How to beat UKIP, Dave? Give us a vote on the EU NEXT year By Simon Heffer for the Daily Mail Often, I despair of David Cameron's efforts to secure a Conservative victory in next May's general election. For example, he seems determined to ignore one golden opportunity - the sort Margaret Thatcher thrived on. I refer to the chance he has to exploit widespread public fury over the European Commission's demand that Britain pays another £1.7 billion to its bloated budget and the anger over the EU's free movement of people laws which have encouraged mass immigration. When Mr Cameron first promised an in/out referendum on Europe, he said it would be held in 2017. This was, he said, to allow time for a re-negotiation - but the date has another significance. According to his friends, he had identified it as just before the time when, if still Prime Minister, he would want to quit Downing Street and leave his successor to deal with the consequences of the referendum. David Cameron believes Ukip doesn't have a hope of forming a government, he is the only man likely to be Prime Minister who is willing to give the British public a referendum on Europe. More from Simon Heffer for the Daily Mail... But, as Germany's Angela Merkel and other EU leaders have made clear, there isn't going to be a re-negotiation. Many people have been telling Mr Cameron this for years, but he bats them away - or at least he did until Ukip's opinion poll ratings started to soar, it got most votes in the European elections and won its first MP. Mr Cameron's response is that since Ukip doesn't have a hope of forming a government, he is the only man likely to be Prime Minister who is willing to give the British public a referendum on Europe. But offering such an important vote in three years" time is much too late. It is imperative that voters have the chance to make their views known sooner. For if the EU continues to refuse immigration controls and to threaten to fine the UK unless we pay that £1.7 billion bill, there will be widespread discontent over an out-of-touch political class who are ignoring voters" clear wishes. Thus, Mr Cameron should state unequivocally, that if re-elected PM in May, he will hold a referendum in November next year - six months after the election - and not wait another 30 months. That would give plenty of time to organise the vote and for a proper public debate. Such a bold and sensible move might help to stop the flow of support from his party to Ukip in time to rescue the Tories" hopes next May. It would certainly deal a serious blow to Labour, whose refusal to offer a referendum reveals Ed Miliband's contempt for the British people. What's more, now is the perfect time for Mr Cameron to act decisively. Labour is in crisis - set to come third in this month's by-election in Rochester and Strood (the type of seat it must win in May if it is to form a majority government) and embarrassed by actress Maureen Lipman, who has abandoned the party after five decades of support, savagely attacking Mr Miliband and "the Chuka Harman Burnham Hunt Balls brigade." In addition, the Labour Party in Scotland is in meltdown, with the resignation of the leader and with one poll this week predicting that, in May, it would lose all but four of the 40 MPs it has north of the border - which, if true, would destroy Mr Miliband's hopes of becoming Prime Minister. Against this background, giving the British people an early EU referendum could be Mr Cameron's trump card. So why on earth won't he play it? Former Tory Cabinet minister Sir John Nott gives the answer in today's Mail (on page 27). Analysing the failure of the Tory by-election campaign in Rochester, he writes of the PM's innate "liberal bias." It is that same attitude that means Mr Cameron fears a referendum because he is worried that the public may vote to leave the EU. As one of the metropolitan pro-European elite, he would find that appalling. Yet the General Election is his to win on this issue. If he can find the guts to bring forward the referendum on Europe which the public so clearly wants - and, at the same time, kick an enfeebled, unpopular Labour Party while it is down - his chances of staying in Downing Street would be hugely enhanced. Gutless politicians betray our heroes The way ex-servicemen and women are treated is abominable. Having returned home, as has been the case recent years from ill-conceived wars, an estimated 20,000 soldiers have been callously sacked because our politicians prefer to put taxpayers" money into our ballooning overseas aid budget - money which often ends up in the hands of African dictators. Many other veterans, sadly, suffer from depression and drink-related illnesses. Meanwhile, I'd respect our Government more if it announced a major memorial in this country to those who fell in Afghanistan - having shamefully failed to arrange one to be left in that benighted land following the withdrawal this week of Britain's last troops. Theresa May is responsible for the Borders Agency and presided over the Fiona Woolf child abuse fiasco Home Secretary Theresa May says the sexual abuse scandal in Manchester is "alarming." Equally "alarming" is the fact that the police don't, or won't, do their job properly in case they are accused of "racism" because many girls are targeted by men from Pakistani and Bangladeshi backgrounds. Mrs May is also responsible for our hopeless Borders Agency and presided over the Fiona Woolf child abuse fiasco. Is she paying enough attention? The migrate escape Of course, it is inhumane to suggest that illegal immigrants should not be rescued from drowning if the boats in which they try to escape to Europe capsize or break apart in the middle of the Mediterranean. But the authorities should take the survivors back to North Africa, whence they came, not land them in Europe where they can begin new lives at the expense of taxpayers. And instead of the British Government paying "El Dorado"-style benefits to those who make it here, shouldn't they be placed in holding camps while waiting to be airlifted back to the continent? Drugs and the Chinese solution I went to a conference on drug crime 20 years ago attended by international experts. One, a leading American academic working as an "ethical adviser" for several U.S. police departments, told this story. A few years ago the Chinese had a drug problem. They then took 6,000 drug-dealers and shot them in the back of the head. Result: they stopped having a drug problem. Of course, executing drug-dealers isn't an option in Britain, but serious enforcement is. Yet the political class - many of whom smoked and snorted illegal substances when younger - are pro-legalisation, as this week's Government report on drug-use showed. I realise people are free to wreck their lives and their families through drugs, but given the hideous costs to society - and the NHS - should we make it so easy for them? It is clear that some Qataris are helping fund the terror group ISIS, while their government turns a blind eye. It was disgusting, therefore, that their Emir was allowed to meet the Queen this week. The Qataris own large parts of London, including businesses and tourist attractions. Our gutless Government refuses to take action by freezing these assets. I agree with those suggesting boycotts of Qatari-owned businesses such as Harrods. America has mid-term elections on Tuesday and, thanks to President Obama's dismal leadership, the Democrats are set for a pasting. They've already lost the House of Representatives and could well lose the Senate. I covered Obama's 2008 presidential campaign and thought he would never be able to deliver his fine-sounding promises. I hope Britain's most important ally has learned its lesson and will elect as president next time someone who can actually do the job.