Wednesday, February 02, 2005
Year after year I have visited forums, read Right Now! magazine, and gone to meetings, and people say the same thing - if only we had a populist-minded party led by a household name saying the same things that we say! We've sat there saying "if only" for years. We've seen parties like the People's Alliance (which became the New Party) crop up, only to find that they cannot commit themselves to EU withdrawal. We've seen UKIP fighting like rats in a sack, even before Kilroy joined. Remember how the Michael Holmes supporters left when Jeffrey Titford became leader? Before that they had Alan Sked - the bouffant haired intellectual whose commitment to the anti-EU cause was so great that he ended up joining the Tories!
We've seen UKIP SUSPEND Tony Bennett, who worked tirelessly for them (and risked imprisonment for his anti-Metrication activism) for stating the obvious about the nature of militant Islam, and for pointing out in a leaflet what the Koran has to say about "Infidels" (or non believers). Just like Kilroy-Silk he was unfairly treated for pointing out the unjust and totalitarian nature of political correctness and multiculturalism in Britain today. And Tony Bennett was barred from standing for the UKIP National Executive for saying EXACTLY the same as us about multiculturalism. Barred by the same people (i.e the UKIP leadership Knapman/Farage etc) ...
This all happened BEFORE Kilroy even joined. The UKIP is inherently unstable, and has been since its creation. I've spoken to many UKIP people and, believe me, a lot of them seem to think that leaving the EU is the only thing that matters. One gets the impression that they would willingly be the last Anglo-Saxon in the country as long as we were out of the EU.
As for Veritas, well, as I said, the Right has been looking for the equivalent of a Haider, a Fortuyn or a Le Pen to lead it on. Now, Kilroy may not be a Haider or Le Pen, but the parellels with Fortuyn are there to see. Fortuyn was a media host who took a big risk (ultimately a fatal risk) to speak out about immigration and Islamicisation). He left the Liveable Netherlands Party to set up his own list to fight the elections. Holland is a very liberal country. They are very much like the British. I don't like it - but it is a fact.
Now, Kilroy's brand of populism is not the same as mine. He will probably come to the same conclusion on immigration levels from a different starting point. Now, if Fortuyn was the only way a party of the radical Right could obtain a decent share of the vote in the Netherlands, should we not consider that Kilroy may be the only way an anti-EU, anti-immigration, anti-PC party can come to the fore in this country? As I have outlined, the UKIP leadership acted in a cowardly PC fashion towards Tony Bennett, so why do posters on this forum believe them to be to the "Right" of Kilroy-Silk? We know that the Labour Party and Lib Dems are the most pro-EU of the three parties, and that a large number of Labour voters are very to the right on social issues. It is most important that these voters are enticed away from the Left parties, so they cannot form a majoirty government. Now, who is more likely to garner those (mainly working class) votes?Is it UKIP, which has a former TORY minister as leader, and includes Piers Merchant and Neil Hamilton as leading members, or is it VERITAS, whose leader is a former LABOÚR man (who never stood for election on a pro-EEC ticket, and was forced out by the type of people who created NEW Labour)? RKS was OLD Labour. Many of his generation of MPs were pro-death penalty and anti-EU socialists. I find it short-sighted in the extreme to not even consider the potential that Kilroy could deliver to the Right in this country. We should ask ourselves these questions:
a) Is it obligatory to like the leader of a political party? If he is saying things with which we agree, should we not lend our support?
b) Does it matter that Kilroy is "not quite a gentleman" and that he does not play the game. We on the right have been "playing the game" for years, and where has it got us - precisely nowhere. He says things in a direct way that will appeal to the masses. He speaks in layman's terms, and keeps things simple. There are no niceties about him, and he is probably a nightmare to deal with. But if he says the things that the man in the pub says, and gets these views aired then surely that is all that matters.
c)Can you imagine the banks closing down a VERITAS acount? I don't think so. Think of all the media publicity Kilroy would generate over that. Ditto VERITAS candidates being sacked from their jobs. He'd milk it for all it was worth and probably have massive flood of new members. The BNP will never have such an opportunity. Can you imagine the EU trying to close down VERITAS on grounds of anti-EU xenopbobia (as they wish to do to UKIP)? No, again...Kilroy may be flawed, vain and arrogant, but if he was THE ANSWER would that be sufficient grounds for not supporting him?
We should consider all of these points, as we could be on the verge of a golden opportunity. All options need to be explored.
Monday, January 31, 2005
I don't agree that Kilroy is a Labour stooge - I think that he could cause serious damage to Labour amongst it's traditional working class base, and far from killing off the Tories (Kilroy's stated aim) he could deliver them a few Labour marginals. Ironic really...Kilroy (for all his faults) has greater appeal to the working and lower middle class voter, who in turn is more likely to be anti-EU and anti-immigration. We may loathe his machiavellian tactics, we may distrust him, but I think we should pause for breath before writing him off entirely, as UKIP patently only did so well at the European Elections as a result of Kilroy's energetic campaign. The only other UKIP man with any dynamism is Nigel Farage. My main objection to Kilroy is his idea that a party with the name "Veritas" can ever succeed in Britain.