that the ravings of unhinged nutters (that’d be btl kippers for instance) will actually cause the in/out referendum to fail, when there is a good and reasonable case to be made for “out” that doesn’t involve talking about rape in rotherham for instance.

      • MikeF

        In other words don’t talk about rape in Rotherham.

    • notaracist

      There will be no referendum, as from 1/11/14 we have to ask our EU friends for a 65% majority, if they say yes which they won’t then we can have a referedum

      • John Carins

        Very interestingt. The EU is a dictatorship. Nevertheless, there is nothing stopping us having a referendum with or without EU approval. Are they going to invade?

    • Grace Ironwood

      EU referendum depends on building Brit confidence to go it alone. It is a much bigger country by itself, with more opportunities and flexibility than merely as a member of this dodgy and suffocating leviathon.
      The scare campaign is the issue & how to counteract its negative effect on sef confgidence. .Most people see it as beyond their understanding to trust themselves with deciding g policy.

      Australia’s ability to make numerous bilaterat trade deals is a great eg to show around. If the colony can do it for gawd’s sake !

  • MrJones

    The Cons trying to stir between Farage and Carswell is quite comical.

    • notaracist

      That is only the start of the smears. Expect it to get very dirty indeed

      • Valleon

        But we are all expecting it, aren’t we? What else have they got? And at least they are plain-as-day obvious in their dastardly descents.

        I also sense that the EU’s Lib-Lab-Con Branch Office – and virtually all of their bought-and-paid-for newspapers – are jealous of UKIP. Since it’s so long since we’ve seen their like (references in history books will have to make do for the most of us, until now), I imagine the dirty establishment women- and men-of-straw witnessing the arrival of UKIP’s men and women with backbone and broad shoulders is like arriving at The New World and finding a new civilisation.

        • Grace Ironwood

          UKIP are acquiring good talent: Suzanne Evans presents well. I’ve never seen her rattled by journalist or fellow politician or even look disconcerted.She projects a very civilised, down to earth & pleasant personal brand. If I may go all sexist for a moment she suggests a”softer” side to UKIP -which benefits them.
          She’s a pro, a myth-busting asset.

      • EricHobsbawmtwit

        It’s not a smear if it’s true and it is true. Carswell will vote according to what Carswell thinks, not what UKIP’s line is. This may cause tension between him and Farage. Of course if Farage fails to win a seat next May and Carswell retains Clacton, I think Farage will have to resign anyway so the point will be moot.

  • global city

    Another poxy attempt at a hatchet job.

    Corporatism is the antithesis of libertarian ideals.

  • Richard Eldritch

    He’s a bit weird looking and Paul Nuttal needs to grow some hair lest he be confused with a lover of Oi! and 16 hole Doc Martins. Basic PR really. …

    • Damaris Tighe

      Here we go again. The physical appearance/hair theory of politics. Yes of course it’s basic PR, which is the problem, & threatens to deprive anyone not looking blandly handsome or pretty of political office. Just look at the televisual choice of front benchers. I wonder if Anne Widdicombe could get a ministerial job, even a parliamentary seat, today?

      • Richard Eldritch

        Well in that case Ed Milliband’s a genius who’d make a great PM. It cuts both ways….

  • AJAX

    Not sure I entirely trust O’Flynn & his motivation for joining UKIP

    • Grace Ironwood

      If you scrutinize Patrick O’Flynn’s conduct for a considerable time BEFORE he joined the party it can be seen that he was, as a ranking political editor and journalist, in agreement with the UKIP policies on EU and immigration. O’Flynn stuck his neck out and devoted considerable energy driving his paper to support the party on the EU well before he jumped ship: actually a career risk.
      He seems to have genuine fire on the main issues and has demonstrated an ability to take on Farage over issues of communication professionalism in the past (one infamous incident !).He was there professionalising UKIP personnel’s messaging before elected to EU & taking on their economics portfolio.
      He is certainly an effective and assured media operative- my conclusion is that if he was purely a cynical careerist, he would have found a spot with one of the big outfits and been welcome talent.
      UKIP are lucky to have him.

      • Damaris Tighe

        As long as he doesn’t turn Ukip politicians into bland, PR puppets like the rest. That would be very disappointing. They need to be red-blooded & that involves risking the opprobium of the offence-hunters.

        • Grace Ironwood

          I don’t think the “ten Romanian Men” did Farage any harm-until he started walking it back-then he looks as weak as anyone running scared of the race card. He should have stood his ground.

          I think Carswell is a greater problem than O’Flynn what with all the pc wallop formulae that I’ve heard him come out with.

          I suspect he’s just a pro-independence Cameron type.

          • Damaris Tighe

            Agreed. But gaining an mp was important. What a balancing act politics is if you want to get anywhere!

      • AJAX

        Fair points, but I think O’F is a Tory at heart, & that’s a problem.

  • Lady Magdalene

    o’Flynn is quite right. Winning seats in Westminster is the priority over an EU Referendum.
    Parliament is stuffed with MPs who will vote to keep us trapped in the EU, regardless of the outcome of any renegotiation. They will ignore the wishes of the electorate.
    We won’t win a Referendum if the whole of The British Establishment is ranged against us.
    We need a clear out of the House of Quislings and a group of patriotic UKIP MPs representing communities which understand the impact of our membership and its consequences such as its policy of uncontrolled immigration.

  • Revolutionkid

    UKIP are like a boxer who keeps getting floored by the LibLabCon current champ but they keep getting back up and landing some body blows and you can now see the fear in the champs eyes….

  • statechaos

    UKIP will not survive. They are the anti-politics party and everyone who believes they are fed up with the mainstream parties claims they will vote for them whatever their policies are. Potential UKIP voters are like chalk and cheese.There is no common theme. If UKIP become mainstream next year they will become part of the ‘establishment’ they claim to despise and they will be liable to be blamed for perceived ills. Having just travelled around Europe I don’t understand why people are so anti-government. We are doing rather well compared to our neighbours. Of course those who are unhappy with our success can still move freely to go and live in France, Italy, Greece etc.

    • AJAX

      Patronizing, stupid, lazily thought out rubbish.

      • statechaos


        • AJAX

          Who else’s opinion would you like me to hold?

    • Limey

      UKIP are the whistleblowers and common sense policies are their priority.
      You say that we seem to be doing well compared to other European countries you have visited and you are raising a critical point. The UK has no desire to share success with countries in Europe who are in many cases dysfunctional, socialist, parasites.

  • Limey

    When the Titanic was going down, did the people on board focus on lifeboats or whether the coffee machine had run out of filters? UKIP appears focussed on priorities.

    The people are unhappy about immigration and it’s their right to decide. Not politicians or the left wing minority. Continually insulting the public with suggested corrective thinking and coercive propaganda, only strengthens their resolve. The same applies to genuine public opinion towards EU membership.

    The next emergency for attention is the imbalance and conditions surrounding trade with the developing world, (China in particular) and this will likely be Farage’s next valiant crusade. It’s disgraceful that the existing powers have not only facilitated China to thieve, steal and cheat Britain (as they have the rest of the world) but are applying mushroom tactics to hide the catastrophic effects of their mistake and corrupt co-relationships. Watch this space.

    • statechaos

      UKIP are polling at under 20% therefore 80% do not agree with UKIP’s priorities.

      • Limey

        Cameron and Miliband are both jumping on the UKIP bandwagon regarding immigration controls and Euroscepticism, so the combined numbers in agreement are large and increasing.

  • Mike

    “When I put it to him that Carswell’s votes in the Commons must now define Ukip policy” —

    thats the whole point about Ukip, the reason local people vote for their local politician is all about local issues and NOT brown nosing the party line as most LibLabCom politicians do.

    Sure, there’s a party manisfesto that promotes the party as a whole but the electorate is sick to death with liars like Cameron promise one thing and do another.

    • EricHobsbawmtwit

      You’re just copying Liberal Democrat campaigning tactics, which was a completely different set of policies in every constituency.

      Of course such a strategy can never make contact with the reality of actually having to govern, as Nick Clegg discovered.

  • David

    He’s a smart cookie, and a big asset to the party. UKIP needs more of his types and less of the Godfrey Blooms of this world…

  • Rupert Williams

    Correct. Ukip have moved from politically coherent broadly libertarian anti-EU party to a mishmash of racist and protectionist policies designed to appeal to labour voters.

    The problem with this is not that they no longer appeal to me. It is that by not being credible on getting out of the EU, they risk losing a referendum even if there is one.

    There is plenty of good material out there on how Britain’s exit can be made to work but UKIP never makes any attempt to put a reasoned case. As a result they come over as foaming, svivel eyed loonies.

    As does this guy here.

    If we’re lucky we’ll have one shot at this, and UKIP seem to be determined to ensure we fail.

  • wingless

    We are lucky to have Nigel, he’s far and away the best party leader. Since we’re not all clones we don’t necessarily agree with everything our leadership thinks. UKIP is a broad and tollarant church. This does not mean we want to or can be all things to all men, it’s just that we don’t do wings, no left or right. Established party people find that concept impossible to grasp, so they presume we are not united. They are very wrong.
    To stand any realistic chance of overthrowing the established order we have to play by their rules, though not by their traditions. We have hugely evolved during the last couple of years, most of us are very different people from those who fought the 2010 election. Carswell, Reckless and even Patrick are recent converts and more representative of the new UKIP than the old one.
    We ceased protesting some time ago. Now we intend to start winning.

    • EricHobsbawmtwit

      +1 for the funniest comment I’ve ever read at the Spectator.

  • Peter Stroud

    If UKIP are going to make any inroads into real politics it will need to improve the quality of many of its candidates. It needs more of the quality of Carswell, not shallow personalities like Reckless. O’Flynn seems to be the sort of person the party needs to recruit.

  • HeavensGremlin .

    Patrick O’Flynn is certainly one of UKIPS more cerebral leaders. Sure, they have a few slightly oddball characters, but most critically, their ‘heart’ is in the right place. Right now, ONLY UKP has it’s finger on the pulse of the UK. The three old Party’s are frankly, living in a dream-world, utterly detached from most ordinary people. Farage’s claim that he has a ‘peoples army’ is actually very much true. There is a burgeoning groundswell towards UKIP. Now, with Labour facing a wipe-out in Scotland, and the Lib-Dems facing near extinction, the time has come for UKIP to take centre-stage. Not before time. Lets remember that this really all stared with the Referendum Party. We should all be very thankful for those who have struggled for decades to give the people of the UK back their own authentic voice.

  • StephenZevon

    The opening line was ‘genius’.