Jumped or pushed?

Ukip MEP Amjad Bashir defects to the Conservatives

Pushed.

42 thoughts on “Jumped or pushed?”

  1. bloke (not) in spain

    No doubt Mr Bashir has taken this long pondered decision in a true spirit of dedication to the staunchly held principles & the greater interests of Mr Bashir.

  2. Must admit Farage presented a robust defence on this morning’s Andrew Marr Show: Bashir consorts with Islamic terrorists, employs illegal immigrants in his UK business, and supports the idea of Sharia Law – and that was just for openers.

  3. Was he by any chance caught in a squirrel costume, or with another person in a squirrel costume? I think we should be told.

  4. What JuliaM said.

    Or did they panic, think he’d do as a racist-allegations-shield, then repent at leisure?

    Like they did with that other colourful character, Nikki Sinclaire?

    UKIP are playing in the big boys’ playground now. They need to up their game.

  5. Bernie
    “Must admit Farage presented a robust defence on this morning’s Andrew Marr Show: Bashir consorts with Islamic terrorists, employs illegal immigrants in his UK business, and supports the idea of Sharia Law – and that was just for openers.”

    If true, that just reinforces my predudice that kippers are generally an odd bunch.

  6. Luke

    Any fervent adherents to *any* political party are ‘odd’. Haven’t you fucking noticed?

    Which loose assortment of power freaks, autists, mummy’s boys, sociopaths, cowards, bullies and liars do you trust to sort out the many and varied problems of sixty million people, as a matter of interest?

  7. Interested – pleased to meet you, I am odd and so’s my wife.
    Plenty of people I have worked with over the years (or studied with at uni) were also odd by your use of the term.
    Odd is not that bad, could even be said can achieve more odd than shouting from the sidelines.

  8. “Any fervent adherents to *any* political party are ‘odd’”

    But some are odder than others. And in different ways.

  9. Odd was in apostrophes. In this context it is-(I think, not to put words in Interested’s mouth)-being correctly used as a synonym for scum who are attracted to and seek power over their fellow human beings .
    Martin Davies–you and yours and your acquaintances maybe a little out of the ordinary. I very much doubt that you are venal power-seeking scum.

    That is the difference.

    Ah Theo–this new chap will be much happier with the BluLab gang. And they have so much more experience on the High Road to thievery and abuse of power. It sounds like he has made a good start on the journey by himself but I’m sure he will find many capable mentors amongst his new pals.

  10. Farage presented a robust defence…Bashir… employs illegal immigrants in his UK business…

    It seems to me that Farage came on the radio a few months ago saying it was Bashir’s sons who were responsible, nothing to do with Bashir oh no.

  11. Ecksy:

    “And they have so much more experience on the High Road to thievery and abuse of power.”

    Really? I don’t think the Tories have anyone to compare to Neil Hamilton…

  12. “Really? I don’t think the Tories have anyone to compare to Neil Hamilton…”

    Theo, thanks, I just spilled my coffee – very drole!

    fwiw, the current day transfer market – Carswell vs Bashir – I think Nigel’s got the better deal there..??

  13. PF:
    Carswell is an interesting chap, but I am not sure he’s a good fit with UKIP – which is not so much a breath of fresh air as a stale fart.

  14. “Stale fart” – you’re on a role today..;)

    So how would you describe the others then..?! Dave, Ted, Nats..??

    (btw, your perception of “not a good fit” – that’s actually the point; Nigel got a good deal. As in, this guy is an original thinker and is already in Westminster, and almost certainly still will be come June. Whatever UKIP’s current pre-election rhetoric, he should have some influence!)

  15. Bashir jumps from party to party according to his own personal whims and stays as long as he can until he gets kicked out when the party realises how toxic he is.

    First Tories, then Respect, then UKIP and back to the Tories.

  16. Wow, these people in all political parties sound appalling, certainly not the sort of people ever to be allowed anywhere near government. Which does leave us with an interesting question : what do we do for a g overenthusiastic then, this democracy thing having been utterly rejected?

    And “no need for a government” makes you odder than those ‘odd’ people who are unfit etc…

  17. Ironman

    Interesting point.

    Personally, I’d happily vote for a party if it was more inclined to roll back the state, and to stop trying to control, regulate and monitor everything and everyone etc. For starters…

    Let me knoiw if you spot one..:)

  18. It could be the anti-nausea tablets I’m taking for gastroenteritis, but I’m coming round to Natalie Bennett’s idea that we should base our society on The Hunger Games.

  19. Martin, it all depends on our definition of ‘fervent’ and ‘odd’.

    As a longtime follower of your comments I don’t think you’re odd but (assuming you’re honest) commendable.

    There’s never the space to remove all lacunae, but I suppose I really mean that a significant percentage of all party activists are either stupid or naiive or nasty and careerist. That leaves some room for mistaken, which isn’t quite the same as naiive.

    Common or garden party members are a bit less bonkers, and voters a bit less again.

    I’m a voter myself – like most of us, I don’t have all the answers and there’s good and bad in most political parties. The bad gets bigger every year and it’s worse in the socialist leaning end of the game.

    I’ve reached the point where I fully expect a bloody revolution in my lifetime. I hope I’m wrong, but I fear it’s the logical confluence of fiat money being out of control, education and media being in the hands of eternal adolescents, and basic human idleness. I don’t hold out any hope that what succeeds ‘democracy’ will be any better, sadly.

    I can shoot and I live in the country, so I’m better off than some. I hope they get to PaulB before the Internet goes down.

  20. If we can’t get by with no govt–prob because of all the anarchy=chaos shite that has been drilled into everybody–then we can do with very, very little govt. One that leaves us and everybody else (ie foreigners) alone.

    PS–Everything not dictated by the state=anarchy–so shall we let the state run all that as well? To avoid anarchic chaos? Hey Iromnan–how about a govt appointed wife–or perhaps you would be in this years sodomy call-up?. Still got to be better than uncontrolled chaos hasn’t it?

  21. PF:
    As for Milimarx et al, my point is only that UKIP is no better than any of the other parties: Farage & co have been spinning desperately to minimise Bashir’s defection.

    Apparently, Carswell is already making enemies in UKIP. And Farage has an ego the size of Asia….It is only a matter of time before the party self-destructs. By which time, they’ll have indirectly made Milimong the PM.

  22. Interested
    “I can shoot and I live in the country, so I’m better off than some. I hope they get to PaulB before the Internet goes down.”

    And you’re not at all odd? Not at all a survivalist nutcase? Not at all someone who hasn’t noticed that agriculture and industry have largely removed the need for us to be hunter gatherers?

    “I hope I’m wrong, but I fear it’s the logical confluence of fiat money being out of control..” Fruitcake.

  23. Theo, Theo–I hope all your stashed cash is worth the humiliation you are putting yourself thro’, Yeah Milimarx is a dozy twat–so lets all vote for a dickhead who knows so little about computing and the Net he thinks encryption is an option. An arrogant turd who is going to usher in the age of plain packaging. Yeah Davey girl is the one to save your investments alright Theo.

    The fact that you will lose every fucking penny regardless of which of them gets in almost makes it all worthwhile.

  24. A classic unconscious slip there Theo–you fear that I am correct for all your blue bravado and that thought eats into your brain like drops of acid.

  25. Theophrastus – “By which time, they’ll have indirectly made Milimong the PM.”

    I find this line of reasoning fascinating.

    So if Labour wins the next election, it’ll be the fault of UKIP voters?

    How much blame will you attach to David Cameron and chums? UKIP wouldn’t be a blip on the radar if not for the heir to Blair and his enablers.

    I’m not a UKIP diehard. I voted Conservative in the last GE. I’d vote for them again if they hadn’t demonstrated time and time again that they’re useless, nanny-statist, and despise people like me who give a shit about the future of this country.

    I had low expectations of the Tories even in 2010, but they’ve managed to limbo-dance their way even under those.

    They couldn’t even bring back weekly bin collections. A trivial promise, to be sure, but one that would have given me some tangible reason for feeling like a Conservative vote wasn’t a wasted vote.

    They couldn’t sort out the bins, but I’m supposed to trust them on the economy, on Europe, on education (I see the vultures in Ofsted are already circling around the few free schools Michael Gove got set up), immigration and defence?

    So, fuck em. Millimong it is. Let them eat Ed.

  26. So, the nice way of saying it is: the alternative to democracy doesn’t automatically present itself.
    But what the hell, nobody is gonna stop our ‘hang all politicians’ party here is it.
    BTW; I’m still voting blue.

  27. @Luke

    I’m talking about shooting for self defence (in the event of a bloody revolution, which I hope never happens, but which is likely to hit cities first if it does).

    Re fiat money, note I said ‘out of control’. I’m not against the concept, nor a gold bug, but I simply say that printing an extra 1.2 trillion euro (for instance) may be evidence of a systemic problem.

    You may think it’s all fine and dandy, in which case I’d suggest you locate a mirror before calling anyone else a ‘fruitcake’.

    I’m not a survivalist, no. I haven’t learned to forage, though I did once learn the basics, I don’t hoard gold coins, and I haven’t voluntarily slept under canvas in my life.

    Nutcase, who can say. I bet I’m better off than you, so I must be doing something right!

  28. I must say, I agree with Steve. I’d we get Miliband, great. It’s a tragedy Labour didn’t win last time, on the ‘you broke it you own it’ principle.

    I don’t want this shameless bunch of Tory chancers in, that’s for sure.

  29. Interested – not after power as such, I don’t like committee meetings that much.
    There are good decent folk in any party, probably even the Greens. I’m happy if people engage with any party – even the Greens.
    Some power mad idiots around, sure. You find them everywhere not just in politics. Some of them will like committee meetings and others will let them in order to avoid said meetings.
    There is more than one type of power and more than one way to get power. I could never be an MP (seriously could not), does not mean I will avoid trying to talk an MP into something or out of something. Or support the candidate of my choice in the party selection process.

  30. Ecksy:

    “you fear that I am correct for all your blue bravado and that thought eats into your brain like drops of acid”

    Sorry, dear boy, yet another evidence-free inference by you. And cod-psychology. I’m afraid you sound like a care-in-the-community case. Keep taking the pills.

  31. Steve:

    “So if Labour wins the next election, it’ll be the fault of UKIP voters?”

    Yes, indirectly; in so far as UKIP splits the right-of-centre vote. Just as the Greens might – and the Limp Dicks traditionally have – split the left-of-centre vote, allowing Tory majorities…Geddit?

    “How much blame will you attach to David Cameron and chums?”

    Some. But I don’t think that a more right-wing leader of the Tories would have done any better — and probably worse — than Cameron, at this time (crucial qualifier!). At this election, Cameron has to assemble a right-of-centre coalition if the Tories are to win a majority or even be the largest party. That coalition has to include many waverers – e.g. crucially, slightly pinko (Mumsnet?) women in marginal constituencies, who are less than adverse to a little nanny-statism.

    “UKIP wouldn’t be a blip on the radar if not for the heir to Blair and his enablers.”

    So Cameron is responsible for the rise of UKIP? Nah. The protest vote has moved from the Limp Dicks (now a party of government, unfortunately) to UKIP. And a particular demographic – 60+, few qualifications, male, angry about immigration, disappointed in life – has swung behind UKIP. A decade from now that demographic will be dead or incontinently gibbering. UKIP will peak in 2015 and then decline.

    Basically, Steve, you are motivated by anger with the Tories, while I am motivated by fear of Labour, particularly under Milimong.

    Like many here who are angry with Cameron, you focus on minor issues — bin collections (for which central government is not even directly responsible), or plain packaging for fags (nonsense, I know, but it’s a free vote – and it’ll become law because of the votes of Labour MPs!)

    Meanwhile, you diminish the achievements of this government – in education (let’s hope Gove returns after the GE!), in welfare reform (IDS has set the ball rolling) and in the slow (too slow, imo) return to balanced budgets.

    So, Steve, all I can say is do not vote according to your anger but vote according to your interests. Do you have a mortgage, children at school, investments…? Think on’t.

    For all their failings, the Tories are likely to produce at least slightly better outcomes than Labour. And Labour always does a huge amount of irreversible social damage!

    My preferences are for a flat and low tax open economy with an insurance-based health service, strong defence, no PC, low immigration…And, as PF put it well above: “I’d happily vote for a party if it was more inclined to roll back the state, and to stop trying to control, regulate and monitor everything and everyone etc”.

    But (a) UKIP ain’t that party (which is cynically trying – like the Limp Dicks – to be all things to all voters) and (b) voting UKIP will achieve the opposite of your ends – unless UKIP is the main challenger to Labour.

    And the best hope we have is Osborne’s desire to reduce government spending to 35% of GDP…

  32. Interested:

    “I don’t want this shameless bunch of Tory chancers in, that’s for sure.”

    What’s your motivation to vote: anger or fear? If anger, you’ll vote to protest or to achieve some minor revenge. If fear – particularly fear of socialism – you will vote for the only party that can restrain socialism here and now — the Conservatives.

    What are your interests? Do you have a mortgage, or do your family? Does the prospect of high inflation bother you? Do you want even more PC quietly injected into public life?

    No? Then why vote UKIP – unless doing so will defeat a Labour candidate?

  33. Hi Theo

    Some feedback for the boys and girls over at CCHQ:

    They do desperately need to vary their scripts; 84% of our telephone survey said “it had become predictable”, and 78% of them were mystified that “they (ie the Cons) seem completely petrified of that Nigel bloke, you know, the one who enjoys a pint and fag down at the Dog & Duck…”

    “do not vote according to your anger but vote according to your interests.”

    bites lip, polite smile… “Theo, old chap, would you mind awfully if I might choose for myself on what ‘basis’ I decide to exercise my democratic right? Would that be all right?”

  34. Theo,

    Off at a complete tangent, but interesting (!) – you refer to an insurance based health scheme.

    I think (lousy memory) Tim has written on here (or over at El Reg?) referring to the difference between insurance and assurance.

    To repeat (I think what Tim said) difficult to see how a demand system based on someone taking an insurance based margin for a service that WILL be provided in itself adds value to what we already have?

    I’m being lazy right now, but someone might correct me if I have got that horribly wrong.

    And unless the state pays the insurance fees (for everyone) that might be a very major change away from any notion of universal health provision?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *