UKIP-vs-EUkip CLICK The Pic. for travel!

Thursday, 30 September 2010

Tim Congdon on his candidacy for the leadership

Tim Congdon on his candidacy for the leadership

Tim Congdon's Election Web Site is now up and running 
Tim Congdon’s contact details:
Office phone no. 01452 - 830 840
mobile no. 07876 - 684 308

Tim Congdon Proposer: Gerard Batten MEP.

Assentors: Alan Bown, Trevor Colman MEP, Sir George Earle, Stephen Allison, Geoffrey Kingscott, Mike Nattrass MEP, Roger Knapman, Lawrence Webb, Marilyn Swain, Toby Micklethwait, Sue Colman, Richard Allen, Les Banstead, Jack Barker, Keith Barnes, Dougie Brown, Linda Brown, Christopher Browne, Rosemary Browne, Martin Bulmer, Justin Callan, Leonard Causey, Diane Cleland, Leslie Collier, David Cox, Marilyn Day, Alan Day, Richard Edwards, Alan Grant, Lawrence Gwynn, Eric Larner, Isobel Larner, Nicky Hartland, Thomas Holbrook, David Hughes, Maggie Inglis, Richard Jordan, Audrey Kirk,
Jenny Knight, Richard Leppington, Peter Lindsay, Jonathan Lovett, Robert Mackintosh, Charles Martell, John Meropoulous, Paula Murray, Ray Northcott, Guy Parfitt, Robert Parker, Bev Parker.

A personal statement from Tim Congdon on his candidacy for the leadership of the UK Independence Party


Why I support UKIP

Britain is a special nation. For the last 300 years it has been admired across the world as the home of parliamentary democracy and the champion of the rule of law. In two world wars it defended a political system which – above all – prized the freedom of the individual. Our political and legal traditions are best seen as attempts to stop the abuse of power by the state.

In 1973 the UK joined (what was then) the European ‘Common Market’, essentially for economic reasons. We wanted to be able to trade freely with our European neighbours and to match the higher economic growth they had enjoyed in the previous 15 years. Since then our political independence has been progressively whittled away.

New legislative enactments affecting our country are now mostly labelled ‘directives’ and ‘regulations’, not laws. They are passed by the Council of Ministers, not our own Parliament. The processes involved are complicated, obscure and secret, and the key movers are foreign bureaucrats and lobbyists, not our own politicians and parliamentarians. In a host of important areas of national life, known as ‘competences’, powers have passed from Westminster and Whitehall to Brussels and Strasbourg. The right to propose new directives and regulations lies not with our own government, certainly not with our Parliament in Westminster, but with the European Commission.

I support the UK Independence Party because the only way that we can restore our ability to make our own laws and to govern ourselves is for the UK to leave the European Union

The erosion of democracy
The government of Britain is now shared – in an extraordinarily confused way – by a group of democratically-elected politicians in London and an entrenched bureaucracy in a foreign capital. The bureaucrats are appointed for the long term. They can and will erode the power of politicians who are in office only for a few years and can be removed by the electorate.

Not surprisingly, government by foreign bureaucrats is bad government. Whatever aspect of the interaction between the European Union and the UK we look at, we see inefficiency and failure. Think of the cost and distortions of the Common Agricultural Policy, the shambles of the Common Fisheries Policy, the burden of unnecessary business regulation, the effect of the open EU borders which have let in over a million workers from other EU countries and put pressure on our social services, the assault on habeas corpus and personal freedom represented by the new European Arrest Warrants, the encroachment on our own criminal justice system by a new European Public Prosecutor, the hit to the competitiveness of our chemical and heavy energy using industries from EU environmental directives, the damage to the City of London from misjudged intervention by new pan-European financial regulators and......., well, the list could be extended over a few pages. All these arrangements are making us poorer or less free. Nevertheless, we have to pay the European Union for the privilege of letting it misgovern us. By 2013 Britain will be handing over to the EU a net figure of about £10 billion a year. That will help foreign bureaucrats boss us around in the style to which they are accustomed.
The opportunity for UKIP
The EU is now unpopular in the UK. This is revealed – bizarrely – by opinion research from the European Commission itself. According to the Eurobarometer poll which it finances, in August 2010 29% of people in the UK consider EU membership ‘a good thing’, whereas 33% see it as ‘a bad thing’. Net support for EU membership had been falling for many years. The cost of membership is rising, while people will increasingly resent the attack on our institutions and way of life that the EU bureaucracy represents. Net support for the EU has now become net opposition and that net opposition will increase.

Logically, political parties advocate policies that the electorate wants. The British people have had enough of the EU. However, all three of the so-called ‘main parties’ favour continued UK membership of the EU on the present terms. In the 1997 general election Jimmy Goldsmith bravely started a new party, the Referendum Party. Its purpose was simple. By threatening to take votes away from the big parties, it would extract from them a commitment that any large future change in the UK’s relationship with the EU would be put to a referendum.

All three parties agreed that such a referendum must be held. It was reiterated in their 2005 general election manifestoes. But – when the Lisbon Treaty, undoubtedly a major constitutional upheaval, came before Parliament in 2008 – two parties, Labour and the Liberal Democrats, forgot their promise. In late 2009 the Lisbon Treaty was about to become law across the EU. The Conservatives under David Cameron then said that – if they came to power in the next general election – they also would not hold a referendum on the new treaty. They knew full well that it was a radically new and different constitutional set-up between the EU and its members. But they would do nothing about it.

The three main parties have broken a promise and betrayed the British people. The sad truth is that Britain’s ‘political class’ is corrupt and inadequate. Moreover, it is increasingly integrated with the larger European political class of which the European Commission’s bureaucracy is part. In effect, the Conservatives, Labour and the Liberal Democrats have surrendered control of our country to foreign dignitaries and officials who operate from a capital city outside our borders.

Disappointment with the EU has turned into disillusionment and disillusionment is now becoming anger. The UK Independence Party is the only significant political force that can channel this anger into votes and so take Britain out of the EU. At the next European elections, in 2014, the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition is likely to be very unpopular, because of the difficult economic situation. UKIP will have its best-ever opportunity to take more votes, in a major expression of British public opinion, than any of the three other parties.

We have a great opportunity – but we also face a challenge. The challenge to the party is to maximise its brand and image, to spread its vital message about the future of our country, and to obtain the most favourable possible media coverage. In a nutshell, we must maximise our message – our favourable and positive message – in the media. That is the way to secure the highest possible number of votes in a media-savvy democracy in the era of electronic communications. That is what UKIP must do.

What will I bring to UKIP?
In standing for the leadership of UKIP, I believe that I am the best person to meet the challenge now facing UKIP.

I believe that, over the next four years, UKIP must have the following new organizational priorities,

- To improve its image in the national and local media by presenting its case in high-quality research documents, newspaper articles, webcasts and so on,
- To set up an effective campaign and publicity machine in London, which – whether we like it or not – is where the UK media are centred,
- To work hard with the existing Eurosceptic and Eurorealist think-tanks both to strengthen the argument for withdrawal and to spread that message through the media and more widely,
- To support the organization of regular social events across the country, in order to reinforce a sense of identity with UKIP, and
- To establish a significant flow of donations by fund-raising, which will be helped by the social events and research publications I have been talking about.

Let me emphasize I want to build on the magnificent work already being done – mostly on a voluntary basis – at the branch and regional levels. I will listen to party members for new ideas about promoting the party and furthering the cause.

I do not want to be a MEP. Repeat: I do not want to be a MEP. The work I am describing must be done in the UK. I have said – and I will reiterate – that the centre of gravity of the United Kingdom Independence Party must be in the United Kingdom. Our MEP representation is a great strength to the party, and there is no conflict between working harder in both the European Parliament and the UK. We must move forward on a united front.

I have set up a research business (Lombard Street Research Ltd.) from an initial capital of £100 and built it into one of the most respected economic research companies in this country. (It now has a turnover of over £4 million and employs people in three countries.) The skills I used in establishing a successful research business will be the same skills I will be using to strengthen UKIP if I become leader.

Finally, I am one of the UK’s most influential economists. I served on the UK’s Treasury Panel from 1993 to 1997 as a so-called ‘wise person’ and was appointed Commander of the British Empire in 1997 ‘for services to economic debate’. If I am elected leader, UKIP will have the best economist in British politics.

Who am I?
Many party members will have seen me on television or heard me on radio, usually discussing a topical economic or financial theme. Yes, I am an economist, and my bread-and-butter for over 35 years has come from commenting on the British economy and its many problems. I don’t at present have ‘a full-time job’. I retired from Lombard Street Research in 2005, in order to have more time to write books and essays. (I love writing and seeing my name in print.) I set up a new consultancy – International Monetary Research Ltd. – in 2009, really to have a platform for my ideas, and you can have a look at its website ( If I don’t become leader, I will probably spent most of my time building up International Monetary Research Ltd. into a meaningful research business.

I was born in 1951 and am now 59 years old. I grew up in England, but with two spells as a child in foreign parts (Iran, for 10 months in 1956, and South Africa, for 18 months in 1959 and 1960). It has become clear to me, as I look back, that those two spells made me feel very ‘British’ and different. That has stayed with me for the rest of my life. (I can remember the Afrikaner children at my junior school sneering at me because I was from England; I can also remember the delirious crowds at Durban Docks when HMS Belfast called in for a short visit; other memories are standing in a three-deep crowd as Harold Macmillan passed by in a motorcade [the ‘wind of change’ speech] and knocking on the doors of palatial homes in Durban North for ‘bob a job’ assignments. [A ‘bob’ – you will recall – was one shilling. At that time South Africa had pounds, shillings and pence.] For most of our time in South Africa my family lived in a council flat.)

Back in England, I got the 11-plus and went to Colchester Royal Grammar School from 1962 to 1969. I was awarded an Open Scholarship by St. John’s College, Oxford, in 1969 and took a 1st Class degree (in Modern History and Economics) in 1972. The marks in my economics papers were equal top in my year.

My first job was on the economics staff of The Times from 1973 to 1976, a period of almost unrelenting (and for me most fascinating and enjoyable) economic crisis. That was where my interest in money and banking, and in monetary control to defeat inflation (‘monetarism’), began. In 1976 I went into the City as the economic adviser to a stockbroking firm, L. Messel & Co. I became a partner in 1980 and was fortunate in 1984 to be able to sell my stake in the firm to (what became) Lehman Brothers. I was briefly Lehman’s chief London economist, but in 1989 left to set up my own research and consultancy business, Lombard Street Research Ltd.

My work in economics has not been purely day-to-day commentary. I have also written important and influential academic papers, collected in two books Reflections on Monetarism (1990) and Keynes, the Keynesians and Monetarism (2007). I was appointed Honorary Professor at Cardiff Business School in 1990 and for every year until 2006 I gave a course of lectures on monetary economics. I was also a visiting professor of economics at City University Business School from 1998 to 2004. So I sometimes call myself ‘Professor Tim Congdon’, although I no longer have an academic affiliation. I am at present finishing off an American version of Keynes, the Keynesians and Monetarism, which I hope will appear next year as Money in a Free Society.

I have been a successful businessman and investor. I am a so-called ‘Name’ (i.e., capital provider) at Lloyd’s of London and own two forest estates in Scotland. When I take a break from my consultancy and writing, I enjoy walking on those estates and thinking about how to improve them. I also enjoy foreign holidays, both in the EU and outside it.

I have been married to Dorianne for 22 years. We have a daughter, Venetia, who is 19 and is about to start a post-graduate degree at Linacre College, Oxford.

My work in UKIP
Until 2006 I had always supported the Conservative Party, although I could not vote for Ted Heath in either of the two general elections in 1974. I voted against ‘the Common Market’ in the 1975 referendum.

I joined UKIP in January 2007, at the prompting of the then leader, Roger Knapman, whom I had known for almost 20 years. Almost immediately, I wrote an article in The Daily Telegraph on why I couldn’t support Cameron. This coincided with the so-called ‘defection’ from the Conservatives to UKIP of Lord Pearson and Lord Willoughby. In late January 2007 the Conservative Party’s private polling put the UKIP share in the national vote at 6% - 7%. (Eight weeks of unremitting anti-UKIP ‘knocking copy’ then followed in the national press. I am not saying here where these stories came from, but I have my views.)

It is well-known that I don’t want to become a MEP; it is not a secret that I believe our main fight must be in the UK, not in Brussels or Strasbourg. The financial crisis in late 2008 came as a profound shock to me. I was also disappointed that UKIP was not, in my view, devoting enough effort to the UK public debate, particularly in view of the imminent ratification of the new EU constitution. I therefore left UKIP in order to have more access to the top brass in the Conservative Party (and to some extent UK officialdom more generally) to argue for ‘quantitative easing’, among other things. QE was in fact adopted in early March 2009 – and, I am happy to say, the economy recovered briskly.

When he became leader, Lord Pearson was keen to persuade me to rejoin UKIP. I had hoped and expected that the Conservatives would keep to their promise of holding a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. I wrote to Lord Pearson to say that – if David Cameron reneged on that promise – I would rejoin UKIP. I copied the letter to about a dozen senior figures in British politics, including Cameron. A few weeks later Cameron said that the Conservatives would not hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. I rejoined UKIP.

In all this to-ing and fro-ing (for which I must apologise), I was consistent in believing

i. that the UK must withdraw from the EU, and
ii. that the key to getting us out of the EU must be a UK-based and UK-focussed campaign to improve UKIP’s research message and media coverage.

I was doing what I could as a private citizen concerned about our country’s future. Bluntly, I felt that in 2008 UKIP was not doing enough. But it is now our only hope – and so I was glad to rejoin.

I was UKIP’s parliamentary candidate in the Forest of Dean constituency (where I live) in the 2010 general election. I hugely enjoyed the election campaign, in which – with my excellent band of supporters – I more than doubled the UKIP vote and kept my deposit.

Tim Congdon C.B.E.
1st September, 2010

Sadly for UKIP it does still look like a coronation for the leader past, present and future however that will, in my opinion, lead to the continued decline brought on by the poor leadership, vision and competence for many years and the utter incompetence of the staggeringly low grade handling of media and those thus empowered.
Little has been helped by the dishonesty and incompetence of those parasitically gathered around Farage as his public purse funded praise singers and the likes of the utterly untrustworthy David Lott, John Moran and nearly every appointment Farage has ever had a hand in - his judgement in women is bad enough but in people worse!
The fall away of support for Farage due to his ever shifting 'stories' and his open statement he is so incompetent to lead that if elected he would appoint some chum to do the job!
Yet I would opine that even so Tim Congdon will merely struggle in as Bannermen has been fielded as a no hope candidate with the express intent of splitting the opposition to Farage vote - as last time, however he is likely to take a larger percentage from Farage this time thus although damaging the challenger he WILL also damage Farage. If Batten remains he will receive a damaging vote as he will take his vote from among the challengers NOT from Farage as he has shown he lacks significance but when I say damaging it will be he who is the most damaged, by embarrassment - he would be well advised to make a grand gesture and stand aside on a deal with Congdon, thus saving face.
The wild card at the moment is Mad Monkton who in reality should be encouraged to stand as he is most likely to feed for votes in Farage's trough and he does have a profile with the ill informed and those who would throw coins at a fool in a market show. It is also a sad on reflection on the backwoodsmen of UKIP who depend for information on the party propaganda that many would respond to a title, however insignificant and unearned.
Monkton is not a man to be trusted as his efforts that brought UKIP into such disrepute in The Sunday Times of the Farage Fan Club meeting in Torquay shows as it spectacularly backfired on almost every level!
With Bannerman still in the squable AND Monkton there is every possibility of a fair chance for Tim Congdon but one has to ask how he can proceed the day after his election with the party funds, communications and the slime on the NEC and staff ranged agin him.
One is also inclined to wonder at Tim Congdon's wisdom in staff procurement in that he has the pro Pan EU EFD Party, pro masturbation and manual strangulation of furry animals candidate Steve Allison masquerading as his campaign manager! Had he thought of Ray Finch & Malcolm Wood as deputies and then he could start his own coven!

Tim Congdon's Election Web Site is now up and running 
Tim Congdon’s contact details:
Office phone no. 01452 - 830 840
mobile no. 07876 - 684 308
Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, 27 September 2010

Bank-bashing politicians could severely damage the City

Bank-bashing politicians could severely damage the City

September 27th, 2010 by Tim Congdon Professor Tim CongdonBank-bashing has become commonplace, as we saw at the Liberal Democrats’ conference last week. But the bank-bashers’ credibility is waning as one of their standard allegations is being refuted by the evidence. This allegation is that the financial crisis would have a huge cost to the taxpayer.

The truth is that the government has spent no money on the banks. Loans have been extended by the Bank of England and the Treasury to some banks at penal rates of interest, and these loans have been almost entirely repaid. Guarantees were provided by the Treasury on certain bank liabilities, but the banks’ creditors have not had to call the guarantees. Instead the banks have honoured their liabilities and paid the guarantee fees. Finally, the British state acquired equity stakes on favourable terms in the Royal Bank of Scotland and Lloyds Banking Group, while snaffling the shareholders’ funds of Northern Rock and Bradford & Bingley. These investments are likely to be sold over the next few years at a profit running into tens of billions of pounds.

The likelihood of an immense taxpayer profit may puzzle the bank-bashers. Moreover, the large salaries paid in the British banking industry owe nothing to government subsidies. They are instead due to receipts of various kinds (interest margins on loans, commissions, underwriting fees, trading profits, management and advisory fees) on transactions with customers. The bank-bashers assert that large personal incomes have depended on hidden official support. In fact, the large incomes were and are justified in the marketplace. They have been and remain attributable to high productivity in the financial industries.

Official data show that, in 2007, average hourly pay in the City of London was £28.77, whereas in Great Britain as a whole it was £12.69. Moreover, the differential between City incomes and the national average has been widening since the mid-1980s, a 25-year period in which the notion of a state-subsidised financial system was obvious poppycock. The 25 years were actually characterised by enormous tax payments on profits and incomes earned in the City.

Why did productivity in international financial services grow so rapidly? Two forces were dominant. First, computerisation and advances in information technology enabled a multiplication in the volume of transactions that could be processed and recorded, and so dramatically reduced the “cost per unit of output”.

The second dominant influence is the relentless tendency towards the globalisation of trade and finance in the post-war era. In the 1950s a US company would finance its operations almost exclusively in dollars from securities sold in the USA or by loans from US-owned banks operating only in the USA. The same would apply for British companies, German companies and so on. But nowadays a US company can finance its operations by a yen- or euro-denominated loan or securities issue, arranged in London by a syndicate of European, Asian and Arab banks, possibly with some US participation. Financial markets have ceased to be national. Instead they are global and cosmopolitan.

The main centre for the value added and created is London. Computerisation and globalisation, not implicit government subsidies, are responsible for the personal incomes in the UK’s financial services industries. But will the high-productivity, high-income people in the financial sector want to stay in the banker-bashing UK in the long run? Perhaps not.

To view the original CLICK HERE
Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, 25 September 2010

Monday, 13 September 2010

The Talking Clock interviews Tim Congdon

The Talking Clock interviews Tim Congdon

Monday, 13 September 2010


UKIP Leadership Special: The Talking Clock interviews Tim Congdon - EXCLUSIVE!

As the race for the UKIP leadership gets under way, The Talking Clock is proud to assist UKIP members in their decision - and inform the wider public about the characters involed in the race to lead Britain's fourth biggest party - through a very special interview series.
We invited all of the leadership hopefuls to spell out, through The Talking Clock, their vision for the party and where they stand on a number of issues of interest to our readership.
Today, we present for you, our EXCLUSIVE interview with Tim Congdon.

Note - in order to present a level playing field, this is a verbatim transcript. It has not been tidied to erase speech hesitations and is as accurate a record of every word as is possible.

So, the first obvious question then is why do you want to be leader of UKIP?
I am appalled at the betrayal of our rights, our constitution, in many ways our way of life by a political elite – a political class, all the three main parties over the last forty years. Britain’s independence as a nation isn’t quite extinguished, but it’s been very much reduced. It affects our living standards, it affects our civil liberties, it affects our way of life and I want my country back and – by becoming leader of UKIP – I can make my contribution to that cause.

And, in that vein, what would you say are the main things that you would offer to the party if you were to win the leadership race?
I’d emphasise three things. The first thing is that I want to be leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party in the United Kingdom. I promise to spend over ninety percent of my time in the UK – most of that probably in London. There is a huge organisational job to do in this country. I don’t want to be distracted by being an MEP in Brussels or Strasbourg.
The second thing I bring is – since it is a very important organisational job – I bring organisational skills. I built up a business from scratch from a hundred pounds to employing lots of people, a turnover of about four million pounds and I have skills in terms of contacts with the press, of organising mailing lists and so on, because I had to do it before for my own businesses and so on – so I have organisational skills.
Then the final point is that I have been an economist for most of my career. I was on the Treasury Panel in the mid-1990s – a very good period, by the way, for the British economy when I was advising British Government and I would bring UKIP the best economist in British politics and actually, by the way, most people wouldn’t dispute that.

How prepared are you for the media scrutiny that the leadership role would place you under?
Well in terms of the… going on press conferences, going on media - radio, television, I’ve done that already. Although I have only – on the Treasury Panel – that was my only formal public position, if you like, I’ve been involved in British public debates for over thirty years in various ways so it wouldn’t be very new to me. I’ve been, for example, on Andrew Neil’s programme, I mean, I know a lot of journalists.
You then say what about media scrutiny? My private life, my financial affairs are totally blameless. I have nothing whatsoever to be ashamed of and I’m not bothered about that at all.

So, is the UKIP leadership election something purely for UKIP members to be interested in or can you see interest in the wider electorate in the leadership race?
Well obviously, it’s nicer if there’s wider interest. I think, if we’re realistic, that we had a bit over three percent of the national vote – that’s a million people, obviously the interest is probably more like two or three million people at least, so yes – I hope there is wider interest but, in practise, it’s very much going to be party membership as such so we’re talking about a few thousand people. I wish it were more, but there we are.

Have you been happy with the direction UKIP has been heading in and what do you think UKIP has done well so far?
Well, UKIP has been an extraordinary development in that it didn’t exist twenty years ago and it’s now blossomed into a party with an organisational structure and capturing almost a million votes in the General Election – that is a fantastic achievement. Having said that, this is… because of… an attack, it’s an attack on our country from, from Europe with which – to be frank – we have both historical friendships and also historical antagonisms and, given that this is a major attack on our nation we should have done better, in my opinion, and I think that there has been wonderful organisation at the branch level, at the regional level mostly on a voluntary basis and those people need encouragement and help – often strokes of inspiration. But having said all that, there is a lot to be done organisationally in this country, in the United Kingdom itself, to get our message over.
There has been too much distraction of effort by the fact that we have twelve or so MEPs in the European Parliament and then the whole distraction because of all sorts of problems they have with their monies, expenses, exactly what they’re supposed to be doing, all the rest of it – I want to be leader of UKIP in this country, concentrating on this country, pursuing the battle here.

So, going forward then, what changes would you like to see in the UKIP focus?
Okay, the first thing is that we must have a London office. Now, of course, this [interview] is being held in what is, in a sense, a London office but it’s also – of course, the European Community’s office in London. This is not supposed to be a party political office. We must have an office in London from which we can do party political things without any question. That requires a bit of money.
I will help the financing of the office if I become leader. I will obviously need to be involved with fundraising. I know a few people, I can’t make any promises but I think that they would regard me as a credible and important public figure. We would need to organise journalists, press releases, press lists, parties – all these things must be done, I’m afraid I’m not implying anything against the regions – but essentially in London. So, you know, that is where I think we’ve been falling down – there’s more to be done in the regions, more to be done in the branches, more to be done to build up the membership – all these things need work. But, there we are, I think I’ve answered the question.

So, what do you think of the way UKIP is portrayed in the media and do you think you can improve our image and depth of coverage in the corporate media and, if so, how?
The media image is not very good and we need to raise our game. We need to have quality research documents. We need to have constant contact with journalists. We need to make sure that anything unfortunate in our private lives, whatever, is kept out of the – I say that, I’m not worried at all myself but – you know… the important thing is publicity, you know – the oxygen of publicity, yes, and in particular good publicity. We want favourable comments in the press to what we believe in for the future of our country and favourable comments to the things that we write and we say.
And can I just say before I finish on this question that I, myself, have built up a research business where media contact and media ‘passing on the message’ was very important and what I did was highly respected and remains so.

So, has a finite level for potential UKIP electoral support been reached and, if not, how would you envisage that we could excite and energise the public to vote positively…
We are only scratching the surface. The opinion polls are showing that more people now regard the European Union – our membership of the European Union – as a bad thing than a good thing. The opinion polls are showing that, maybe, fifty-five percent of people in Britain want us to leave the European Union, full stop. They’re showing eighty percent of us want to change our relationship with the European Union, so that it’s mostly an economic matter not a political union.
We have overwhelming public support for what we believe in. It’s true that there are other issues that people regard as important, okay, and so they don’t vote for us because they regard us as – you know – a kind of amateur political party which has focussed in on one issue. I, by the way in saying that, I don’t mean any disrespect to the existing, the amount of hard work people do but that’s – I’m afraid – how they regard us. So we are only scratching the surface.
The obvious way of showing this, of course, is the General Elections we get a bit over three percent; in the European election, we get sixteen, seventeen percent. There is huge potential support that we would have if we have credibility and also, by the way, if the governing party or parties are unpopular and I think our great opportunity is going to be in 2014 when I think it’s quite possible that we will vote more – with good leadership, with good publicity, with hard work in the United Kingdom, we will get a higher share of the vote than any other political party and that could transform British politics, that could get us out of the European Union.

So what would you like to see the local UKIP branches do differently and what do you think they are doing well?
I think it’s… I think they do a wonderful job in the sense that it’s all voluntary, people have got their own lives, they’ve got errr… you know, many people running businesses and so on. What I’ve found from, you know, talking around the party is that… what normally causes somebody to join UKIP and then to support it continually is that they have seen the European Union affecting them in their daily lives and there’s a whole host of things that are relevant here but obviously, it’s fisheries, it’s farming, mad cow disease, the way we were treated in 1997, 1996/97 on mad cow disease, it’s – it’s things like, like regulation that’s expensive and penalises us in markets outside the EU, it’s something like the two lads who’ve just been in a Hungarian prison, it’s something that affects them directly and they see an immediate impact and they then say we don’t want the European Union at all – full stop – and then they join UKIP and I think those kind of people, in other words they’re still voluntary, so what I want is more branch meetings, I want the centre suggesting the topics of branch meetings to the branches, I want letters from the party leader to the branch chairmen, county chairmen, regional organisers, saying ‘I want these meetings this year, please’ you know, ‘can you please raise some funds for yourselves’ – I’m not suggesting the money should come from the centre at all. I want a lot of money built up in the branch, in the constituency branch, bank accounts between now and 2014 and 2015. We need to do this through, as I said, a number of branch meetings, and then all the help that we can provide centrally in terms of the content of those meetings, in terms of the contents, it’s partly speakers, it’s partly publications, it’s partly things like videos of what we had at the party conference. Then also we must try and raise the membership of the party and – you know – I think that we’ve had, through the list as it were, something like fifty thousand people but the current membership bag is only about ten. We must do our best to get those people back and – you know – we have got a very good cause, a very important cause so, again it’s a matter of finding money, but I would like to have adverts in the – start off with where we can afford it, but adverts in the local papers initially, probably – join UKIP – there’ll be some revenue from them joining UKIP so the ads can pay for themselves. There’s various things – a lot of things to do.

What role does UKIP’s youth wing, Young Independence, play in your vision for the party?
It’s very important to catch people young. I would say the kind of things that I’ve just been talking about for the branches also apply for the youth wing. It’s important also in universities – some extent in schools – particularly in sixth forms, particularly in universities, that we should have people who – almost kind of a list actually – of potential contributors to, you know, Oxford Union, Cambridge Union, Leeds Union debates – alright? I know Nigel Farage does this but, you know, there are other people, should all be involved in contributing to these debates at the student union level. Otherwise, I think the agenda is pretty much the same as for the branches. It’s giving them ideas for meetings, supporting and so on.

As you obviously know, polls show that that the majority are opposed to or are to some extent unhappy at our relationship with the European Union. But if Parliament is supposed to represent the will of the people, how did we get here?
I think there’s two things. One thing, it’s corruption – that there is a separate class of people who are politicians. They don’t have money of their own. They therefore regard politics as a career. They failed to get into Westminster Parliament, there are other jobs around. There are jobs to some extent in this country and there are jobs in the European Union and the European Union is just another job. So, certainly at the end of your career, you know, to become a Commissioner, you’ve then have got various powers and patronage - it’s another job but it’s a sort of, you know, quite a nice job, you know, a lot of flunkies around, nice cars and life’s rather fun, yeah? So these people have become corrupt.
The second reason, may amaze you, is laziness. You know, what the job, the life of a Minister is incredibly pampered. You have – I’ve got many friends who have been through this life – you actually have… (aside)… a diary secretary, you have a car, you have your papers, you have, you know, all the red boxes that you have to read and decide what to do – the civil servants initiate, you say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ – by the way, if you reach a decision they don’t like they steer you, they control what you do. The bureaucracy doesn’t want democracy, the bureaucracy wants to control the politicians and, bit by bit, it’s the European bureaucracy has taken control of more and more of the European agenda, the European agenda has infiltrated national life and so now you have a situation where directives, regulations essentially coming from the European democracy become law in our country without any, without any control by our own politicians, without any control by our own Parliament and that disgusting state of affairs it arises because these politicians are pampered and lazy, they aren’t prepared to fight with and quarrel with their bureaucrats and say ‘you do what I want to do and you obey my orders…’ because actually, actually, they depend on the bureaucrats for their own pampered, soft way of life.

So, what are the alternatives away from the European Union – if we got sovereignty tomorrow, what are the alternatives for Britain and trade?
Can I just say Britain was a self-respecting, a very proud nation for centuries until 1972. So you ask… the answers there, you know – we had a past we are proud of so we don’t have to belong to this wretched thing. New Zealand doesn’t belong to the European Union! Australia doesn’t belong to the European Union! Canada doesn’t belong to the European Union! Does that mean life doesn’t go on in New Zealand, Canada? Does that mean that people are not rich and prosperous and hard-working and protected by lots of basic rights including the right to proper justice? Oh, come on! We don’t have to belong to the European Union at all! What a joke! Stupid nonsense!

Some detractors of UKIP label the party as a “one trick pony” and that’s despite a very comprehensive manifesto at the last General Election. So, imagine that you were to win the leadership, what would be the first thing you would put in a UKIP manifesto?
Well the first thing is, of course, withdrawal and that just isn’t something for negotiation – that’s completely straightforward. The question then is how much other things do we want in there? I think we should limit the length of the manifesto to fifteen thousand words, ideally keep it to ten. And if we have particular issues which are very important such as about the European Arrest Warrant, civil liberties and so on, then that might have a larger section, say fifteen hundred words.
Also, about things like immigration, gypsy encampments and so on, also very important and immigration from the European Union – difficult controlling it. Again, you might want to say a thousand words for that. But, but the – you know, that’s for a meeting at the start – ‘that’s the word budget, that’s how many words you can have, that’s it’. And then if there are things we want to develop – you know, say I have a long policy statement on immigration, fine. Then we just put, on the website, a hypertext link, ‘immigration’, bash through and there you get the ten thousand word, fifteen thousand word document explaining, justifying, defending the immigration policy.

Because I know the kind of people who I see showing interest in UKIP from the internet, something that comes up an awful lot is the West Lothian Question. So, do you think the West Lothian Question requires an answer?
My own view about this is that this is a much larger topic and I think the United Kingdom would be a far stronger nation if we had a simple federal structure in which Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland were the four states in a federation. And with a lot of devolution to the, you know, the Scots have already got health, education, and so on, it continues – but I would actually… and so, there would, of course, be a national Parliament and at the national Parliament some things decided nationally but I would want the English Parliament - actually, there would be the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Parliament, it’s not the Assembly anymore – and the… and they would actually decide those certain set of issues for England, yeah.

Is the UK a police state?
I think it’s horrifying that question could even be asked. You know, this is a nation that pioneered the ideas of freedom from arbitrary arrest, the idea of the rule of law, the idea of jury trial, the idea of – you know – no imprisonment without clear evidence and so it’s horrifying this question could even be asked and I think that we have surrendered far too much to essentially a foreign power, actually, which is what the European Union is really. We have surrendered far too much of our basic freedoms and we’ve moved much too far in the direction of a rather unpleasant European police state. The notion that the planning of European justice system can be in the hands of somebody who was a member of the Hungarian Communist Party is terrifying.

And just one light-hearted question to finish on. The result of the leadership ballot is announced on November 5th. Would you like to comment on the significance of that date?
Oh heavens! I hadn’t really thought of it as a… but this was a… James the First of England, James the Sixth of Scotland was a disappointment to the Catholics because he clearly believed in the Protestant succession, something that Queen Elizabeth had sorted out and, ummm, I think it’s a wonderful day to choose for the result of the leadership ballot and I will, if I, well, if I become leader, when I become leader I would actually want to steer the contents of any press release towards reference to the Gunpowder Plot and I think – there we are – sorry it’s not funny!

We would like to thank our very special UKIP contact for helping to make this possible. We won't embarrass them by naming them - they know who they are. Thank you!
To view the original article CLICK HERE
Enhanced by Zemanta

Sunday, 5 September 2010

"Bernanke continues to babble on about futile credit easing...." said Tim Congdon

"Bernanke continues to babble on about futile credit easing...." said Tim Congdon

Dangerous Defeatism is taking hold among America's economic elites

Goldilocks has played a trick on America. Growth is not warm enough to prevent hard-core unemployment climbing to post-war highs and sticking at levels that corrode the body politic, but not yet cold enough to overcome the fierce resistance of the Fed's regional hawks for a fresh blast of stimulus.

Soft bears say the US economy wil limp along just shy of a double dip
Soft bears say the US economy wil limp along just shy of a double dip
The US economy has slowed to stall speed: successive quarters of 5pc growth, 2.7pc, and 1.6pc (to be revised down), the worst recovery of the post-war era. Such is the crush of debt.
While last week's data was less bad than feared, it was still awful. Manufacturing orders fell to the lowest in 15 months. Some 54,000 jobs were lost in August and the broad U6 gauge of unemployment rose from 16.5pc to 16.7pc. The US needs to create 150,000 a month just to stay even. The social depression is getting worse, not better.
Hardline bears think growth will drop below to 1pc in the second half as the inventory boost wears off and the tail winds of stimulus turn to headwinds, leaving no margin for error.
Soft bears such as Bank of America's Ethan Harris said the economy will limp along just shy of a double-dip. "Our sense is that the 'growth recession' is already here and it is likely to linger through the first half of next year," he said. His reason for concluding that it will not be worse is telling: the Fed will step in with $500bn to $750bn of fresh QE every six months if necessary.

Perhaps, but perhaps not. The luminaries are lining up to say there is very little that the Fed can do after already cutting rates to zero and purchasing $1.7 trillion of bonds. "The heavy artillery has already been fired," said former Fed vice-chair Alan Blinder.
"I really don't think there is a lot the Fed can do," said Harvard's Martin Feldstein.

"The benefits of additional QE are quite small," said Stanford's John Taylor, of the Taylor rule.

"The US has run out of bullets. More QE is not going to make any difference," said Nouriel Roubini, our Dr Gloom.
Get a grip, the lot of you. While there is no easy way out for the US after stealing so much prosperity from the future through debt, there is no excuse for this dead-end defeatism. Clearly, the 'canonical New Keynesian' model that holds such sway on America's elites is intellectually exhausted.

The Fed has an arsenal of neutron bombs if it wants to use them, and uses them correctly. It can engage in "monetary policy a l'outrance" as Maynard Keynes propsed in his Treatise on Money in 1930, before he lost his way with the General Theory.
Blitz the market with bond purchases, but do so outside the banking system by buying from insurers, pension funds, and the public. This would gain traction on the broad M3 money instead of letting it collapse (yes, the "monetary base" has exploded, but that is a red herring), working through the classic Fisher/Friedman mechanisms of the quantity of money theory.

This is quite different from the Fed's QE which buys bonds from the banks and works by trying to drive down borrowing costs. While Bernanke's 'creditism' is certainly better than nothing, it is not gaining full traction.

"Bernanke continues to babble on about futile credit easing: neither he nor his staff seems to appreciate the difference between purchases of assets from non-banks and from banks," said Tim Congdon from International Monetary Research. Crudely, banks sit on the money. Others use it.

Mr Congdon said a $750bn blitz of QE done the right way would lead to 5pc rise in M3 over three months. "This would indeed transform the US economic outlook". Instead, America drifts. It is already closer to a Japanese trap than Washington wants to admit, and may not escape from it for similar reasons of ideological paralysis.

Dr Bernanke said in November 2002 that Japan had the economic instruments to pull itself out of malaise but failed to do so. "Political deadlock" and a cacophony of views over the right policy had prevented action. He insisted that a central bank had "most definitely" not run out of ammo once rates were zero, and retained "considerable power to expand economic activity".
Yet eight years later, the US is in such "deadlock". Worse, Fed officials now say "the ball is in the fiscal court", arguing that budget policy should do more to "complement" the Fed's existing stimulus. Oh no!

This is the worst possible prescription. What is needed is fiscal austerity (slowly) before debt spirals out of control, offset by easy money or real QE for as long as it takes. This formula rescued Britain from disaster in 1931-1933 and 1992-1994.
Damn the rest of the world if they object. They have been free-loading off US demand for too long. A weaker dollar will force the mercantilists to face some hard truths. So keep those helicopters well-oiled and on standby.

To view the original CLICK HERE
Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, 2 September 2010


Tim Congdon's Election Web Site is now up and running 

Citizen Gloucestershire, The, Sep 2, 2010

AN economist from Gloucestershire is vying to become the next leader of the UK Independence Party.
Professor Tim Congdon, of Huntley, entered the race for the party's top job after the surprise resignation of Lord Malcolm Pearson. The world-renowned economist was UKIP's candidate for the Forest of Dean seat in the last General Election, taking 5.2 per cent of the vote.
He said he was entering the leadership battle in response to the ever-increasing influence of the European Union over British politics.
Prof Congdon, pictured, said: "I'm doing it for the same reason I stood in the General Election this year. I am horrified by the extent to which the Government of our country has been handed over to a foreign bureaucracy.
"People don't understand to what extent that their country's government has been stolen from them."
Prof Congdon was an economic adviser to former Conservative prime minister Margaret Thatcher but left the Tories in 2007 after becoming disillusioned with David Cameron's policies.
He said his previous experience gave him an edge over his rivals in the UKIP leadership contest.
He said: "I've been involved in a lot of journalism and think- tank work and getting our points into the public domain so they become part of policy conversations. That's very much what we want to do here."
Prof Congdon will face strong competition from leading global warming expert Christopher Monckton and London MEP Gerard Batten.
The favourite for the job is former leader Nigel Farage, who is expected to announce his candidacy at the party conference tomorrow.
Prof Congdon said he had learned a lot from the General Election campaign in May.
He will officially register his desire to stand in the next few weeks and is planning to set up a website to support his campaign.
To view the original article CLICK HERE
Now that article is prety high on the credit line - a politician trying to tell us like it is not how he thinks will buy him votes and praising the competition - got to be a first for UKIP!!!
Good luck, you'll need it when Farage cuts in with his filth, parasites and dirty tricks!
Enhanced by Zemanta