He has a big ego and he is honest enough to let you see it.

He would laugh if you questioned Perma-Tan and Vanitas.

It’s so persuasive, in today’s face-the-camera, media-pressurised politics - an obvious sense of humour breaking through (albeit often tongue-in-cheek).

You can also allege that he is self-centred (on his own political viewpoints) and seemingly egocentric (revolving around himself) and in fact carrying the stigma of being “charismatic” (being capable enough to articulate his vision, persuading and influencing you).

But are you certain that he is false in asserting he cares so passionately for Britain’s future? After all, he is 63, with a full record open to scrutiny, and he should surely know what he truly stands for by now ?

----------------

He was a somewhat low-key rebellious MP, in Westminster, over 12 years. He consistently opposed the concept of the “EU”. He seemed aware of its potential to overwhelm British life.

Ironically, as he is now an MEP, he voted against direct elections to the European Parliament. He also voted to scrutinise more effectively the EU Commissioners’ demands. And back in 1975 he voted against Britain continuing its membership of the Common Market.

His record in the UK Parliament is well worth reading. It is surprising on many levels. His views have been open and consistent. They are not, compared with today’s Parliamentary back-bench ‘sheep’, those of an ego-driven, lightweight “champion of the populist vote.” He trod his own path and did not seem to care who knew it.

When you look over the whole, you begin to see the man, perhaps a bit larger than you thought.

Just as when, looking over the record of Tony Blair, you may well begin to see the aggregate, unabridged, pragmatic, untrustworthy politician. A lightweight, forever proposing, forever attached to spin?

Yet Kilroy-Silk is unpredictable. And therein lies the danger, as History shows. So be prepared to trust your (political) heart, but beware the warnings of (charisma, leadership) History.

--------------------

If he gains power - to persuade, to influence, to be a political fulcrum - would he definitely take Britain out of the European Union as his first step? say Seek the Repeal of the European Communities Act?

Or would he - as politics modify attitudes for the practical, swiftly undertake political deals are seen as necessary; prevaricate?

Withdrawal from the EU could save us £1 million per hour, in payments into the EU, says UKIP, his former party.

Withdrawal would mean that we are no longer dominated by the destructive flood of 30,000 Regulations driven by democratically-unenlightened Brussels bureaucracy with its single-minded ‘efficiency’ so often missing the human point.

As Plato would have it: they are driven by the Good and to seek the Good. But as the Sanskrit would have it: ego and its false ideals rule.

-------------------

Will Kilroy-Silk’s efforts as leader of what is surely a Single-Issue Party remain true, or will Veritas lose its way as he tries to become everything to all men?

The Veritas manifesto says: NO government by Brussels; government by Westminster, as a free, independent, sovereign population; every policy decision and political initiative to be guided by .... what is in the interests of the British people.

Veritas also adds, “We are not a fringe party, a focus group or a pressure group”. The Eurosceptic populace surely hopes for a one-issue party which can win, and influence the big Parties: Get us out of the EU, then develop as a free trading nation again.

----------------

Politics, and its politicians, today may seem to face so many new complex and seemingly insoluble issues. But surely this is no different from the past 100 years or several centuries. Except that today’s majority of the electorate are possibly more aware (or possibly more befuddled) through the availability of our 24/7 immediate communication (whatever its intrinsic value!) At the moment, the UK electorate are apparently apathetic. Can this be changed, by May 2005? It is essential it does by mid-2006, for the Referendum.

------------------

Kilroy-Silk’s charisma, verbal power and political experience and
wisdom will bear more effectively if on just a few key issues in this coming UK General Election. Otherwise his outpourings (and we can hope for many! the apathetic electorate needs them!) will be dissipated.

Kilroy-Silk’s stance on “immigration and asylum” is now decisively published and seemingly going to the source of our troublesome failures with illegal immigrants and failed asylum seekers: before they enter this country.

He also alleges the ‘other two’ leading political parties constantly refuse to admit there is a ‘cause’ situation – they strive to ‘overcome’ the symptoms. “Our country is being stolen from us” he rather dramatically – maybe true? – contends. Reason hard reason not sentimentality must prevail.

He claims there are half a million ‘illegals’ and ‘faileds’ living shadowy half-lives in this country. And he proposes ‘dedicated task forces’ to rectify the situation.

He is angered that most entrants come across other ‘safe’ countries before entering Britain, but do not stay and settle, or are not allowed to. France indefensibly has never been helpful.

---------------

His solution seems so drastic: Virtually, no immigration. But permitting humane consideration for those small numbers with a background proving the need for asylum, or those with a good case who are in the country already.

But the case for “once in, all your relatives can follow” is a no-no.

Kilroy-Silk’s severe “answers” will rumble on into and through the General Election.

His major objection is that there is no clear Government policy over “What and who the UK needs?” and seemingly hard-hearted, “Who and how many stay outside the UK?”

UK voters, in the coming General Election, will be influenced by promises over immigration policy.

A recent poll (January 05) suggested that half are likely to choose which party to support based political promises on the subject of tough immigration.

--------------------------

So, is Kilroy-Silk, an unequivocal but seemingly an example of a mean spirit of our age, following a “What’s in it for me” course? In other words, a partial view of the whole “Britain” scene?

(Which cynical commentators say the New Labour manifesto for 2005 will surely reflect as its view of this country’s significant preoccupation?: “What’s in it for me?”)
RK-S could well home in on the facts that, for instance, Poland receives a huge amount under the “Cohesion Fund” £44 billion whereas Britain, the second largest net CONTRIBUTOR to the EU, receives (as 8th) a quarter of that.

But what about true principles and true basics? Surely, true principles and true basics must be in with causes, and New Labour has spectacularly responded to the symptoms of Britain’s apparent decline, into the bottom-line encompassed by spirit-enclouding materialism?

-----------------------

It would surprise no-one if Kilroy-Silk’s path turns out to be determinedly one of self-political-interest driven by his huge ego.

Especially as when with UKIP he talked of “the (UKIP) party’s destiny”. Something one journalist thought revealed a sad grandiosity in thinking. (Yet there was also realism underneath as when with UKIP he talked of “government in 18 years.”)

All will be forgiven if he polls large support and achieves many seats in the General Election. Whereas, UKIP strives for its first MP in Westminster.

“Winning a seat would shock them, the other parties!” said one UKIP county chairman. Now THAT is a big, big target, isn’t it – your first seat, what an aim!

An outstanding political performance by Kilroy-Silk could lead to a UKIP eclipse (if he gets large financial support) as his aim would be 20 seats, in one go!

Many consider UKIP’s top brass made a significant mistake in “letting him go”. True, he was an absolute pain. But a vote-winner, on a scale, UKIP despite its MEP success, could not hope for in the UK Parliament success under its present (sorry!) non-visible leadership? Charisma makes its own impact – it doesn’t need a “Party” ? Cue: UKIP integrity?

Which situation is sad. Because Kilroy-Silk needs a ready-made, embryo organisation, which UKIP is. And in the UK, we need ALL Eurosceptic activities to be merged into one great push, to convince a confused electorate.

Kilroy-Silk may well provide us longer-term with a real surprise. People will always vote for star-quality. Political history is full of success in terms of the popular vote disillusioned and defecting from the main parties.

What a pity UKIP could not give him what he saw as necessary.....their top people saw his unruliness when in UKIP as an aim “to gear UKIP for the General Election campaign by using his star-quality and political experience to achieve the impact necessary”.... for that he needed “Leader-level executive power”.

Absolutely so. He may well become one of today’s few charismatic politicians who does not accept second-best for this country – whether in the UK or in Strasbourg...... a whiff of what worthwhile patriotism’s best is.

There is something about patriotism.... “Where I was born?”

This very confused, perplexed, bewildered nation needs to recapture the significance of past acceptance, together with common sense and a refusal to let the incompetents stay in office.... whether the simple, verb-less pledging of shifting-sands Blair or of the “supra-national integrated” and spendthrift dictatorial EU.

Common wisdom however forecasts that the UK Electorate is likely to vote in numbers well below the deplorable 59 per cent (of all with access to a vote in this country) who voted in the last General Election.

A hefty percentage vote for the Eurosceptics – as well as Kilroy-Silk success - would pave the way for much stronger publicity to help sway opinion to say ‘No’ in the 2006 Referendum against the EU Constitution.

Voting for the proposed “EU Constitution” is a vote for increased centralised decision-making. “Britain” as a nation sinks further under bureaucratic regulations.

According to Veritas and UKIP, control over our currency and our economic planning at some time could be conceded. Our legal system will be dominated by the European Court of Justice, our police and armed forces come under EU authority centralised in Brussels, our own agricultural and fisheries policies further decimated, our right to trade freely further proscribed, freedom of association and free speech looked on suspiciously and open to criminal action (ie criticisms of the EU institutions, integration and supra-nationalism), and our Parliamentary sovereignty weakened.

Opposition across ‘Europe’ is too variable and changeable at the moment to the EU Constitution. It may be the UK Referendum will be crucial – one defaulting state and particularly one so significant as Britain could well halt the current Constitution. If others accept and we accept, then the “Holy Grail” of EU integration and supra-national law-making and sovereignty-less States is not far off.