Nigel farage

It doesn’t surprise me in the slightest that Nigel Farage has appeared to out-leftie the three main parties on the subject of asylum for Syrians. It just surprises me that anyone is surprised. Ukip as a party is opposed to mass immigration, and believes that the social costs of ‘diversity’ vastly outweigh the short-term economic benefits of migration. But the gift of asylum is something else; no one is saying that Syrians are needed to enrich our culture or add vibrancy or make cappuccinos for people who work at the Economist, they just need to escape from a hellish war or they may die. Of course we should give refuge to

There has been a stagey sort of surprise at the news that Nigel Farage has called for refugees from the conflict in Syria to be given asylum in Britain. He’s anti-immigration, see, so his call for generous provision for refugees of war has, at least for our major broadcasters, a paradoxical element. But it doesn’t quite follow that if you are in favour of curbing immigration that you are therefore Scroogish on asylum. Paul Collier, the Oxford academic whom I interviewed for the Speccie after the publication of Exodus, his interesting book on the effects of migration on poor countries, was emphatic that countries had a moral duty to be

After the Mail on Sunday’s awkward front page about Ukip Councillor Victoria Ayling’s apparently unsavoury views, Nigel Farage has sent an email around to party members complaining about the story and reassuring them that Ayling’s views have been distorted. Here is the text of the email: ‘I am sure many of you are aware of the attack by the Mail on Sunday on a Ukip Councillor this weekend. ‘I firstly want to reassure you that I believe this attack on Victoria Ayling to be unwarranted, and have the utmost sympathy with her. Her words on immigration it would appear were deliberately distorted and taken out of context in order to

David Cameron’s proposals on free movement recognise that the European Union is very different now from what it used to be. When it was essentially a club of rich Western European nations, total freedom of movement was workable. But now that it includes countries whose GDP per head is less than half ours it is not. This is not a particularly Eurosceptic insight. As I reported back in February, Nick Clegg and the Liberal Democrats were thinking of basing future transition controls on per capita GDP to prevent an unsustainable level of immigration. But what is true is that unless the freedom of movement issue is dealt with, it’ll be

For the Tories, it’s Europe. For Labour, it’s Blairites against Brownites. The Lib Dems, devoid of principle, go in for limp-wristed back-stabbing. Now Ukip, in a sign of its growing political maturity, has become distracted by cynical, and at times thoroughly unpleasant, infighting as those close to Nigel Farage seek to maintain his leadership cult. Party members do not even have to question their leader’s authority; merely being liked or achieving low level success breeds suspicion. Diane James, the Ukip candidate who came from nowhere to do so well in the Eastleigh by-election, has been on the receiving end of negative briefings in recent weeks. Meanwhile, an entire group of Ukip officials

There’s a rumour doing the rounds that Anna Soubry’s comments on immigration during Thursday night’s edition of Question Time did not come as a surprise to Tory High Command. Apparently, Soubry refused to take direction from the party machine and made clear that she would say, more or less, what she said. Coalition has certainly bred independent-minded ministers. The Lib Dems pick and choose which government policy to support in public, so it’s not wholly surprising that Tories sometimes follow suit. But, tough immigration policy is a key part of the Tories’ grand strategy and Soubry’s open disregard for the party line was striking. Plainly Lynton Crosby and Craig Oliver

I can just about take bien pensant lefties attacking UKIP for ‘scaremongering’ about immigration and accusing the party of being racist and prejudiced and so on. After all, a good many of them would have unlimited and unrestricted immigration to this country – and I can at least see a logical and moral case to that argument, even if I don’t agree with it. But from a front bench Tory? I don’t know if you saw the ridiculous Anna Soubry MP spouting hypocritical bilge on Question Time. It was emetic. Accusing Nigel Farage of ‘putting fear into people’s hearts’ over the issue of immigration. How she could do that with

Ed Miliband stole the show at this year’s Spectator Parliamentarian of the Year awards. The Labour leader, who won a new prize called Political Speech of the Year (for the energy freeze pledge, which ‘transformed his fortunes’), took the chance to read out a Sunday Sport story which accused his ‘Belgian communist’ father of ‘killing a cat’ when cycling through the British countryside during the war. Ed charmed the crowd by being funny, good on camera and, you know, normal. Home Secretary Theresa May, who took the Politician of the Year award, despite her recent burka-related difficulties, was a hoot. Ms May ended her amusing speech by saying that the Spectator archive proved that we had been saying

HS2 was given an emphatic vote of no confidence at The Specator’s debate last night, where Matthew Parris and Nigel Farage led their respective teams into battle. This was the debate that Westminster will not have (all parties are officially agreed on the project) which is all the better for us. Farage claimed he loves infrastructure projects in general but hates HS2 as it’s a Westminster vanity project. Farage attempted to marry Ukip’s (inconsistent) support for high speed rail with his ardent opposition to HS2: ‘There are so many things we could do. And yes, let’s look at the Great Central railway project…we are not luddites, we are not backwards. I want

The government’s approach to the HS2 debate has changed. Up until recently, government sources would wave away the suggestion that Labour might withdraw its support for the project. They’d point to Andrew Adonis and his influence on Ed Miliband to explain why Ed Balls’s doubts about it didn’t matter that much. But this has now changed. They’ve now decided, in the words of one Number 10 figure, that they need to ‘smoke Labour out on the issue’. Over the next few weeks, we’ll see the Tories trying to put more and more pressure on Labour to say whether or not they’ll back it. Number 10 is acutely aware that, at

There is today only one united French political party, and it is the National Front. The FN has been profiting from a split French right, a hopeless French left and from the general disenchantment with the political class. It is tempting then to compare, as Agnes Poirier did in the Times, the FN’s recent success with that of Ukip in Britain. Tempting, but wrong. The National Front is 30 years older than Ukip, and a very different beast. It supports protectionist policies, while Ukip promotes a more libertarian and democratic approach. The FN’s ‘progressive tax’ – a rising income tax – clearly contrasts with the flat tax advocated by Ukip. Some