Ukip

Britain is avowedly eurosceptic. But euroscepticism is not homogeneous; there are different tones of disgust. Many decry further political integration; others oppose Europe’s penchant for protectionism; some are wary of the EU’s apparent collective socialism; a few are essentially pro-European but believe too much sovereignty has been ceded; others hope to redefine Britain’s cultural and political relationship with the Continent, as a bridge between the Old World and the Anglosphere; most see Brussels as an affront to elective democracy; and a handful just want out and vote UKIP. So it has always been – perhaps one reason why William Hague’s ‘ticking time-bomb’ has not yet exploded. Time passes and Britain

As Adam Boulton says, the Oldham by-election has produced another noteworthy moment. And, in this case, it’s one of the smaller parties making the splash. In a press conference in the constituency this afternoon, UKIP confirmed that Stuart Wheeler has joined their party as treasurer. This is, of course, the Stuart Wheeler who gave £millions to the Tories during the wilderness year after 1997 – including a £5 million mega-donation in 2001 alone. That Wheeler has made the conversion is unsurprising. He was expelled from the Conservatives, in 2009, for donating £100,000 to UKIP. And, soon after, he wrote a piece for The Spectator explaining why he would be voting

One consequence of coalition and the student fees row is, as Nick Clegg said this morning, that the Lib Dems will be more careful about what they sign up to at the next election. This will create political space for a party that is prepared to advocate populist but unrealistic policies such as abolishing tuition fees. I strongly suspect that Labour will choose not to occupy this space, appearing credible will still be the most important thing to them. So, this raises the question of who will try and move into this slot? UKIP aren’t ideologically suited to it, although Farage is a canny enough operator that little can be

Away from turbulent priests and the welfare battle, there have been important changes to electoral politics today. The coalition partners will fight one another in Oldham East and Saddleworth. The seat is a three way marginal, which was number 83 on the Tories’ target list – precisely the sort of seat they’ll need to win in 2015. However, as James noted on Friday, the Liberal Democrats’ need is greater at the moment. Already, tongues are wagging that a pimpled Etonian is destined to journey north of the Watford Gap, safe in the knowledge that gallant defeat will ensure he is the next Prime Minister but three. Enter Nigel Farage, opportunistically.

For a while then, it looked as though Britain and France really were going to share aircraft carriers as a mesure d’austérité. But, today, Liam Fox seems to have put a block on the idea, describing it in Paris as “utterly unrealistic”. He did, though, add that we could pool some of our transport planes and helicopters with the French (which sounds like the military equivalent of hitching a lift, if we happen to be going in the same direction). And Fox’s spokesman has since said that there still might be “strategic co-operation across the maritime domain,” whatever that means. So some sort of link-up with the French should be

That didn’t take long, did it? After only a year in charge of UKIP, Lord Pearson has quit the role even more abruptly than he took it. In his resignation statement, he confesses that he is “not much good” at party politics – and it is hard to disagree. A memorable low was his interview on the Campaign Show in which he was only dimly acquainted with his party’s own policy. But more damaging, to my mind, was the general erosion of UKIP’s identity: Pearson’s policy of campaigning for Eurosceptic candidates from other parties may have been magananimous, but it also made you wonder whether UKIP are more a party

Don’t you think that ‘The Ship Money Movement’ is a more appropriate name for a British anti-tax forum? You know, given the connotations of ‘Tea Party’ in these climes? Titles are instructive, and, as James wrote yesterday, the British right has a growing fascination with its American counterpart. Perhaps I’m over doing it, but it seems a testament to the State’s dominance in post-war Britain that the country’s libertarian tradition, extending back through Burke, Bolingbroke, Locke, Milton and to Hampden himself, is no longer the right’s primary inspiration. Putting my slightly absurd ruminations aside, the coming of the Tea Party Movement to Britain is significant. Dan Hannan will address the

On the face of it, Nigel Farage is right: “There is nothing extreme or radical or ridiculous” about banning the burka. It is a manifestation of many British Muslims’ indifference to society; it is an expression of wilful separation and a symbol of a nation riven with cultural division. In the sphere of private behaviour becoming political, the burka engenders intolerance – reactionary Islam’s intolerance of liberal democracy and vice versa. In this atmosphere, writers and politicians of all hues have drawn the same conclusion and there is capital to be extracted (perhaps cynically) by taking the seemingly sensible decision to ban the burka. To do so would be misguided as well

He’s only been in the job a few hours, but the new leader of UKIP, Lord Pearson, has already dropped a fairly intriguing bombshell.  Interviewed in today’s Times, he reveals that he proposed, some months ago, a deal with the Tories whereby UKIP would disband* if Cameron offered a referendum on a ratified Lisbon Treaty.  Apparently, the Tories didn’t respond to the overture – which seems rather tactless, if nothing else. You can see why Pearson has made the revelation now.  This “greater good”-style posturing could incite a few Tory supporters, and perhaps even parliamentarians, who are concerned about their party’s stance on Lisbon.  Who knows? – it may even

Tim Montgomerie reports that a senior source at CCHQ has said that John Bercow will not stand as an official Conservative candidate at the general election, and therefore party members will not be required to vote for him.   So, will they be for or against Bercow? Councillor Netta Glover, the Buckingham Association’s deputy chairman and political officer, told me that the executive committee were “standing firm behind Mr Bercow”, and that Tory party rules stated that “anyone seeking an official nomination against the speaker would be barred by the returning officer” – so de-selection can be discounted. However, and this has induced a joint migraine for Central Office and