CLICK The Pic. for TRAVEL!

Wednesday, 18 August 2010

#Doc026C01d* - CONGDON - LEADERSHIP 4 UKIP Runners & Riders 2010





#Doc026C01* - CONGDON - LEADERSHIP 4 UKIP Runners & Riders 2010
Announced 19-08-2010
Professor Tim G. Congdon CBE
Professor Tim G. Congdon CBE
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
Firstly before making the obvious statements - May I congratulate Gerard Batten for putting the wellbeing of UKIP before his personal interests, by standing down as a leadership candidate, it is well apreiated that he got 26% in the mock leadership election of 2009 without Farage standing but clearly he would have cost Tim Congdon votes had he insisted in standing.

Congratulations to Gerard Batten who has by this action done the very firast thing that I have ever been able to praise him for!

Let us hope this is a lesson to others who might still be tempted to stand - though I fully appreciate that David Bannerman is neither a real candidate nor the real man he claims to be he is as ever, once he emerges from The OLAF enquiry into his fraudulent use of public money as ever he was - merely butt boy for Farage, standing to split the vote of the informed UKIP members who can not be bought off by salary or status and know enough to know what a catastrophic leader Nigel Farage, has been, is and might still sadly be!

The exception of course is the hope that Mad Monkton might yet stand as nothing would favour Tim's campaign more as clearly he would attract some votes based upon his Father's title and other people's Climate Change & Global warming debunking, which never seems to be acknowledged by this serial liar (no wonder he supports Farage!). Let us hope he stands as his votes will in the main come from Farage's normal (I use the word with caution) voters.

Now for the obvious - Good luck to Tim Congdon though I fear he has an uphill battle ahead - I would like to see Tim Congdon win of the candidates on offer as he is the only candidate who brings any integrity, gravitas, competence or personal success to the Party. Congdon has made considerable money by the use of his own brain and unlike Farage was a success in banking and finance selling his business to Lehman Bros. as I recall, for a substantial amount and being retained as a consultant/adviser.

Tim Congdon may not have the charismatic qualities that sell well in the village hall, but he has the competence to impress a City audience or annual sales meeting of a major Financial services concern or banking Group or Inns of Court gathering and happily able to address the Mansion House or Brughes Group with gravitas and not be caught urinating in the plant pots with a drunken Godfrey Bloom, or involved in chavvery in a lap dancing club with Farage and his parasites - with greater self respect he can lead the party forward to its next phase rather than endlessly repeating the mistakes of Farage, Bannerman, Dartmouth, Monkton and the like so stupid they expect different results and are completely reliant on dishonesty and luck!

I have grave doubts over Steve Allison who based on his own track record I would trust as far as I could kick him - it was he who so recently advocated Pan EU Political Parties, it was he who was angling for a run at MEPship, it was he who was all over Farage like a cheap suit - when surrounded by undeniable corruption and dishonesty did this little man ever speak oit?

Not a man I would trust and one I would not be remotely surprised to see acting in character and using all he has learned to act in his own personal interest by betrayal at the most crucial time - Tim Congdon would seem to stand for EVERYTHING that Steve Allison has NOT stood for!

Before all else consider: CLICK HERE

Good Luck to Professor Tim Congdon
- I believe he offers UKIP members their best hopes for the future.
Tim Congdon is an economist, educated at Oxford University, with a long record of commenting on public policy issues, including writing sympathetically about the monetarist approach to macroeconomic policy. He has considerable experience working in the City of London and was the founder of the macroeconomic forecasting consultancy Lombard Street Research. He has also held a variety of academic appointments. Between 1993 and 1997 he was a member of the Treasury Panel that advised the Conservative government on economic policy[1]. In recent years, he has expressed considerable skepticism about the direction the European Union has been moving in.
Congdon has been a prominent defender of the UK Government's action to lend to Northern Rock claiming that it made money for the government.[2] He is also a small shareholder in Northern Rock, a fact that he has scrupulously disclosed publicly when writing on this issue.[3]
Since May 2008, he has been the economic correspondent for Standpoint magazine.[4]
Professor Congdon was the unsuccessful UKIP candidate for the Forest of Dean constituency in the 2010 General Election, obtaining 5.2% of the votes cast.
UKIP members consider Tim Congdon to be the only noticeable intellect in the Party Leadership and seen as having an interest as a reformist candidate, who would try to clean up the party, you can well imagine the forces ranged against him who would welcome him with all the joy of a pig in a Mosque.
You may recall his statement in late 2009 when he sided with some of the honest members of the senior members of UKIP, whose letter is below! There was a general level of disappointment in the realisation as to just how much the MEPs and their parasites 'had been 'captured' no longer seeing that their job was in Britain for Britain, not in Brussels for themselves'
Here is the letter he signed in opposition to the changes Farage tried to force on The Party. Changes to the constitution which were designed to give dictatorial powers to the Party Chairman. Farage has never forgiven any of the signators for this challenge to his personal fiefdom and his very personal control of his 'Milch Cow'.
Dear UKIP member,

We are writing this letter more in sorrow than in anger. At a time when every effort should be directed to our June election campaign, the NEC is wasting time and money on divisive and controversial changes to the UKIP constitution. It is now holding a members' referendum on this.

What is worse, the purpose seems to be to make it easier to get rid of members at a time when we should be concentrating on the reverse - expanding our membership. The changes will stifle freedom of expression within the party and reduce and weaken the power of members:

Amendments 6 and 19 (VOTE 2) The changes abolish the annual business meeting. Members will be deprived of their current absolute right to vote annual on the Party's accounts at a meeting of all members and to receive annual reports from all national officers. Yet the Party should belong to its members and the leadership should be accountable to them.

Amendments to 14 (VOTE 4) the changes will abolish the democratic right of members to elect a Disciplinary Committee at the annual business meeting. Instead a Disciplinary Panel of three will be selected arbitrarily by the unelected Party Secretary from a "pool" of about 55 people, themselves appointed by regional committees. Further changes will give the unelected Party Chairman (appointed by the Leader) arbitrary powers to suspend temporarily any member for any reason without a hearing.

These changes are worthy of the EU itself - reducing accountability and democracy.

Given that the leadership launched this attack on members' rights and is now asking your view, we feel it right to present the case against. We ask you to vote AGAINST all changes but particularly Vote 2 and Vote 4. The other changes are simply needless.

In less than six months voters will be choosing their MEPs. UKIP should be campaigning now for a major breakthrough. Yet it is low on the opinion polls and short of campaign funds.

The NEC discussed the coming campaign for the first time only a few days ago. Meanwhile it has been wasting energy on feuding and squabbles. It then launched a witchhunt for imagined enemies within. Two NEC members elected by the members were summarily kicked off the NEC; their crime apparently being to express their own opinions (and absolutely nothing to do with the BNP as some have tried to imply). The deputy treasurer was similarly removed. Ordinary members have been thrown out without being given the right to any hearing.

We condemn this navel-gazing and misdirection of effort. It must stop. We call on the leadership to accept that any democratic party is bound to have a spread of views; that intellectual debate can be healthy and that, amazingly, the Leader, the Chairman and the NEC may not always be right.

As prominent UKIP members we call on the Party to unite, dispose of this distraction quickly by voting against these unneeded changes and concentrate on the proper task in hand.

Yours sincerely

Sir Richard Body, was MP for 39 years
Tim Congdon CBE, leading economist
Roger Knapman MEP, former Party Leader and MP
Dr. Eric Edmond, elected NEC member
Piers Merchant, former UKIP Chief Executive and MP
Bruce Lawson FCA, former UKIP Treasurer
Martin Haslam FCA, former UKIP deputy treasurer
Del Young, elected NEC member
Dr. David Abbott, elected NEC member
Unfortunately despite his high level of academic economics and his consumate ability at critique of economics for worthy journals and the media Tim Congdon has one very big drawback as a leader - he is not a good speaker and suffers from quite surprising nerves which he has a tendency to calm before hand and at times excessively calm afterwards! Sadly despite his experience he is rather uncharismatic, typifying the accountant, mathematician, statistican, economist stereotype of a boring bean counter!
The inability to communicate with ease leads some of this propensity to explosive temper tantrums but perhaps the calming of nerves before hand may explain why this is apparent - some may remember Tommy Cooper whose nerves eventually led to full blown alcoholism and vodka on his cornflakes!
Tommy Cooper was by far a better commedian but as an economist of some repute I would assume Tim Congdon would count his shots and ensure he kept his powder dry ;-)
That said it would be a pleasant change to have an honest man in office who had an interest in Britain, the Party has survived to date without ever having a competent leader but there is at least every reason to believe Tim Congdon could be trusted.
If for no other reason than this report in: 
The Telegraph in May 2009
"Meanwhile, one of its most distinguished former supporters, the economist Tim Congdon, has left Ukip, claiming that it has been "captured by the European institutions" and neglects its British Eurosceptic supporters."
Here is Tim Congdon in debate as a PPC in The Forest of Dean his wee slot commences at 3 mins into the video:

For Part 1: CLICK HERE Healthcare
For Part 2: CLICK HERE Business & Jobs 
For Part 3: CLICK HERE SHOWN ABOVE - EUrope & Working Time Directive
For Part 4: CLICK HERE Foreign Policy
For Part 5A: CLICK HERE Climate Change
For Part 5B: CLICK HERE National Insurance
ALSO Containing Tim CONGDON:
IEA London - Central Banking in a Free Society CLICK HERE
Lord Pearson having failed to raise money for UKIP has I understand been assured of comprehensive backing for a new 'Think Tank' come 'Pressure Group' in his own name and is expected to take with him the near useless James Pryor and Bridget (death) Rowe ( couldn't he take scum like Mick McGough, Douglas Denny, Mark Croucher, David Bannerman, Marta Andreasen, Trevor Colman, William Dartmouth, Paul Nuttall, Dimwit Duffy and the rest who so befoul the party?) - this shows just how distrusted UKIP is with Farage and the claque of clowns and nere do well crooks he has gathered around him as his personal body guard.
For more on Pearson and his plans CLICK HERE
A spell of leadership by Tim Congdon would be much along the lines of Geoffrey Titford as leader - namely a safer pair of hands than any of the others on offer!
I also believe Tim Congdon would have the advantage over Geoffrey both on age and intellect.

To view Tim Congdon's Full Powerpoint Presentation on The EUrozone CLICK HERE
Bruges Group Speech by Tim Congdon
I’m going to be telling everyone I told you so and the older one is that most people remember what one said you know think of what you said in your 30s and your 40s because such pearls of wisdom they’ll remember you 20 years later but they don’t. So I’m going to recall some things that I said in 1998.
But in fact the central topic is really this question, can a monetary union where you have several countries, several governments sharing one currency, can that work without movement towards political union, meaning one government, one parliament, one set of laws and so on.
This was always the core question with this experiment, Europhiles called it the European construction, this was always the key issue.
Many Eurosceptics said that it couldn’t work without political union, so did many enthusiasts for the project including such people as President Mitterrand and Councillor Cole and they saw monetary union as something that would act to bring in political union over time.
There were some other people actually who said this can go on forever without proper political union and for quite a long time now they’ve appeared to be right. What I think there was never any question about was that with full political union monetary union was feasible.
And I wanted to say this for a couple of reasons, one was that in the 1990s there was obviously none of this, there’d just been German monetary union and political union, in fact monetary union I think was just before the political union and at any rate they basically went together and although it was a rather messy process it is clearly there for good and everyone’s announced that it can work.
But there was also centralisation of taxing, all centralisation in taxes in Germany applied to all of the Lander and the whole of the country and there’s also enforced centralisation of much of government spending.
So there was never any question about that and the second thing I want to say is that I did say right up 1997, I didn’t think this thing was going to happen because I thought frankly that they were like bills and they kind of have a vision, have a façade you know local columns and they were political but they hadn’t sorted out the plumbing. And you know after a good time it will start to smell and then it’s no good.
Anyhow it’s been there now for over a decade, effectively it started on January 1st 1999 and you know there was this façade and much signs of of working and it wasn’t smelling actually plumbing fixed the old problem.
But let me assure you ladies and gentlemen the plumbing isn’t working, there is a smell and in terms of the question of this thing it’s about to break up and if I’m asked for a timetable I will say the next three to six months and I’m going to try and justify that conclusion in the next few minutes.
Before I do that I’m going to be just a little bit self-indulgent and go through some things that I said and some aspects of the whole process.
When you’ve got a government, a single government, single countries and government usual monetary jurisdiction, the government can borrow from the central bank a great deal of money and if this is on excessive scale you get inflation.
When you’ve got a standard monetary jurisdiction, one government, one central bank, one money, one legal system etc etc, its very clear what the cause of the problem is, its government borrowing from the central bank, that government is to blame, that central bank is to blame so its clear what’s going on.
But the monetary union when you’ve got 16 governments, if each government borrows too much from the central bank is that government to blame for excessive inflation? I don’t think so it’s too small.
So all governments and have got an incentive as far as they can to borrow from the central bank, to be in that sense financially responsible and you’ve got a sort of free value problem.
Now that problem could be anticipated and it was anticipated by a treaty agreement on the size of budget deficits and also a prohibition on government borrowing from central bank as the 1992 Maastricht Treaty but for a number of reasons this Treaty was never really credible and I wasn’t the only person to make these points, but if governments had an excessive deficit, a deficit that breached what’s called the Stability and Growth Pact, also known as the Stagnation and Grief Pact, if there had been excessive deficits then they would be obliged to lodge sums of money which would receive no interest and there would be a fine imposed. The fine would increase the budget deficit actually paid by the government that was responsible.
But the extreme, suppose the government took no effective actions, would the Union instil these from the monetary union as was always the trend. The Treaty said nothing about the mechanics of expulsion.
Then what happens if a number of European countries with excessive deficits, they’ve all got excessive deficits, you have a blocking amendment a blocking majority on Ecofin but also by the way the government announced a VCV so that the countries can put together a vote to outvote well Germany in practice.
In the extreme the high deficit countries might outnumber the low deficit countries so the financial delinquents control Ecofin or the governing council of the ECB. In that event the incentive of every European government is straight forward, cheat on the public finances, maximise the deficit and to hell with the inflation risk.
The answer, there has to be a single federal government, there has to be a centralised treasury and so on and then monetary union has led to political union.
The central bankers are very powerful people; they need to be kept in check. So by the way are commercial banks, they’re also very powerful people and banking is a very political industry and so there has to be some accountability to the legislature, maybe the executive, maybe some combination of the two but in the eurozone you’ve got these 16 governments, you’ve got this Treaty, you’ve got this rather weird structure of the European Central Bank and the euro system with actually 16 central bank members and its very clear that the ECB is not accountable to any national government. Its true enough that Trichet is prepared, to refuse an invitation to talk to the French Parliament, its true enough that he does give evidence in the European Parliaments but that there may still be massive questions about the status of the European Parliament relative to the national Parliaments and also of course the national governments and so on.
So again we’re going to be in crisis, what is likely to happen is that the Maastricht Treaty would have to be revised, there would be new powers of European Parliament to discipline the European Central Bank political and monetary policies etc etc and by the way that’s more or less what’s happened. There is the Lisbon Treaty that has given more powers to the European Parliament and clearly intended by some people that the European Parliament is a kind of proto-parliament for the entire Union, in other words a monetary union has again led to a political union, another argument that has the same conclusion.
The cost of printing these things is a fraction of the £20 that its worth. The difference between the two is called seigniorage. Now the central banks also make profits, it may surprise you that they do actually, the banking institution is profitable but they make profits.
Who owns these profits? Who owns the seigniorage? Who owns these central bank profits?
Well in Britain there is a single Government, there is a single Parliament, there is a single set of laws governing this particular subject and there is a single central bank. So there’s no two ways about it, ultimately if the Bank of England make a huge amount of profit, that actually benefits the British Government and the British taxpayer.
Again however there is in the eurozone 16 governments, 16 central banks, they of course, their seigniorage there is also interbank profits and losses, sometimes these profits and losses are arise because of businesses in Greece or in France or in Italy, but actually how much business in Greece, in France, in Italy, how do we distribute this between the different nations?
So again you get this pressure for some federalisation, some cooling, some political union to follow monetary union.
And then another argument, you see all these arguments have the same conclusion. In America in the Great Depression the people lost a lot of money in keeping money in supposedly a very safe place, in the banks, bank deposits did not pay out 100 cents in the dollar. Since then its been accepted across the industrial world and everywhere really that public policy should be organised to ensure that the depositors receive back 100 cents in the dollar, 100 pence in the pound and so on.
Now this doesn’t occur by magic, these public deposits are protected in the first instance by the assets of the banks but suppose that something goes wrong with the banks and then you have a chain of security, there’s the capital of the banks themselves that officially deposit, capital of RBS and Barclays and so on in our country, if something goes wrong with that with one bank another bank may move in and buy it so the capital of the whole banking system is relevant. We also nowadays tend to have in Britain we have got it depositor insurance fund into which the banks contribute so if something goes wrong in a small building society, which has happened, then this fund is tapped to make sure depositors get back 100 pence in the pound.
Then all these are being exhausted, the capital bank is being exhausted, the other banks don’t want to take over the bank in trouble, the deposit insurance agencies is also passed all its funds, then the central bank can help, it will take on a big risk getting involved in a situation like this but its there but when all of these have gone all that’s left is the government. So the ultimate guarantor of the 100 pence in the pound, the 100 cents in the dollar is in fact the government.
Here it’s fairly clear, you’re a citizen of the UK, you have a deposit in a British bank, you’re protected by all of these elements and all of these links in the chain, the chain of security, Eurozone.
You have maybe it’s a French bank with operations in Spain, by the way if its actually a German individual that has got an account with this French bank in Spain and something goes wrong with this French bank in Spain or maybe it goes wrong with the Spanish bank but anyway where is the chain of security and which central bank or which government, which deposit insurance agents?
And so you get pressure for a unification of the whole area. The banking system is in crisis, resources of the commercial bank, the deposit insurance agency and central bank had been swept away by a tidal wave of global losses the answer of course the government.
The tax raising powers that support the banking systems is theoretically simple. In the final analysis the government would make sure the bank deposits were repaid in full but this obligation is not without limits crucially the government would in a particular nation is most comfortable when it protects deposits made by citizens of that nation and quite bluntly think about our Government and depositors of Icelandic banks, think about our Government and depositors with VCCI, yeah and the Government wanted to help them but the truth of the situation was that they were the responsibility of you know the Emirates in the case of VCCI, Iceland in the case of the Icelandic banks. And then this is across the entire Eurozone, huge pressure for political union to support monetary union.
So we’ve got here, and they are these issues which were kind of dormant for a decade are now are now live issues. The story of exactly how we got to where we are today is a fascinating one but I have got a finite amount of time even though Douglas Carswell isn’t here yet, and so I’m going to just focus on some particular aspects of the unsustainability of the current situation.
I may be rather technical and I apologise for that. What you need to understand is this idea of a central bank which central banks they issue the notes that are used all over the eurozone, they also have got banks as customers and the banks settle their own imbalances between themselves through accounts at the European Central Bank. The euro system is actually a Central Bank of Ireland, the Bank of Spain and so on but they’re all part of the ECB and they settle their imbalances through accounts of the ECB. So the Central Bank, like any other bank, has got the most holders and it’s got depositors in the form of banks with it.
And then on the other side of the balance sheet it holds various amounts of assets but in particular for current purposes it lends to some banks and it also holds Government securities. Now I know it’s not supposed to hold Government securities under the terms of the Maastricht Treaty, it’s really complicated and I’m going to ignore that for the moment and just say it has both loans to banks and holds Government securities.
Now I’m going to cut a long story short and I’m going to simplify radically but I want to get this over to you. I’m going to say, this is evidently true but that the principle note holders and the principle depositors are French and German, maybe Dutch, they’re North European and they believe in certain things sound finance and all the rest of it and the assets are Greek Government securities, Portuguese Government securities, Spanish Government securities, loans to Italian banks, loans to Portuguese banks, loans to Irish banks.
Now I’m simplifying but what I see here is the nature of the forces that currently might be about to rupture the system. That’s simplified and it’s the guts of what’s now going on.
It is the recognised job of the Central Bank to help banks that have difficulties funding their assets, it’s supposed to do that, the Bank of England was supposed to have done that job in 2007/2008, it did in the end but it did it very badly. That is the job of the ECB and it is doing it.
To some extent also the Central Bank should be bankers to the Government, there is also part of it despite the Maastricht Treaty and there are German problems with this but lets look at this.
The big problem with large amount of public debts is as follows. You know Britain had a public debt that’s as high as the GDP, high as its national output in 1815 after the Napoleonic wars, in 1918 after the First World War and in 1945 after the Second World War but in all cases the interest rate was around about 3% so the interest payments on the debt were about 6% of GDP. That’s quite a lot of money but actually people were prepared to pay the taxes to pay the interest on the debt. That’s 6% GDP.
In the case of Greece, the public debt has risen, rising all through the last 10 or 15 years, risen to about 120% of GDP. Now until the last few months they’ve been cheating, they weren’t disclosing that it was 120% and they were saying it was more like 80/90/100% and the interest rate on Greek Government debt was a bit higher than that and the German Government debt was not much.
So you had a debt that was supposed to be 100% GDP and the interest payments say were about 4/4½%, so the interest payments were about 4/4½% of GDP. So people paying taxes to pay the bond holders and so on. 4% GDP it’s alright.
Now the truth was that the debt was 120% of GDP and they had a huge budget deficit. The deficit was in fact about 12% GDP when they said it was about 6. So this thing was 120% and moving up to 140/150%.
What do you do if you’re holding Greek Government debt, you sell it and the price goes down and the yield rises and this is the story of the yield on 10 year Greek Government debt in the last six to nine months. You see it started off about 4½% and these monthly averages, it was 9% in May; it actually for one or two days went up to over 12%. So imagine, you’ve got a trajectory where the public debt is going to be 150% of GDP and the interest rate is 12% so the interest payments on the debt are 18% of GDP.
In other words you the Greek taxpayer are required to pay taxes equal to a fifth of everything you produce in order to service the national debt. You’ve got to pay all the pensioners, you know you’ve got to pay everything else, all the subsidies, everything else the Greek Government does and this debt is rising, completely unsustainable.
Now the only way of stopping this, a genuine Government economist to slash Government spending, get the deficit down or some help, get that bond yield down. And what happened over the weekend of the 8th and 9th May was that Sarkozy threatened Merkel... actually it was three Frenchmen, it was Sarkozy, it was Trichet and Strauss-Kahn behind it they threatened Merkel and said if you don’t agree to this France is going to leave the eurozone so Merkel gave in. She agrees that on the morning of the 10th May, the ECB could buy Greek Government Bonds, completely breaching the Maastricht Treaty.
The Bond yield fell 8%, crippling. What is the Bond yield today, well by the way there was a Greek Government deal that raised some money where it raised some six month money which was actually oversubscribed as a bit under 5% and there was all this spiel about relieve the markets, the Greek Government raises six month money at 5%.
Please you can’t have... you’ve got your whole debt that size at six months, so they have actually got some money in the bank now to see them through the next few weeks and months given to them by the EU.
What is the yield on tending Government debt at the moment, it was over 10%, it’s gone back up from after a fall from 12 to 8 to 10 and Trichet said we can’t keep on buying Greek Government bonds.
It’s clearly finite they can’t keep on buying this stuff bit by bit. And it is just a matter of weeks and months. I mean if there really are even more convincing cuts in Greek Government spending and all the rest of it and the Bond yield holds isn’t too high, I don’t think so, it’s over. And if you’re simply talking about weeks and months it’s not very long.
Now Spain is actually in some ways a much sadder case because the Spanish did actually have strong public finances right through until 2008. What was happening in the Spanish case was they had a banking system, remember there was a long boom in the property market in Spain, people having holidays there, people going to live there or emigrating into Spain from North Africa, increasing population, building new hotels, new houses, new second homes and so on.
This boom was financed largely by Spanish banks and other banks operating in Spain which in turn were borrowing from the international banking system in practice in fact largely from Asian banks. Spain was running a large current account deficit and you can see this line it just goes up and up you know like that alright and that is Spanish banks’ external borrowings.
We then get to the middle of 2007 and this international wholesale market closed. So the Spanish banks had got to either find other sources of funding or reduce their assets and get some of the developers to repay the loans, sell off the houses, sell off the office blocks, sell off the hotels and repay the loans or find some other source of funding.
Now there were various sources they might go to and to some extent those were Spanish public, Spanish Government but actually the lender of last resort is the central bank which is none other than the European Central Bank in the particular from of the Bank of Spain.
Well since the middle of 2007 you can see that line has gone sideways. Spain in fact at the end of last year, the Spanish banks were not that heavily indebted to the ECB, they had managed to source other kinds of funding more or less, they weren’t growing their businesses in the same way and the Spanish economy was growing but in the last three months they had been borrowing the only place they can borrow is from the European Central Bank.
The European authorities are in a bind. Ireland went through a very similar process.
Ireland, the same story basically but an even more dramatic turn, to some extent the UK is in the same situation, in the Irish case, there’s the Irish banks also borrowing heavily from the inside wholesale market.
They really were completely stuffed, the banks were completely bust and they had to borrow from there to get the Irish Government to come in to bring some capital in and the Irish banks, half of Irish banks’ funding, half of Irish banks’ liabilities funding from the European Central Bank, liabilities to the European Central Bank. The Irish banking system is about the same size as national output, the European Central Bank’s lending to Irish banks is equal to half of Ireland’s national output.
That can’t go on and Spain similarly is in this situation, not to the same degree but the last few weeks the Spanish banks’ borrowing from the European Central Bank has been rising steadily because they’ve got this funding problem, they’re trying to persuade investors that the Spanish banks has got capital etc. etc. Maybe it will work, it hasn’t really worked up until now, watch this space.
The European Central Bank can’t keep on buying the Government securities of the Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Spain; it can’t keep on making loans to the banking systems of these countries. When it says no these countries have got an unenviable set of choices but really they are in effect being expelled from this union because I don’t see, since prices are finite, this wonderful thing that economists say the process is unsustainable, it will stop and this will stop. I think we’re talking about the next three to six months.
The other possible way this thing breaks up is actually that Germany, because the Maastricht Treaty has been breached, and I gather there is another case going to the German Constitutional Court, I will be very surprised if the German Constitutional Court just gives in the way that Merkel did and that also is another mechanism by which the eurozone might break up.
Well thank you very much for listening to me. I can assure you that 12 years from now I will again be telling you I told you so but I’m not quite sure what will be the topic but thank you very much.
To view the original of the speech CLICK HERE

Tim's in race for UKIP job

Speech given by Tim Congdon CBE to conference at Webbington Hotel
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen,
I am going to talk today about Britain, Europe and the world, and the position of Britain in Europe. I am also going to talk about fundamental strategic errors. Finally, I am going to tread on toes.
When should I start? I am going to start 50 years ago, in 1958, which - as you may notice - is pretty much the date of the beginning of the European Economic Community. I'm sure some of us can remember reading the fashionable novels of the day, novels such as Nevile Shute's A Town like Alice and John Masters' Bhowani Junction. They were novels about, among other things, the movement of people around the British Commonwealth, usually in the 1950s from Britain to Australia and from India to Britain, but sometimes in the other direction. There was indeed a lot of to-ing and fro-ing in the English-speaking world. But one expression was used in both those books and in many others. When people went from another Commonwealth country to Britain, they said they were 'going home'. Yes, 'going home'. I can myself remember - when my parents decided to return from South Africa, where we lived for 18 months when I was a child - using exactly that expression to describe our return to Britain.
Let us now - starting from 1958 - cast our minds forward 50 years to today. Let us carry out this exercise in our imaginations - in our dreams, if you wish - as if we did not know what had happened in that intervening 50-year period.
Surely, we would say how fortunate we are. Think of those Commonwealth countries. Think of Australia, Canada, South Africa, India, New Zealand and so many others. Think of their growing populations, their immense territories, their abundant natural resources, their institutions of parliamentary democracy and the rule of law which they inherited from us and which, somehow, we still celebrate here. Think of them as markets for our products, as places in which our companies could invest and as countries in which we would be welcome as visitors. Could any nation be more fortunate than ours, since our nation was and still is viewed as 'home' by the people of all these lands, the lands that with their space and resources can from 2008 look forward to a marvellous 21st century?
Well, from 1958 you may have had those dreams of what our country's position in the world would be at the start of the 21st century. You may have had those dreams of how happy the prospect of the early 21st century would be to your children and grandchildren. They - like you - could be proud of their British inheritance, an inheritance of ideas, institutions and laws which they shared with so many other English-speaking peoples in other continents.
Let us now return to reality and look at what actually happened in that intervening 50-year period. Sadly, our dreams and reality were a long way apart.
The 1960s were a wretched decade of rapid decline, which the commentators blamed on our failure to join 'the Common Market', the economic club to which six of our European neighbours belonged. So in 1973 we joined that club, almost exclusively for economic reasons. We never intended to belong to a political union, a United States of Europe. When the British people voted in a referendum in 1975 on the Common Market, they voted in favour of a free trade association with our European neighbours because they believed it would halt the decline in their relative economic position. They did not want their nation to be absorbed in a larger European entity; they certainly did not want to lose their political independence.
It was a stupid mistake, a fundamental strategic error.
We now know that the Common Market's economic promise was an illusion. The population of Europe will fall in coming decades, its output will rise more slowly than that of the world as a whole, and its share in world trade and investment will drop. Even worse Europe's nations have high taxes and a heavy burden of regulation, and they are doing their best to spread those high taxes and burdensome regulations to us. We joined the Common Market in 1973 so that succeeding generations could look forward to high and rising living standards by international standards. But, in the event, our membership of the European Union in the early 21st century - if it continues - will mean that we are handcuffed to a group of nations that are losing ground economically. They are losing ground, in terms of living standards and their financial weight, relative to our Commonwealth friends and indeed to the world as a whole. Do you ever hear nowadays about the economic argument for our EU membership? But that was the argument - the bogus argument - we were sold in the early 1970s.
The decision to join the European Economic Community in 1973 was a fundamental strategic error. Nations - whole peoples - can make terrible mistakes, total strategic errors.
Let us now think forward another 35 years to today, to 2008. Let us think forward not as our dreams might have it, but in the full awfulness of reality. There is no doubt that the Reform Treaty is intended, by the bureaucrats and politicians in Brussels and Strasbourg, to be the end of the independence of the various nations of the European Union, including Britain. Repeat, it is meant to bring our nation's independent existence to a close. In 1973 the British public thought they would be joining a list of party invitees, so that we would invite our European neighbours to our parties and they would invite us to theirs, and we could all enjoy each others' company. And what could be wrong with that? After all, you and I and everyone else in our country want to be friendly with neighbours, even if we live quite separate lives.
We were conned. We now find not only that we must welcome these neighbours into our houses and be nice to them, but that we must throw away the key to our own front door. That is what the Reform Treaty is all about. The Council of Ministers is to have the power to extend its own competences without reference to national parliaments; it is to have the power to make itself more powerful at the expense of our own political institutions, apparently without limit.
We are throwing away the key to the front door of our own house. Could any nation commit a more dreadful mistake than that? Another fundamental strategic error, an error even worse than that in 1973, is being made.
Of course, in contrast with the 1973 blunder, this error does not have the approval of the British people. That is why it is so shocking that the House of Commons - with the two of the three main parties betraying a clear election promise to hold a referendum on a new European constitution - has voted in favour of the Reform Treaty. We are now in a quite extraordinary position. The supporters of British democracy are hoping that the House of Lords, the unelected house, will vote in favour of a referendum and so delay the implementation of the Reform Treaty until the next general election and, in all probability, a change in the governing party. Whether that change in the governing party restores powers from Brussels to Parliament in Westminster remains to be seen.
Of course UKIP wants a referendum - and the South-West region has done a wonderful job in trying to promote one. And here I come to the next fundamental strategic error - and to those toes I said I would tread on.
It is not just nations that can make terrible mistakes in their strategic direction. The same is true of political parties. And I have to say that I am very worried about our own party, the UK Independence Party.
A quirk of the electoral system has meant that UKIP's most important political representation is in the European Parliament. This is an institution created as a result of the integrationist movement within the EU, the movement which is aiming at the destruction of our national independence. Do you know any European country where they say that 'we are going home' when they travel to Britain? Can you imagine the citizens of any European nation participating in the same sense of loyalty, the same respect and nostalgia, for our institutions and way of life that is still felt, if by a diminishing minority, across the Commonwealth and even, by the strange passage of events, in the United States of America? Of course not.
By rights, UKIP should deplore the European Parliament and all its works. But, frankly, that is not what has happened.
All political parties have limited resources, in terms of money and, more important, in terms of the amount of time available to their leading figures. The central task of UKIP today must be to raise its share of the vote in next year's European elections and the coming general election, which seems likely to be in 2010. That - surely, surely - is uncontroversial. Now the more time that UKIP's leading lights spend on the European Parliament in Brussels, Strasbourg and (no doubt) an assortment of other European cities in various capacities, the less time they are spending on the UK political scene. And, bluntly, all the time that UKIP MEPs spend on travel to and from the European Parliament, and on listening passively to European Parliament debates, attending committee sessions and so on, is total waste as far as Britain's own political debate is concerned.
There is a high risk that UKIP will make the mistake of confusing its representation in the European Parliament as a result of the 2004 European elections - which is its most substantive political achievement so far - with its major political task in the long run. Like the mistakes made by our country in 1973 and that our political leaders are on the threshold of making again now, that would be a fundamental strategic error.
UKIP's job is to influence the British domestic political scene so that, ultimately, we will withdraw from the European Union; UKIP's job is not to arrange for its MEPs' travelling time, expenses and the rest. Certainly not.
I have been dismayed that so many of UKIP's brightest members want to become MEPs. Let me emphasize that I did not join UKIP in order to become a MEP and, very emphatically, I am not going to put my name forward for that. From the point of view of the party's serious long-run goals, the European Parliament is a cul-de-sac. Instead we must prepare an agenda to raise our share of the vote in 2009 and 2010. We need to
-work as closely as we can with the Eurosceptic and Eurorealist think tanks, such as Open Europe, the Bruges Group, Global Vision, the European Foundation and so on, -prepare a regular series of pamphlets on European issues and seek publicity for them in the media, -make sure that we achieve extensive and favourable press coverage through contributing articles to the national press and encouraging our members to write 'letters to the Editor', -put our name in front of the British public as much as possible by billboards, campaign buses, other types of advertising and so on, -raise money by fund-raising events and dinners, so that we can finance more campaign buses, more billboards and more advertising, -exploit the opportunities created by the internet for spreading our message, our vision and our brand.
And that is just a start.
Ladies and gentlemen, the more time that UKIP's leaders spend in the European Parliament, the less time that they have for the really important agenda I have set out in the last few minutes. When you think about it, what I have said is obvious. I know I am treading on toes and I don't care. What I have said needs to be said if the UK Independence Party, like our nation in 1973, is not to commit a fundamental strategic error.
Thank you.

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!
Tim Congdon on his candidacy for the leadership
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
Make your vote count vote:
 INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance
or Write on YOUR ballot Paper 
Enhanced by Zemanta