Interesting Moment during This Week's Question Time.

There was a fleeting moment during this weeks BBC "Question Time". If you didn't understand the Labour party's disconnect with the voting public, you'd have missed it. But it is important to analyse it.

On the panel there was Labour MP Margaret Curran.

During the debate, there was an Afro-Carribean guy, who made some salient points. As an obvious immigrant, he stated he'd voted UKIP because of the problems caused by mass immigration. He hit the nail on the head by shooting David Willetts down, correctly saying the government could only affect immigration from outside the UK.

However, Margaret Curran butted in, changing the subject, first praising a lady who was obviously a Labour supporter who had spoken previously, and then going on to push the meme that UKIP is racist. Then she went on to divert the conversation away from immigration and started to go on about housing. As if Labour could control that.

Because she couldn't attack the guy that had spoken because an immigrant voting for UKIP (and willing to vote UKIP again) doesn't actually compute in the Labour psyche, she had to divert the debate and quickly.

This is a prime example of where Labour and it's dogmatic thinking and processes are so far removed from everyday life and normal, rational ways of thinking.

Here was an immigrant, voting for a party that wants to control immigration. Why? Well, I can bet part of it is because if we have an uncontrolled influx of immigrants pretty soon ALL immigrants will become persona non grata. He's looking out for his own safety. He most also have practical experience of what its like at the bottom of the job food chain, where there are thousands of applicants for each job. Swelling those numbers just means there are hundreds more applying for those same jobs. Labour's promise of full employment is a bit pie-in-the-sky, unless they're able and willing to employ everyone in Europe. Because that's what an open door immigration policy indirectly implies.

Immigration has to be the purview of the government. How can a government plan housing, jobs, infrastructure, the NHS, schools and all the other things if it can't control how many people use those services?

It could build enough houses to lower house prices and rents and reduce waiting times for social housing. But if a million or more new people arrive in the country, then that's a million more people that need housing, have kids that go to school, that take up jobs, etc. The governmental planning goes out of the window.

I've always said that if the EU wants open borders regarding immigration, then countries such as ourselves where those immigrants end up, should be compensated financially by the EU for each and every immigrant that arrives. They should be paying grants to the government for schools, hospitals, public transport, housing and everything else. The cost should be shared across the other members of the EU and it should not be borne by our government alone.

UKIP Voting: More than a Protest.

Its pretty clear that the UKIP landslide in recent elections proves that the main three parties are completely disconnected from the wishes of the voting public.

Its been interesting to listen to the various party leader's responses.

First is the Prime Minister, David Cameron. His response is summarised as "We've promised an referendum on Europe and if you're all good and vote for me, you'll eventually get it as long as we have enough time to bombard you with enough pro-Europe propaganda that we sway you all into voting to stay in Europe. I'd wager he's secretly hoping that promising a referendum years in the future will harness the current zeitgeist.
All it may do is start a feeding frenzy in the Conservative party where it starts to devour itself, just like it did when it dethroned Maggie Thatcher and installed John Major.

David Ed Millband's response totally ignored the sentiment of everyone in the country and kept stating it was a protest vote and in a staggering display of arrogance assumed it would all be alright during the general election and all the voters that deserted them last week will come back to the fold. Never have I seen such a level of complacency and such a patronising tone. Its clear that no-one in the Labour NEC actually understands what is going on in the country and why people are voting the way they are voting.

Nick Clegg didn't have to say anything: he looked a broken man. Their losses in the local and European elections can only be described as catastrophic. Plainly and simply he looked as though every Liberal MEP that had lost their seat had phoned him and personally held him responsible for it. And then every local constituency chair must have had a go. He has the look of a man who has seen the future of the Liberals, and its without him at the helm. He's the leader of what is supposed to be the third biggest party in the country. He had the balls to take on Farage and lost spectacularly. He's the archetypal career politician and people hate and despise him for it. David Cameron comes across with the same coefficient of smarm, but whereas Conservative voters will vote for any old dog labelled Conservative, liberal voters aren't so loyal. Most Liberal voters are relatively new to it and can happily swap votes and not feel guilty.

Nick Farage meanwhile, has the look of a Cheshire cat. It will be interesting to see if this UKIP bubble will continue to expand into putting MPs in Parliament. Given the current huge upswell of support for UKIP, its conceivable there will be some form of UKIP representation in Westminster soon. What Nick Farage does once the doors open to UK parliamentary seats is anyone's guess. Will he stay in the European Parliament, or will he aim for Westminster?

One of the key facets of the responses of the main parties is they plainly don't understand what has happened. They see the UKIP vote as inconsequential. But they do this at their peril. From talking with people, there is a firm feeling of resonance, that UKIP says the things that people are feeling and experiencing in the country. It may be that UKIP are a one-trick pony, but that's a spectacularly important trick for the majority of UK people.

The voting has been interesting. In the South UKIP has gained at the expense of Liberals and Conservatives. In the North, UKIP have gained at the expense of Liberals and Labour. People have been disgruntled enough to vote against the main party in their area and voted UKIP. Its a hugely significant event.

Between now and the general election will be very interesting. With UKIP stealing votes from all the major parties its had the effect of diminishing the gap between Labour and the Conservatives.If the same pattern of voting occurs in the general election things will be very popcorn-worthy.

UKIP: Smelling a Rat?

Nigel Farage seems to be leading a rather charmed life recently. He's shrugged off various gaffes, rumours of affairs and now the fact he employs his German wife as a secretary.

He did OK in the debate with Nick Clegg, but failed to nail home the point that the EU as an institution is expensive, unnecessary, devisive, dangerous and empire-building.

So why is he so feigned by the media?

I'm beginning to get the sense that UKIP and Farage in particular are a false-flag operation. They are a flagpole for true Eurosceptics to nail their mast to, with it pre-planned that they will fail epically to once and for all nail the Eurosceptic coffin lid shut.

I mean, not once have Farage or UKIP given any clear plan as to how they would extricate us from Europe. It all seems a bit vague, unplanned and I guess deliberately so, so that Farage or anyone in UKIP can't be pinned down to give a coherent answer.

Okay, I concede that they could possibly field a large proportion of UK MEPs after the next Euro-election, but then what? Instead of Farage making witty remarks and taking the piss out of Van Rumpoy on his own, are we going to get a dozen wise-cracking MEPs? Well that was probably fine while it was Farage on his own: expectations are low because what can he do against all those other big bad MEPs voting in all those big bad Euro-laws?

But with a larger number of UKIP MEPs, the expectation of the UK public will be that UKIP will deliver something. But what will that something be? Once we've paid UKIP with our votes, what do we get back in return? What's the plan Nige??

Given that there are 20-odd other countries represented in the EU Parliament, how will UKIP garner the correct amount of support for its anti-EU policies. There is currently a groundswell of anti-EU sentiment across Europe, with nationalist parties getting increasing support in their representative countries. But will UKIP work with these parties? Can they work alongside nationalist parties without being tarred xenophobic, racist or Nazi-like?

I would really, really like to know more detail, before I put my X in the box labelled UKIP.