We ploughed it then: Stoke, the one we could have won. And the local elections in May will now wipe out much of our council base.

It’s not a total disaster providing we learn well and do three things, quickly.

Firstly, in the search for reasons, we need to address the reality of the following propositions:

1. We are not going to win the country by trying to out-Tory the Tories. Mrs May is riding high, and anyway they have too strong a hold on the shires.    
2. It is axiomatic therefore that our best and only chance of success is to pursue the Labour vote – more precisely, the traditional, patriotic Labour vote. The main reason we lost Stoke is that we didn’t offer economic policies radical enough to attract working people.
3. This does not mean losing our existing ex-Tory support. On the contrary, if we get our taxation policies right, we will win not just the patriotic Labour vote but also much of the middle-earning Tory vote too once they realise their pockets will not be hit.   
4. This is the only way mass immigration into our country, which is the greatest threat it faces, will ever be stopped:  to build a patriotic alliance of traditional Labour and less well-off Tory, in the numbers required to achieve power.

Secondly, if we accept the logic then we must have policies to support it. There is no room here to repeat my earlier articles, but in essence we have to grab the country’s attention with eye-catching, radical policies designed for maximum appeal. They come down to four core themes:

1. Nationalise the railways, with compensation only for small investors. It’s popular in the polls, would totally wrongfoot Labour, and show working people we’re on their side. This is the headline-grabber, this is the initiative-seizing move which gives us the agenda – and makes people sit up and take notice of ….
2. Tax reform, drastically reducing and simplifying the regulations to make avoidance impossible, and strengthening what should be the underlying principle of all direct taxation – the ability to pay – with smoothed sliding scales, so the rich pay more but, critically in the case of income tax, those on under £50K do not pay any more than they do now.
3. An industrial strategy which protects vital industries, borrows to invest in infrastructure, productivity and skills, and re-balances the economy both by re-vitalizing manufacturing industry and re-generating the North.
4. An immigration policy which reduces net immigration to nil, bans alternative systems of justice and unacceptable cultural practices, and recognizes that an ‘Australian points-style system’ is not appropriate for our overcrowded country.

Some ex-Tories seem addicted to ‘libertarianism’, but so far none has managed to tell me what it means – because in practice it’s just Thatcherite economics, which bears as much responsibility for the present state of Stoke Central as 67 years of Labour city council. With free markets come yawning wealth divides, globalisation, recessions, neglect, agency labour, zero hours, food banks and poverty. What matters isn’t libertarianism, it’s liberty – the real freedoms, of speech, belief, association, movement – but also decent jobs and a greater sense of fairness for all our countrymen and women.

This ought to be absolutely fundamental and elementary, but if doctrinaire ex-Tories don’t re-think their position they will bring on UKIP’s demise very quickly once Labour get their act together. We’ll never have this chance of a dysfunctional Labour Party again. And don’t complain about ‘entryism’ or ‘subversion of the Party constitution’. Nigel Farage changed the original 1993 UKIP beyond recognition –  that’s how politics moves on. If you agree our greatest aim must be to stop mass immigration, then recognise too that this prescription is the only way. All this nebulous stuff about ‘libertarianism’ has to go. And please don’t try and tell me about radicalism – I’m the radical here!

Thirdly, we’re going to have to change our leader. I’m sorry Paul, your mistakes will be a millstone around the Party’s neck for as long as you are Party Leader. The details are academic now, the damage is done and will not go away. You owe it to the Party’s hard-working rank and file now to step down in favour of Peter Whittle whilst we hold another election. It’ll be portrayed as more chaos of course, but another change in leadership will be forgotten by the next general election, whereas Hillsborough won’t.

A change in leadership is in any case essential. When any voter casts their vote they can be reasonably assumed to expect the leader of the party they vote for to be at least of potential prime ministerial ability. With the greatest of respect, Paul, you’re not. If we are to have any hope of putting a UKIP programme into effect we need someone with a lighter touch, more fluency and adroitness, credibility and appeal, able to connect with and impress all classes of people. This is harsh for you, I know, but we all owe each other complete candour. The Party deserves nothing less.

And it mustn’t be Nigel. There is no doubt Nigel Farage won us the Referendum, but the problem is that he and his legacy, on all past experience, cannot win elections – unless he changes his spots, which he won’t. Arron Banks is in the same mould. They would both do well to take a leaf out of Marine le Pen’s book, ie with an economic policy geared to embracing the vital support of the working class. By all means let Banks come in and help with the organisation, but he must not be allowed to dictate policy, which is what he will want.

John Rees-Evans’ energy and ability to get things done should also be enlisted, with as much democratic input as possible. We have to sink or swim with policies the membership supports.

We must get on with this, now, so that our battle lines are back in place again by the autumn conference.

Introduction

I write this because I want to ensure that the million UK citizens “over there” are dealt with fairly. Simply hoping that the other side will play as fairly as we have done won’t wash. The EU has form. We need to make it clear it is quid pro quo. That will ensure all four million (EU and our ex-Pats) are dealt with fairly – no expulsions of those settled, either here or there. I also acknowledge that some constitutionalists believe that the Crown Prerogative cannot be used to repeal the ECA 1972. I do not share their view. I am not a lawyer.

The House of Lords decides to help Brussels, not Britain

On Wednesday, exactly a month prior to April Fools Day, the House of Lords voted 358-256 (see here) to, in effect, blackmail Britain, derail the Brexit that’s needed to free us from Brussels misrule, or both. Let me explain why I interpret the vote in this apparently radical manner.

The effect of yesterday’s upper chamber vote was to insert a clause within the Brexit bill to guarantee the residence rights of all (non-UK) EU citizens now living here – irrespective of any continental reciprocity.

Unless the government really gets its act together pronto, and forces the original, unamended legislation through, perhaps using the Parliament Acts, the effect of the insertion would be to either:

(a) cause the government to abandon or fail to meet its March 31st deadline for triggering Article 50, or

(b) coerce the government into accepting the modification, i.e. to get it passed in the House of Commons, or

(c) ignore Article 50, part of a cunningly-contrived Thieves’ Charter as it is, and repeal ECA 1972 instead. Let us take the driving seat, and exit on our own terms, before they raise and send out a real army to keep us in. I will consider these alternatives in turn.

Failing to meet the March 31st Deadline

I was one of many from UKIP who gathered outside and then peacefully invaded Parliament on November 1, 2014 to protest this erosion of our democratic heritage – the removal of our remaining rights to veto or opt-out of EU legislation.

If (a), namely Article 50 triggering is delayed beyond March, our right to exit becomes subject to QMV (Qualified Majority Voting) among EU members. This pernicious requirement will sink any acceptable Article 50 Brexit.

How? Given that the UK is an enormous net contributor to the EU’s coffers, the recipients or beneficiaries of our largesse (i.e. all other 27 member states, including Germany, whose contributions would have to increase hugely to compensate for our leaving) are highly unlikely to vote in sufficient number to let us leave without imposing impossibly onerous conditions. A one trillion Euro “exit fee”, anyone? And why should they stop there? I would think we’ll then see who our true friends are – I think at least Denmark will support us. But we need many more friends under QMV. We won’t get them, even if favourable changes at the helm in Holland, France etc. occur.

By the time the likes of Arch-Remainer Lammy manage to figure all this out, and possibly even realise that simply repealing the ECA 1972 (the Gerard Batten MEP method) should have been the route of choice, our “friends” could have a European Army ready… and then there might be no way out at all until the whole thing falls apart. We won’t be in the lifeboat ready to help them – we’ll be on the sinking ship too, sucked down in the vortex.

Giving in to the Lords

If (b), the government cedes the right of abode to all currently resident EU citizens, thus doing something similarly monstrous to Gordon Brown pre-announcing the sale of our gold reserves. Besides encouraging a veritable flood of newcomers, it will mean that we have lost, for no gain, a powerful bargaining tool and so cannot protect our own citizens living in other EU states. Previously, we could be totally sure that our own expats living in, say, Germany would not be expelled after Brexit even if the Brexit terms were silent on this, because if they tried that, we could do to the same to German expats here.

But if we’d already unilaterally legislated to protect the rights of those EU citizens here, our government’s hands would be bound, and there would be no way to ensure that our guarantees, enshrined as they would then be in statute, would be reciprocated abroad to the benefit of our expats. Instead, our goodwill could be cynically used against us by the likes of Tusk, Juncker, Verhofstadt, a re-emergent Schulz or Ms Merkel and others of their ilk. We’ve had a surfeit of proof that simply trusting that lot to do the right thing would be scandalously absurd. Even, criminal.

It begs the question – why would the Lords try to reduce our bargaining power, and thereby put at risk the well-being of a million of our own citizens living in other EU states? We’ve already issued and reissued assurances in the clearest terms that three million EU citizens over here will be dealt with fairly. There’s no moral imperative for interference from the unelected chamber!

Repealing the ECA 1972

If (c) – I’ve no issue with this. Repeal ECA 1972 now, using the Crown Prerogative. The Supreme Court has had enough time to reflect on the fallout of its last unfortunate intervention, surely?

For if the prerogative was invoked to get us in (to what appeared to be a decent common market, and no more), the same thing can be used to get us out of the current, indecent, anti-democratic, lunatic-fuelled, dangerous, autocratic, unaccountable, supra-bureaucratic, arrogant, aggressive, delusional, monstrously expensive kleptocracy. Any legal argument against that which takes more than 5 lines to expound is self-evidently contrived and bogus.

Long-Term Fix

Whether the cause of the mess is lordly stupidity (or at least an inability to navigate a rational, logical canal of thought through to its end), a desire to thwart the will of the people, self-loathing, something else, or some combination thereof, I cannot say.

Whichever it is, the fix to prevent reoccurrence is either:

(a) urgent abolition of the House of Lords, regardless of its being undesirable given that there is sometimes need for reflection, or

(b) an urgent cull (for the avoidance of doubt, I mean en masse expulsions or retirement!) of peers who cannot demonstrate they aren’t senile, and

(c) the elevation of many UKIP members to the Lords, to balance out and negate the pernicious effects of the preposterously numerous Libdem and overly numerous Labour peers, thereby bringing numbers at least vaguely in line with 2015 GE popular vote and Referendum result ratios. At present, we are under-represented by (arguably) up to one hundred times…

Short-Term Fix

While this long overdue correction is in progress, I counsel the P.M. to do something radical – deploy the Parliament Acts to defeat the Lords and so trigger Article 50 in time, or pay heed to Gerard and repeal the ECA 1972. UKIP will ensure that doing nothing, while pretending not to be doing nothing – Theresa’s unkept, silently dropped pledge to get net migration down to tens of thousands during the course of the previous parliament has not been forgotten – is simply not an option!

You can help motivate those in power by complaining to your MP here.

Verdict

Those in the House of Lords who have knowingly colluded in this attempted derailment of Brexit have shown that they are part of a malicious conspiracy to blackmail, if not commit Referendum Fraud upon, the British people. Treason too, perhaps.

Shame on them!

After a suitable period of reflection and having sufficiently licked our metaphorical wounds, we, the hardworking, loyal foot soldiers of the Party need to come out fighting. We cannot lay down and let political commentators get away with describing us as ‘toast’. We cannot let Labour crow about their victory in Stoke, with Corbyn calling our policies ‘The policies of hate and divisiveness’.

We cannot do anything of course without a leader, so, Mr Nuttall – just exactly where the hell are you? A week on from the debacle of Stoke and we have not seen or heard you. I am a candidate in the coming  county council elections and guess what… yes I am getting ridiculed and laughed at on the doorstep…! Be a leader – give us a pathway and a renewed direction, or stand down. Let`s get the fallout done with and move on.

The default preamble to talking about UKIP by many is that we are the ‘anti-immigration party’. This is part of our new challenge. We need to dispel resolutely and with a tinge of anger this nonsense. The message that we are not anti-immigration but for controlled and managed immigration has to be clear and forcibly reinforced at every given opportunity.

Forget a piecemeal approach to dealing with the media! We never get a fair shake of the dice. We should be Trump-like in our suspicion and derision of the media, they are not our friends. Michael Crick from Channel 4 should simply be banned from any involvement with this party, he is a true UKIP-hater, we will never win with him and we will never receive a fair balanced reporting of anything we say or do. Read his tweets and you have a flavour of how much he detests anything and anyone to do with UKIP.

Where do we go, apart from immigration? David Davis has said last week that we can expect uncontrolled immigration to carry on for years to come, we have to highlight this. We have to make it known to the public that the Tories just cannot be trusted on immigration. This has to be our main fight our message and our cause.

We need more though. We have to get back to a manifesto which we can stand behind and be proud of.

In this year, 2017, we have people lying on beds in corridors in underfunded poorly performing hospitals, and they are dying, literally dying. Yes we have an ageing population and this is the stock reason offered by politicians, but no one is mentioning that 600,000 new people came to live here last year, a new population the size of Newcastle with the right to free health care at the point of use. We have to have a grown-up conversation about the NHS and its future funding. PFI and the disgusting legacy of this Labour privatisation has to be highlighted, it runs into years of billions of debt.

This is our fight, this is our message. This is our cause!

Gangs of Muslim men across this country are responsible for the industrial scale sexual abuse of young vulnerable girls, some as young as thirteen, thirteen!  FGM is a continuing growing horrendous problem, it is being practiced in London right under the nose of the self–righteous Lord Mayor who never talks of it, never addresses it … We must take him to task. There were over 5,000 cases last year alone and not one single prosecution. Polygamous marriages within certain faith groups are being allowed to flourish here in Great Britain, often the girls being married are under-age.

This is our fight, this is our message. This is our cause.

Over 6,000 Asylum seekers have failed their claim to remain in this country and we have not removed them. They remain here on benefits at the cost of us tax-payers. We are borrowing to then pay out £12 billion per annum to overseas aid, much of it is lost amongst consultants and agencies. There is no measurable outcome to this expenditure. We pay 0.5% of our GDP more than any other country to overseas aid, yet many elderly people in this country do not and cannot have a reasonable level of care in their dotage.

This is our fight, this is our message. This is our cause.

The vanity project that is HS2 is now estimated to cost up to £156 billion. This is a folly of unprecedented scale. It will disturb and displace thousands of people, cut a scar through some of our most precious countryside to get people to Birmingham from London 30 minutes quicker than you can now, freight is the clarion cry from the enthusiasts. This is a lie.

This is our fight, this is our message. This is our cause.

Sharia law, education, house building policing, crime and defence are mainstream topics and should not be ignored but we are and have to get back to being radical, outspoken and honest.

Another standoff between Nigel and Carswell. For a time, I thought Nigel might be preparing to leave UKIP, that his pride would force him to, having publicly declared Carswell must go. A UKIP with Carswell still in and Nigel out would not be viable. I felt that the legal niceties were irrelevant to the politics which appeared to be that Carswell must go. But, on LBC a few nights ago, Nigel was emphatic that he would not leave UKIP, that forming a new party was wrong. Taking him at his very public word then Carswell need not be expelled, and cannot be on inconclusive, private correspondence, just to keep Nigel in.

Yet Carswell is a problem. When he tweeted a smiley face on learning of Nigel stepping down as leader – what did he think he was doing? It cannot be that he was too thick to see that ordinary Kippers would be offended by that self-indulgent act. It must be therefore that he simply does not care about offending ordinary Kippers. For that tweet, he should have been taken aside and given a stern warning. Would you or I be allowed to insult, provoke and taunt the ordinary membership? When it comes to Nigel, Carswell is showing himself to be incontinent, unable to refrain from tweeting “Knight night” after the email fiasco.

Is he, as Aaron Banks exclaimed at Doncaster 2015, semi-autistic, just unable to empathise with party members and see the hurt he causes? If he does see it then why do it? Should the party send him for psychiatric therapy, for losing self-control whenever Nigel’s name comes up? But if we allow that he is fully responsible and accountable for his actions, and so deliberately or recklessly provoking the membership, then why haven’t the leadership, of leader, Chairman and NEC, taken him aside?

Carswell cannot go on inflaming the members, ignoring their feelings and indulging his own antipathy to Nigel publicly. Yes, there is free speech, Carswell is entitled to his opinions, but he lives on UKIP’s dime and he needs to respect that. A great number of Kippers are upset by his mocking and sneering tweets and remarks. Does the leadership share his disdain for ordinary Kippers? If they fail to reel him in then a conclusion that they do will be unavoidable.

Carswell defected to save his seat (No 1 likely to fall to UKIP had he stayed Tory at the 2015 GE) and to go from obscure backbencher no-one had heard of (or was ever likely to) to a national figure invited onto Question Time and interviewed frequently by the press. What has he given back to the party in return? Search in vain for speeches in the House promoting or defending UKIP!

I suspect the real reason for his indifference to members’ feelings is that he is not indifferent at all. He actually needs ordinary Kippers to complain about him as part of what is, in Tory terms, virtue signalling. His real allegiance, his comfort zone, is Tory MP friends. He signals every time that he has not really left, that he is not truly UKIP but semi-detached, that like them he is part of the anti-Farage establishment. He joined Vote Leave at the outset, as did Suzanne Evans, a group hostile to Nigel and UKIP. His emailed quip that perhaps Nigel could be rewarded for `services to headline writers’ was as much for his Tory friends as for winding up ordinary Kippers.

This view is supported by the action of Tories. Just before the General Election Cameron was reported as saying, in relation to Mark Reckless, who really did defect to UKIP completely, that he really wanted to get that [insert a very un-parliamentary term beginning with f and ending with r], but no such ire was shown toward Carswell. Indeed, relations between Carswell and Tories are all too friendly, especially with Daniel Hannan, a graceless leaver who refuses to acknowledge Nigel. At a meeting at Hammersmith Town Hall before the Referendum, Hannan was on stage with Lord Owen. Owen made a very gracious speech praising UKIP for its part, saying that it was not racist but a genuine grassroots movement that he was happy to campaign alongside. Hannan was asked to comment but shook his head. No way would he acknowledge UKIP yet alone praise it. That’s who Carswell signals to. Yes, they believe we should leave the EU, but not to the extent that their personal comfort is ever to be at risk by stepping outside their true tribe’s norms. Neither merit any respect from us.

Carswell’s indifference to ordinary Kippers may also reflect that by 2020 he does not expect or plan to be defending Clacton under a UKIP banner. If he did he would not want to alienate UKIP activists. In July last year at an event in the centre of London to debate the various forms of Brexit (supposedly), Carswell effectively disavowed UKIP in order to ingratiate himself before what was a 99%, middle class remainer audience – in a debate chaired by the Guardian’s Jonathan Freedland to give you the flavour. But his views are self-servingly false.

Instead of endlessly complaining about Carswell the leadership should allow us to debate him, to expose the denial about UKIP’s part in Brexit, to challenge his fantasy version of history, to give the lie to the media fed drivel about nativists and racists.

Provided he now stops sneering at ordinary Kippers, stops taunting Nigel and his supporters, then nothing need turn on his presence in our party (if Carswell can be said to be in our party) and we avoid the unseemly and unpredictable fallout from trying to expel him. Having an MP, even one and even just him, gets us media representation rights.

We cannot currently get rid of Carswell in any way that would keep the party out of the High Court – he will be too careful not to provide any killer evidence. We therefore can debate him – not that the leadership will allow anyone articulate to do that! – or just ignore him provided the leader, the Chairman, and the NEC act as one in explaining to Carswell that he must never, ever again hold the members in contempt with corrupt virtue signalling to his Tory mates. If we are not to be forever up and down the Sisyphean hill with Carswell, then Nuttall, Oakden and the NEC must reel him in. He must virtue signal to his true tribe wholly in private. Tell him to never sneer or mock again. And bloody well mean it!

Did you notice? A tipping point? Any tipping point? A point at which a series of small changes or incidents becomes significant enough to cause a larger, more important change?

Firstly, 17.4million people voted to LEAVE the EU. Tip top turnout. It hasn’t happened yet though, despite the promises of the Cameron led Government “We will implement what you decide”.  The people decided and the delay in delivering on that promise is duly noted.

Secondly, Donald J Trump was elected. Tip top triumph with a large turnout from the undecideds and the traditionally apathetic. Apathy was challenged in sufficient numbers by the hard work, oratory and positive, firm outlook presented to Americans by the now President of the USA.  Many who perceive voting as a pointless exercise were inspired to make a different choice – to take the time out to attend a voting station and ‘pull the lever’ for Donald J Trump.

Two events in one year that I am confident will be looked back upon as significant tipping points in the course of world history. Did one inspire the other? I hope the course of history will be for the better, but ‘the better’ will not come naturally – it will take hard work and unity.  Just like the hard work put in by so many diligent and enthusiastic UKIP volunteers in Stoke during the Stoke Central by-election. People in the USA were inspired by Trump and I predict an improvement in the fortunes of Americans. People in Stoke and in the UK are not so inspired by what UKIP currently presents.

A week has now passed. The result of the by-election was disappointing, though I won’t trouble you with further analysis as a sufficient variety of views have been offered by others, including here on UKIP Daily. The Stoke by-election should not have been a tipping point for UKIP, though it may prove to be. It needs to be. Stagnation at this time in history would be a most destructive course for UKIP to meander and the hierarchy of the Party need to wake up to this reality and act decisively.

A tipping point is required: the current leadership needs to take the bull by the horns and lead, or provide a constructive path to facilitate leadership from those who will provide it, whichever members that might entail. The tipping point in world politics passed in 2016 with the election of Donald J Trump. The peoples of the United Kingdom need, desperately need, a political Party that they want to vote for and currently that major gap in the marketplace is not being ably filled by our Party. Trump used straight talking, shoot from the lip, hopeful messages based on patriotism, unity, national pride, putting Americans first and border control. His message was and is an anti-globalist, anti-establishment, anti-corruption message. Trump won.

UKIP needs to be the radical and clearly defined anti-establishment Party, but the delivery needs seasoning to suit the British palette. The messaging needs to give a promise of change, improvement, positive outlook, jobs, control, national interest, law and order, preservation of individual liberty, competence and a focus on the wellbeing of all the peoples of the UK, but most of all the message must inspire.

With petty internal bickering UKIP cannot achieve anything other than getting in the way – only a united Party can deliver for the people and inspire their support, but also, only a ‘broad church’ Party can – one that respects variance in focus and approach within its membership and whose members are courteous and loyal to one another out of respect to the wider membership and those we seek to serve.

There is another nettle that needs to be grasped, firmly, but with fearless and defiant defence of British laws, history, tradition and customs. The nettle that says “Nothing to do with Radical Islamic Terrorism or immigration”, terms only Donald J Trump appears comfortable using and gladly confronting, creating a tipping point in the language of leaders of ‘Western democracies’.

Chancellor Merkel confirmed to her supporters in October 2012 “…We kidded ourselves a while, we said: ‘They won’t stay, sometime they will be gone’, but this isn’t reality.” …and… “And of course, the approach [to build] a multicultural [society] and to live side-by-side and to enjoy each other… has failed, utterly failed.”

To attempt to square these words with the cyclone of multiculturalism that she subsequently subjected her country to, and other countries by EU extension, is a task of geometric and cerebral futility. The ‘multiculturalism failure realisation’ tipping point has gone, passed by. We are in a post rational European politics, self-destructive by nature, as recent history tells us, daily. People aren’t stupid and they need a radical voice!

Soon the Dutch will be holding a general election. Geert Wilders and his Party, the PVV, could drive another nail in the EU coffin as politics in Europe begins to polarise, not along lines of traditional ‘left’ and ‘right’ approaches to economic policy, but along cultural lines. The French Presidential election will follow, again polarising the Parties along cultural lines – the Front National vs. All others. The cultural divide invades art, theatre; cinema, politics, news and education, and the demographic shift in the voter bases are significant.

The outlook for constructive politics in the coming years in Europe looks bleak and the intensification of civil disobedience and lawlessness is apparent. Racial and cultural issues will continue to dominate publicly consumed political output and governmental inertia and monetary largesse will continue to delay and worsen matters.

Geert Wilders thinks the cultural divide has everything to do with Islam and wishes to de-Islamise The Netherlands as well as leave the EU, a radical message. Marine Le pen wants to withdraw from the EU and control immigration. In Germany and Sweden, nationalist Parties are gaining more support for challenging the perceived wisdom of mass uncontrolled immigration and the creation of multicultural populations of urban, and presumably, eventually, rural regions of countries throughout Europe. Victor Orban in Hungary has already stated his position regarding immigration policy and the Christian nature of his country. The Czechs and the Poles, even the Greeks are glancing eastwards.

Cultural relativism and cultural ignorance dominate the political and academic space. That needs challenging, radically. The reality of the many failures of multiculturalism is obvious, yet no political Party addresses these issues maturely and individuals who do so have, to date, been stigmatised, side-lined and demonised.

The tipping point in British politics will come as it is quickly coming in Europe, whether peaceably as we all desire, or not, as many fear. It hardly seems rational to me, to perceive it to be a radical matter, that of wishing to discuss what Land we wish to conserve and bequeath to our great grandchildren. The compatibility of Islamic ideology and practices and with rapid, mass uncontrolled immigration, with our nation’s future as a home to our offspring, is a political nettle that needs grasping. Soon.

Just when we might have been persuaded that Brexit really did mean Brexit – what do we learn? We learn that Home Secretary Amber Rudd has told the national security strategy committee that, inter alia, “Britain would try to remain in European security organisations and systems such as Europol – the EU’s law enforcement agency – and the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) after Brexit”. (Daily Telegraph report 7th March 2016).

The general perception of the EAW, depending upon one’s own particular outlook, is that it is either an unqualified good or a necessary evil, but how many of us actually understand that what it does in practice is to allow the ‘powers that be’ in any one of the 28 EU Member states to order the arrest of any citizen, throughout the EU’s territories, without a shred of evidence that the poor unfortunate has actually committed an offence.

Until the passing of the Extradition Act 2003 (enacting the EAW) we British could justifiably claim to have been a free people simply because the English common law, with its roots in Magna Carta, protected us against coercion by the State – in other words we couldn’t have our liberty taken away without evidence that we had broken the law; without witnesses to testify to that effect; without being charged with a specific offence and without that charge being made in open court.

Since time immemorial British subjects have enjoyed protection against false accusation, arbitrary arrest and wrongful imprisonment by dint of the Presumption of Innocence; the right to Trial by Jury; the right to Silence; the inadmissibility of hearsay evidence; the withholding of previous convictions; Press reporting restrictions whilst matters are sub judice;  protection against Double Jeopardy, (i.e. being charged again with an offence that one has previously been acquitted of); and, crowning this list of invaluable defences and protections against state-inspired coercion, the law of Habeas Corpus, once described by Archbishop Desmond Tutu as being “such an incredible part of Freedom”!

Notwithstanding that it truly is ‘such an incredible part of freedom’ the law of habeas corpus has, since 2003, been negated by the European Arrest Warrant (see the learned Opinion of Jonathan Fisher QC at this site: savebritishjustice)

In November 2014 the Government could, without in any way breaching the terms of the EU treaties, have withdrawn the UK from the iniquitous EAW regime but that was not the wish of the then Home Secretary, now Prime Minister, Theresa May – any more than it is today the wish of her successor in that office, Amber Rudd!

So there we have it! The two top people in our supposedly pro-Brexit Government both in favour of the state retaining the power to arrest its citizens without evidence!

Readers of this column will not need me to explain that ceding to the State the power to incarcerate its citizens without the necessity to even provide prima facie evidence of wrong-doing is nothing short of tyranny.

The supreme irony in all of this is that there can be absolutely no doubt that Theresa May, Amber Rudd and a huge swathe of other Parliamentarians agree with my argument – why else has our Government agreed to shell-out millions of taxpayers’ money in compensation to former detainees in Guantanamo Bay?

Answer: Because those people were deprived of their liberty without there ever being any evidence produced in a court of law that justified their detention and without any charge ever having been levied against them!

In a word, they were denied the very basic and fundamental principles of the ‘common law’ that we British had for so long taken for granted and which, we now learn, are most likely not going to be fully restored as part of Brexit!

The very least our Government should insist upon is that all requests for extradition are accompanied by prima facie evidence (of an offence having actually been committed) that can then be examined in a British court of law before extradition is either granted or refused.

Meanwhile, caveat emptor (buyer beware) –  on an entirely different subject, do not for one minute assume that the Tories will regain the exclusive right of British fishermen to fish in exclusively British waters  i.e. out to 200 miles or the median line. But that is a story for another day …

It is not a sensational headline, it is in fact to all intent and purposes a true one. The Durham Police force is to supply heroin addicts with a medical grade form of heroin called diamorphine. This will be at the expense of the Police budget, and therefore will cost the tax paying public of Durham £15,000 per addict.

Durham`s Police and Crime Commissioner Ron Hogg has proposed this scheme based on the evidentiary findings of a study in Darlington some six years ago by King’s College London between 2006 – 2011. Mr Hogg is quoted as saying “it really is a very sensible approach which will help them and reduce crime”. This may possibly be the case, what is not made clear however is how many addicts, given free heroin on the original programme, went on to remain or return to the addiction and therefore continued a life of crime to service their habit.

The programme this time will be offered to a small number of “prolific” offenders, and not to everyone who has a heroin addiction. This addiction can run at a cost of up to £300 per week and addicts, to fund their malaise, will commit crime. The question here is what constitutes a “prolific offender”, what is the cut-off point? Mr Hogg goes on to say the programme will be managed from six existing drug and alcohol recovery hubs based in the area.

Mr Hogg goes on to claim “it’s a cost-effective use of police money”. He adds that “the time scale and size of the project would depend on costs”, but then added that he “would like to see something in place by the end of the year”.

The Chief Constable Mike Barton backs the idea but is leaving the management of it to the PCC. This does not sound like a wholehearted endorsement of this programme and I suspect the Chief Constable is thinking he could do a great deal more with that money.

At the outset this does not sound like an idea that is too far off the scale, however questions do naturally arise from such a proposal.

Surely the supply of a synthetic substitute for heroin should come from the NHS and not the Police? The actual choice of which individual receives these ‘drugs’ would surely need careful and clearly laid out examination, conducted with the assistance of health care specialists and should not be based on their individual proliferation of crimes committed.

When the Police force start paying from their budget for drugs for heroin addicts as a crime prevention methodology one is given to a natural incredulity. One could argue that the Police force should pay for the insurance for those people who regularly drive a motor car on the road without said insurance. Why do the Police not supply new drivers venturing out onto the roads with dash-cams in order that they learn from their mistakes and therefore hopefully reduce the amount of accidents, or in fact why not give every road user a dash-cam!

You will be reading this and thinking I am stretching this too fat but is it such a stretch? The police prevent and detect crime, they bring alleged perpetrators of crime to the courts and hand them over to the legal system, job done. They cannot surely get involved in deciding who is a prolific criminal due to an addiction of heroin, then pay for and put them on a programme of synthetic drugs in the hope that they will stop offending to furnish the habit and pay for it. The modern day copper is neither qualified, nor is it in their remit to make such judgements. The police are under so much stress and strain from budget cuts, reductions in numbers of serving officers and their back room support staff, they have enough to do without also stepping in as health care workers.

It is my opinion that this is a headline grabbing policy, resurrected from six years ago by a commissioner looking for a quick fix social policy which takes his force out of their job description and, I would suspect as an ex police officer, most certainly out of their comfort zone.

Possibly overheard in a pub in Stoke-on-Trent a couple of weeks ago: “What has UKIP ever done for us?” asked the barman. “Well,” replied an old chap on the stool, “they gave us Nigel Farage”.  “Well, yes,” said the barman. “OK, apart from Nigel, what has UKIP ever done for us?” “Got us out of the European Union,” said the old chap. “OK, apart from Nigel and the referendum, what has UKIP ever done for us?” asked the barman; silence then descended on the conversation.

Clearly, it’s a parody from the scene in the film ‘Life of Brian’ which went on about ‘what have the Romans ever done for us’, a brilliantly scripted moment where the Romans had indeed done many things.

Having campaigned in Stoke and Copeland in the weeks prior to the by-election, as an activist I was told a few times when knocking on doors that UKIP had done their job and got us out of the EU; thanks for that they said and typically closed the door.

My point is, and I am not alone with this comment, what do we stand for? I attend branch meetings which sadly are more of a social event than a politically motivated gathering as broadly we have nothing to discuss or debate.

Stoke was Labour’s to lose. UKIP could have put up an anonymous candidate and put out leaflets that ‘bashed’ Labour and probably walked it, but we chose to go another route. Anyway, let’s focus on the future.

We are a binary party: our policies should be yes or no, agree or disagree, support something or don’t support it; divisive perhaps but simple to understand. We should now develop a direction so people can relate to something and recognise an issue and openly debate it in public or on Facebook. The turnout at the referendum is a tribute to the issues raised by UKIP which galvanised the British population.

With our comprehensive 2015 election manifesto, which was fully audited and funded, along with our main party speakers on TV, we demonstrate a capability comparable to any mainstream party, but sadly we are not. I engage with voters who in the main don’t relate to a fully funded manifesto; they want a straightforward reason to support UKIP.

Anyway, I am just a cog in the wheel who has a view and puts forward an alternative manifesto:

• End overseas aid and replace it with a disaster fund which will be used to help people anywhere in the world following a national catastrophe, saves us £15 Bn a year by 2020.
• Review the Barnett Formula and share the £4 Bn a year windfall fairly between England, Wales and Scotland.
• Bring in a VISA style immigration policy, not the Australian one, which recognises historic systems already in place in this country pre-2004 for seasonal workers (SAWS) and the Youth Mobility scheme.
• Scrap the reductions in Corporation tax and reinstate them, but rather scrap the Apprentice Levy which is real Burden on industry.
• Scrap Hs2 and invest in infrastructure in the North of England and the South West and Wales. A dual carriageway to Whitehaven would be a start (some of you know what I am talking about).
• End the internal market in the NHS, target 10,000 redundancies for administrators and managers in the service.
• Bring back State Enrolled Nurses training immediately. On the job training and with no student loans to worry about.
• End the House of Lords in its current format. Not another elected chamber but a fixed term of 10 years in the chamber and halve the daily allowance to £150.
• Replace Trident with nuclear weapons on the aircraft flying off the two new aircraft carriers supported by a land based delivery systems as well, saves £4 Bn a year.
• Scrap the bedroom tax.
• Replace the idea of Grammar schools with outstanding academies being allowed to introduce an element of selective testing for 25% of their intake always conscious that the SEN children not being disadvantaged.
• Lower the school leaving age back to 16 and develop a more comprehensive apprentice training system in the UK.
• Merge some of the county constabularies with the savings used to create more PCSOs and tackle crime in the community.  Test outcome as a future way forward for other police forces.
• Replace Police and Crime commissioners with Health and Social Care commissioners.
• Replace the outdated Parliamentary election system, and bring in an end to first past the post.  
• Integrate the Southern Rail Franchise into the TFL network.
• Support FISHING FOR LEAVE, let’s become a great fishing nation again.

Clearly, I could go on but hopefully fellow UKIP supporters understand in which direction, where the party might go. It’s better to have a policy discussed than watch our UKIP ‘spokespeople’ on TV having to apologise or deny statements and comments in the press. Time to move on!

We want our country back!

Remember that cry? Let me tell you: we still haven’t got our country back, and I don’t mean it’s because Article 50 has not (yet) been invoked. It’s because our politicians have not noticed or are to scared to notice that there’s indeed an ‘enemy within’, an enemy with a pernicious ideology that masquerades as ‘religion’. That enemy is aided and abetted by our Establishment. It’s time to fight back, time to call them out, time to stand up against them and the establishment.

Some rather extraordinary bits of information have come out in the week just gone, the week where Anne Marie Waters wrote in stark simplicity that “UKIP must face islam or die”.

Regular readers will remember that several authors on UKIP Daily have been pointing out that we must grasp this nettle, that weasel words are unhelpful, that the situation in our country will get worse if we shy away from naming the problem: Islam in our country. Readers will have noticed that the establishment always ‘promises’ to do something – usually after mass terrorist attacks. ‘Charlie Hebdo’ happened two years ago. What, except uttering pious words, have our politicians done since then?

Nothing.

Actually, they did worse than nothing, with our own UKIP leaders in fact joining that club of appeasers.

I remember the Spring Conference in Margate in February 2015, where we geared up to the General Election later that year. At that conference, Peter Whittle – you may have heard of him – said in his speech that British Law must apply to all. Huge applause. We understood that to mean that UKIP would fight against Sharia law in our country, that our courts would no longer treat Muslim criminals with kid gloves. Remember that just a few months before our Spring Conference the Rotherham Report into child sex abuse by Muslims had been published.

And then what happened?

Anything seemingly critical of Islam was brushed out in party statements. For example, a comment poster here on UKIP Daily wrote that in February 2015 UKIP stated on its website that they support the ban on non-stun slaughter. That website entry was gone in April 2015 and never made it into our GE Manifesto. Now we know why, two years later, that infamous ‘halal leaflet’ in the Stoke by-election was ‘allowed’ to pass …

In today’s Telegraph is a report that ‘Imams to be told to preach in English in mosques’ – how gentle! This is apparently to fulfil a Tory 2015 Manifesto promise to ‘combat radicalisation’ and ‘hate speech’. Well, better late than never, but allow me to snigger – there’s a reason the then Home Secretary and now PM Ms Theresa May is called ‘Sharia May’.

The rot has well and truly set in. Last week we read that a judge in one of our courts delayed the trial of a Muslim terror suspect because the trial date had been set for Ramadan, and our gentle judge thought the poor man would not be able to follow proceedings while fasting …

Earlier this year, we heard that some church leaders of the Church of England allowed, nay, invited, Muslims to ‘read from the Quran’  – in the cathedrals in Glasgow and Gloucester. Do these learned theologians not know that this act means their cathedrals can now be regarded as no longer belonging to Christians? Btw – how come we see photos of our politicians visiting mosques, but never of visiting churches?

It has come to this: all our politicians are bowing to Islam, denying what we all can see in our daily lives – be it parking fines for cars parked at churches but not at mosques, be it gender segregation in our schools, be it ‘hate speech’ prosecutions where one man gets a prison sentence for leaving bacon sandwiches at a mosque but no prosecution for calls to kill ‘infidels’, no police action when a Muslim kicks a female bystander: the list of such everyday incidences is getting longer and longer. And let’s not even start remarking on the way Islamic terrorist attacks are being reported in the MSM, here and internationally: they are apparently always committed by ‘mentally ill lone wolves’ of obscure origins …!

Such news, apparently small and inconsequential, apparently of ‘local interest’ only, are mounting up. This creeping and now obvious Islamification of our daily lives is not just happening here, it can be observed with horror in such liberal modern states like Germany and Sweden.

So – what to do?

Start with naming what is happening without fear, without bowing to political correctness, not just on here but also to our party hierarchy. Demand that they address this issue! Reporting facts, observed by people across the country, is not ‘bringing the party into disrepute’ – but keeping quiet about them is, and is going to cost us votes.

Start with putting meat on the bare bones of ‘British law for all’ – for all who live here in the UK, that is.

FGM is illegal in our country – so where are the prosecutions?

Polygamy is illegal in our country – so where are the prosecutions. Why are we, the taxpayers, made to support this by paying for multiple wives?

Sex discrimination has been illegal in our country – so why are we turning a blind eye to this happening in our schools, universities and political rallies?

We’ve just rejected the EU because we wanted our country back, we wanted to live under British laws, not those decided in Brussels. Are we now going to allow ourselves to be governed by Sharia instead, which is already creeping into every nook and cranny of our public lives?

No! No! No!

Taking our country back also means taking it back from the lying, duplicitous establishment who have poisoned our public discourse with labels like ‘racist’ and Islamophobic’ whenever one describes what is happening. They have been trying to stifle debate with their insidious cry that ‘it’s their culture, innit, and who are we to judge’.

Fine. Let’s say everywhere that this is our culture, innit, where British law reigns supreme, no exceptions! All those who want to live according to their laws are free to leave and go to one of the Islamic countries where Sharia law is the law and where Islam is the state religion.

The fight for our country starts here and now!

Did you know that Google reported that the most searched for term in the run up to the general election had been “UKIP”? Millions more than eventually voted for UKIP had been researching the party.

The web site was the party’s chance to speak directly to people – in their millions at the time – free of distortion from biased media reports. So when these potential UKIP voters arrived on the party’s site what did they find? Were they drawn in and persuaded? Did we look like professionals who could be trusted, who had a coherent vision for the country? If they entered a name and email or phone number were they referred to local branches to be further wooed? Had UKIP maximised the potential from a well-designed website?

I ask because I was comparing party websites to see who had the best presentation. I did this because the one party that really does not communicate well at all is our own barely sentient UKIP. I can tell you that the Lib Dems are the winners with their `Our Vision’ page. It is vacuous nonsense of course, complete drivel in places, but it is an attractively laid out page and, had you arrived at it from a Google search while pondering who to vote for, you would find your questions answered. The web page works.

To spare you the nausea of looking at a Lib Dem policy page yourself let me describe it for you. It comprises a mosaic of picture tiles, one for each policy area, and on clicking a tile you are taken to a summary of the party’s policy (or its totality of policy perhaps given the vapid nature of what you read) on whatever topic it is you had clicked. On the right-hand side of each page is an area where you can sign up for more information – i.e. have the Lib Dems contact you and work on you to join and support the party. The page serves prospective Lib Dem voters and the Lib Dem party very well. Visitors are not just invited to make contact on the index page but also whenever a particular policy area attracts them.

I need not describe what is wrong with our party’s website for we all gave up on it a long time ago. The lamentable state of UKIP’s website is common knowledge. The question I want to address here is why is the party’s web site so bad?

It cannot be for lack of money. Donations to the party were at record levels in 2014/15. There was -erm – a lack of discipline over spending but that is no excuse. The website could have been prioritised. The website – I repeat, the chance to speak directly to people – just wasn’t a priority. A decent website is neither difficult nor expensive.

Money is an issue these days as donations drop below the level the BNP receive but the party had, and spent, £100,000 on the calamitous Stoke campaign. Might the party not have been better served by spending a bit less on damaging its reputation with an amateurish and naïve campaign and putting some resources into a decent website instead? If truly strapped for cash the party’s 20 odd MEPS can give a couple of hundred pounds each to fund it. Their salaries and generous benefits and pension amount to a very good life indeed on the back of UKIP. So, a website is not too much to ask for in return.

It looks as though, and it is entirely consistent with this, the leadership did not want a decent website because they were reluctant to spell out any policies relevant to domestic elections – leaving the EU was an aim not a policy – and so vagueness about policy may reflect the leadership’s desire to keep things ad hoc according to their pick ‘n mix approach to emulating the other parties. The disastrous halal leaflet, and the u-turn it represents –  was kept under wraps and not where it should have been, under a policy tile on a website where we could have spotted it. If the leadership cannot be straight with its own members how does it expect to have credibility with the wider electorate?

It is time we had a decent website, one where anyone, but members in particular, can see what we stand for and what our policies are across a range of subjects. I realise that the leadership are not capable of deep thought – Stoke showed that – but our leader did say at the Weymouth conference earlier this month that the party needs to be radical (as did Nigel in Bolton) and I would very much like to see what that means. If they are having trouble writing up some policies, then I am sure readers of UKIP Daily will be happy to help. We could start with Anne Marie on Sharia and go back to our opposition to the non-stun slaughter of animals. There is, for an example, a Belgian YouTube video showing what happens when a cow’s  throat is cut when killed the halal way. It tries to cry out but can’t because its windpipe has been severed. It takes time to die in evident pain and terror. We could link to that video to show why we say non-stun slaughter is callous barbarism toward animals and would be eradicated in the UK by UKIP. Does anyone doubt that such a policy would be popular? (With the civilised that is).

We could _ _ _ well, fill in the blanks yourself because the leadership are certainly not doing that. It is time the troika of Nuttall, O’Flynn and Evans came clean with the membership. After Stoke they cannot assume donations and ground troops will come forward again without clarity on the policies we campaign on. Time we had a decent website with some substance. If people ever again use Google to find out what we are about let them find a professional, persuasive and informative website at the very least.

I have spent an illuminating afternoon educating myself upon the history of the English Parliament, courtesy of Wikipedia (groan not – it may not be totally authoritative but it is readable and, ultimately, fascinating). What comes across very clearly is how our Parliament has been forged throughout history by the need to reconcile the people with their rulers. At every stage the power has ebbed and flowed, contingent upon circumstances and the attitude/impecuniousness of the rulers of the day, occasionally breaking into outright civil war, but always reverting to the pragmatic solution that was felt appropriate to the time.

Even to this day (Wikipedia informs me) an unfortunate MP is handed over to Buckingham Palace as a hostage against the safe return of the Monarch from the State Opening ceremony. Truly our Parliament has been forged in the flames of history.

A similar conclusion can be reached about the representation of Scotland in the “English” Parliament, which has been going (on and off) since at least the reign of Charles II until the Treaty of Union in 1707, and continues to this day (despite the 1997 re-imagining of a devolved Parliament in Holyrood, governed by rules set by the Westminster Parliament).

For more than three hundred years Scotland has been governed exclusively from Westminster, and the Scots have played their full part in the governance of Great Britain; and still do, despite (some would say because of) the great “Blair Meddling” when devolution was set up in 1998 (possibly as a step towards the proposed “Europe of the Regions”?).

I wonder whether Scotland is now better governed than previously?

I was brought up as a citizen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Our nation has a fabulous and chequered history that has forged a legendary reputation for fair play, justice, “my word is my bond” integrity, and the nurture of modern democracy.

Now, I’m not about to wallow in nostalgia – a fair reading of history will turn up many unsavoury episodes – how could it be otherwise? Some would rightly say that we have in large measure squandered that hard won reputation by turning away from Ireland during the potato famine, from the Commonwealth in 1972, by abandoning Zimbabwe to its ghastly fate under Mugabe, and more recently by finding reasons/excuses to curtail the right to trial in open court, to restrict the right to trial by a jury of our peers, to monitor a citizen’s private communications, to restrict legal aid towards vanishing point, and to make it hugely easier to refuse entry to the foreign spouse of a British citizen than to keep out proven criminals of foreign nationality.

It seems to me that somewhere we have lost the plot, and a truly lively democratic society would not have tolerated these retrogressions.

My aspiration is to restore our legendary reputation. There is nothing reprehensible about an aspiration to fair play and integrity, to generosity to those less fortunate than ourselves, to the protection of UK residents from the unwanted interference of the over-mighty, and yes, to expect every man to do his duty.

The basis of UKIP’s power has been that we take the side of the population against the self-serving politician, of common sense against the hopelessly idealistic, of practicality against the impracticable, of simplicity against the over-complicated, of defence of the citizen against arbitrary power of the authorities, of democratic accountability against the gravy-train, of free speech against political intimidation, of the democratic nation state against the self-appointed champions of the superstate.

So let us apply these principles to the idea put forward more than once by our leadership as if it were settled UKIP policy: that England needs its own parliament.

In terms of purely theoretical symmetry this case is unanswerable, but I venture to suggest that in terms of practicality, expense, legal clarity, general over-complication of politics and likely bamboozlement of the electorate this is a no-no.

Is there an alternative? It may have been beyond the wit of the Tories to devise, but a simple test should suffice: would the matter under debate at Westminster fall within the remit of a devolved parliament’s powers if it were to relate to Scotland or to Wales rather than to England? If so, then MPs who represent constituencies within the relevant country of devolution and peers of lordships associated with the same should take no part in the debate within our existing Westminster parliaments.

We do not need a new English Parliament, we have quite enough parliaments to cope with already.

We all knew, or thought we knew, what UKIP was in the run up to the referendum; we didn’t need concern ourselves with the detail as the objective was sufficient. It had an outspoken and charismatic leader known by everyone in the land. Sadly that leader abdicated before the job was finished, perhaps placing too much trust in the government to comply with the referendum result whilst underestimating the dark forces at work behind the “remain” camp. We all know the fiasco which followed in attempting to find a new leader. Perhaps most importantly UKIP does not represent the membership or the voters if we believe the recent election results to be typical.

The Public Face of UKIP

The UKIP website is practically useless. As a prospective member I want to know for a start:

• What are the current policies?
• Who are the key people who might assume ministerial positions?
• What qualifies such people to do those jobs?
• Where are the current (i.e. March 2017) manifestos?
• How is the party funded?
• Will my subscription be used effectively?

One may search in vain for any detail of the various party officials; all one sees is a name and photograph. Some might be well qualified and experienced for the positions they hold but how can I know?  A quick look at linked “Campaign Videos” results in a silly sketch of a logo claiming UKIP as “The Real Opposition”. Do people really want to sit through that for half a minute?

As for that silly footer to many pages “Do you like this page?” what is that about?

I can watch videos on YouTube from which I see that UKIP has many good people, but who has time for that?  More information needs to be on the website.

Behind the Scenes

I can read the various articles and comments on UKIP Daily and other sites such as Ray Catlin’s “Right Way” , many of which give me reasons not to join. The resignation statement of Dr. Tomaz Slivnik is also a good pointer to what is wrong with UKIP, as is that of Adrianne Smyth.

Taken together these statements are damning and a reasonable conclusion would be that UKIP cannot and does not represent the members in its present form; furthermore, it seems to be developing into yet another politically correct organisation which fails to acknowledge the threat we face from the followers of Islam.

The above information is freely available to anyone. Who, having read even a part of it, would give their support to UKIP?

Necessary Changes

It might be easier to list what doesn’t need changing; i.e. very little. However here are some suggestions for necessary policy changes:

• Recognition of the threat we face from Islamisation
• Robust immigration policy to exclude those of Islamic persuasion
• Measures to prevent schools and universities becoming dominated by Muslims
• Robust policies to deal with the Imams who support Islamisation
• Preventing the proliferation of mosques
• Closing down mosques where jihad is taught
• Developing a policy for repatriation to shift the demographics in our favour
• Clear policy statements with plans for implementation

In conjunction with other changes:

• Identification of those who would occupy real or opposition cabinet positions
• Background information on the above to confirm their suitability
• Means to obtain feedback from the membership and respond
• A new website giving access to the information which prospective members need

In particular cronyism, along with its beneficiaries, must be abolished; the only criteria for selection should be qualification, experience and ability. Those criteria are applied in the real world so why should they not apply here? The fact that other parties might be staffed by chancers seeking an easy life is no excuse; UKIP needs to stand above them.

Our exit from the EU is in process and will happen in the eyes of many who can’t be bothered with the detail. UKIP needs to keep after May to ensure a clean exit but cannot without representation in Parliament.

The UKIP MEPs will hopefully become redundant soon. UKIP needs to have a plan in place to offer them alternative positions; their experience would be useful as prospective parliamentary candidates.

Conclusion

UKIP is caught between the proverbial “rock and hard place”; it needs to become professional to attract funds yet it is difficult to implement all the necessary changes without them. However, a move in the right direction would be a great start. If changes are not made it will wither and die.

Time is not on our side and the present leader does not seem to be on our side either.

We live under a judicial system that is over a thousand years old, it is derived from common law and laws made and placed into statute, by those people elected to Parliament to make such laws. It is not perfect but it is tried and tested and is constantly re tested as it knows that it has to be a moveable feast and reactionary to the changing ways in which we live.

Parliament is sovereign in their law making, (I know that the EU has played a large part in our recent laws and statutory instruments, but that is another argument and topic). Our Police force tasked by us to apply the law and it is important to note that application of the law is by the consent of the people, are the only body tasked with that application.No one else is appointed by the people. It is a valuable and enriching concept that we are policed by consent.

It follows from the foregoing that if someone comes to live here, engage in citizenship and embrace all that this wonderful nation has to offer, it is a simple matter of fact and beyond question that they should submit themselves to our rule of law. They must obey our common and statute law and our moral and ethical ways of behaviour. It should not even be questioned that our judicial system is sovereign to the whole nation.

If a body of people who have settled here or live here because of birth decide they no longer wish to be ruled in totality by our judicial system then we have a problem. If that grouping decide they wish to follow a system of law based on a faith, a system of law that is totally at odds with our common, statute law and our moral and ethical thinking we have a very big problem.

Before anyone starts throwing the racist label at me, nothing could be further from the truth. I am simply examining a situation which is in place, and being allowed to grow and flourish without question.

Sharia law is a system of judiciary embraced by the Muslim faith, it is most certainly prejudiced against women. It calls for beatings as a punishment. In its most extreme form it calls for hangings and stoning to death. Sharia courts have been allowed to be held up and down the country, there is no overseeing of these courts, no regulation and no monitoring. Divorce is mostly dealt with for now by a panel composed usually entirely of men. But this is just the thin edge of the wedge.

There are also sharia street patrols, mainly in London for now but nonetheless ‘patrols’. These are composed of men wearing hi viz tabards patrolling the streets of their community. Just what their purpose is,is unclear. However they can only be described as vigilantes, given that they have not been sanctioned by anyone, they have no powers of arrest and detention. As such it begs the question that if a group of non- Muslim men were ‘patrolling the streets’ of their local community would they would be stopped.

An important note here is that if they did physically stop someone and attempt to detain them, it could be argued that that is an assault on the person, as soon as they lay hands on someone. This could and undoubtedly will lead to all sorts of potential problems and allegations.

The other bigger potential problem lies in the fact that, if a grouping of people wish to no longer subject themselves in entirety to our judicial system and are therefore allowed to follow a different system of rules, moral and ethical guidelines it lays the pathway open to other groupings wishing to do the same.

The Polish community in this country is large.  As a large ethnic group they could make the claim to reject our judicial system too. They could make the claim that they wish to be judged and governed whilst living here under the auspices of Polish law. The same goes for Romanians, Somalians and so on.

There is for instance a large number of people domicile here from the USA, if they choose to live under the constitution of the USA, their second amendment allows for the bearing of arms……….food for thought, not a stretch either. If we allow one group to live under the laws of another country, faith and moralistic governance we have to allow for other ethnic groupings to follow the same pathway.

This is a problem we as Ukip have to tackle head on, it is not racist, far from it, it could be argued that it would be racist to not allow other ethnic groups to follow suit and reject the laws of this their host country.

There seems to be general agreement that UKIP needs to kick-start itself into the post-Brexit era with a new rationale and a political agenda that will resonate with a substantial cross section of voters. What there seems no general agreement about is what should be the political agenda or philosophy to follow. It is this that will drive the direction and policies that will differentiate UKIP from the mainstream parties. This is a critical need if we are to succeed as a serious party in the newly- independent nation that UKIP rightly must take the credit for having created.

I have argued previously that we must not take on the mantle of either a left- or right-wing party but rather one that produces policies of common sense that connect with the electorate and their aspirations.

We have been dogged by politics born of the liberal left. Badged as progressive, it has in fact been destructive of the fabric of our nation.  The same disease has taken hold of the entire Western world with the same consequences. Governments have spent far too much of our money and when that is not enough they have borrowed and borrowed until debt levels are truly frightening. The result is that they have mortgaged and remortgaged the economic future of our country and placed a very heavy yoke on us and future generations. They have run out of sensible things to tax and so tax policy gets more and more extreme and what politicians love to call fairer taxation is in fact an excessive and most unfair extraction of our money.

We are taxed at eye watering levels. You don’t have to be wealthy to pay 40% income tax. Earnings of just under £32,000 get you there and after £150,000 it is 45%. Add to this that on most of what you spend you pay 20% VAT. Then there is fuel duty, taxes hidden in our energy bills, car tax, council tax, insurance premium tax, national insurance tax, travel taxes, stamp duty on property purchases, a new tax on probate applications and if you leave more than £500,000 or £1,000,00 as a couple, when you finally pop your clogs a swingeing 40% is the tax rate.

So what is to be done? We simply have to find a way of substantially reducing the insatiable appetite of the government to spend our money. Every pound taken away from the population leaves a pound less of potential wealth creating capital. No country ever got rich by taxing its citizens. The only way of achieving this is to reverse the current wisdom that the government is responsible for every aspect of our society and must therefore tax us all to finance this social engineering appetite. The consequence of this is that all the mainstream parties have moved to the left as they successively outbid each other to deliver promises of freebies to the nation if the nation will only vote for them. Electoral bribery would be an accurate term, but it is bribery with our own money. As governments move across the scale of increased expenditure it approaches the point where the state eventually controls everything. We know that fails so we must stop this continual drift towards a failed system.

The proposition is that the nation would welcome a party genuinely committed to achieving the lowest level of taxes commensurate with a society that looks after the genuinely needy and infirm who have no means of support and no family to fall back on. That is a caring society but not a feather-bedding society. We must find a new definition for what the citizen is responsible for and what it is reasonable for the government to take responsibility for. We must focus on the individual having the primary responsibility to care for themselves and their families and the government to be the setter of the architecture in which the individual can succeed and within which the safety of the country is guaranteed.

An example. Take education. We spend massive sums on education and yet we are told the system is failing poor white pupils and especially boys. What is strange though, is that immigrants going through the same system come out achieving good results. We are told the government, in fact this means all of us who pay taxes, must spend more money to correct this and there must be lower standards set to enter university to ‘give them a better chance’ but that then denies an equal number of high achieving pupils their just rewards for hard work. Perhaps the right response is for the government to underline clearly to all our parents and pupils that it is their responsibility to take advantage of the education provided and if they don’t then the consequences are ones they must live with and not foist onto the rest of us. By all means let us care for the genuinely mentally disabled but not the lazy. It seems common sense. It would draw a clearer line and frame a maximum for the cost of education.

To be continued…

Dear Paul,

We are relieved to see you back hale and hearty after your experiences in Stoke Central and we welcome your renewed commitment to the politics of confrontation – confrontation of the Establishment with the truth.

We also congratulate you on the listening exercise conducted recently with the South East Regional branch chairmen. We hope that this is a first step towards ensuring that communications between the party leadership and the membership develop into a proper two-way street – full duplex as we technocrats say. Now that Nigel is getting his life back the Party needs to find some new political antennae quickly, and we commend the membership as an excellent sounding-board for policy proposals.

Unhappily we note that you were not elected in Stoke, largely perhaps because Mrs May is now seen to have Brexit in hand and we didn’t provide the good citizens of Stoke with enough ideas about our post-2019 priorities. If we do not look beyond 2019 we will be rightly dismissed as a one-trick pony whose trick is now obsolete.

There is no shortage of truth to feed the confrontation with the Establishment. The “liberal left” have been whittling away at our traditional democratic rights for many years – by introducing trials in secret thus ensuring that miscarriages of justice cannot be identified, by restricting the cases which can be tried by a jury of our peers, by opting back into the European Arrest Warrant, by making it easier to deny residence to the foreign-born wife of a UK citizen than to deny it to foreign criminals.

By branding incidents with the “hate” and “racist” labels regardless of actual evidence, they distort the statistics, pervert the right to free speech, legitimise witch-hunts and stigmatise those who have been found guilty of no crime. They fail to prosecute the investigation of abhorrent criminal activity in immigrant communities for fear of the accusation of racism.

Most insidiously, they still threaten those newspapers that dare to publish the truth with the huge legal costs of those that would take action against them. This is a blatant attack on both the freedom of the press and our fundamental legal principle that the law of the land applies to all equally.

We have allowed the “liberal left” to facilitate electoral fraud (often within the  immigrant communities) by relaxing the checks on postal voting in the pursuit of electoral advantage. Our democratic foundations are under attack in a number of localities.

A similar attrition by stealth in the form of defence cuts over many years has left the Kingdom in a state where we have no aircraft carriers, and when we do get one it will have neither aircraft nor escort ships to keep it safe. Our destroyers have dodgy engines and new ones lack missiles in their launchers. Our army attracts insufficient recruits and our air force is reduced to a rump which cannot be in enough places simultaneously to meet a real threat. Our veterans are plagued by lawsuits funded and promoted by our own Ministry of Defence over spurious allegations dating back many years. We have pitifully few boats to defend our coastline against illegal immigrants and when we do pick some up we bring them ashore, allow them to claim asylum and then help them play our legal system against us.

So, Paul, will UKIP under your leadership grasp the number one nettle that the other parties cannot or will not grasp, namely the full restoration of traditional British freedoms in all the above areas, and not merely the defence but also the advancement of democracy in our country?

Application of the Law

1. UK Courts to uphold only the laws passed by our United Kingdom parliaments, and answerable only to higher Courts within the United Kingdom
2. Full freedom of speech
3. Full freedom of the press (subject to the laws of libel)
4. Full equality under the law for all people, legal entities, and public bodies
5. Full and fearless investigation of criminal activity and enforcement of the law within all communities impartially
6. Only activity (including incitement, harassment, and conspiracy) to be criminalised, motivation (“racist” “hate” etc) to have no legal significance
7. Strengthen our electoral systems and scrutiny thereof to ensure free and fair elections and to prosecute those who subvert them
8. Restore our right to trial by a jury of our peers in open court for all potentially life-changing cases, including the removal of children from their parents (Family Courts) and decisions  where a defendant may be deemed to lack mental capacity or may be deprived of their liberty (Court of Protection)
9. All Family Court and Court of Protection cases to be tried in open court, as this is ultimately the only safeguard against the miscarriage of justice
10. Full withdrawal from the European Arrest Warrant and renegotiation of our extradition treaty with the USA
11. No British or Commonwealth citizen or spouse thereof to be treated less advantageously than a citizen of any other country by rules governing immigration to or residence within the United Kingdom
12. Legally enforceable undertakings to abide by the laws of the United Kingdom as enforced by its Courts to be made by all immigrants. These declarations to explicitly cover those religious or cultural practices that are illegal within the UK but which are associated with the place of origin of the immigrant. They must also acknowledge that the right to vote in an election is exercised by each voter in secret according to his or her own private views and opinions and that it is illegal to instruct or coerce anyone either to vote in a particular way or to reveal how they voted. Serious infractions may result in deportation and/or imprisonment as appropriate.
13. All immigrants to make a declaration to respect the freedom of all people within the UK (including themselves) to choose or renounce their religious faith and to worship or not as they wish within the law of the UK. Specifically they must acknowledge that blasphemy is not an offence within the UK.

The above will be correctly taken as a declaration of war by the liberal left establishment and must be pressed relentlessly with vigour and determination at all opportunities.

All policies which detract from or are inconsistent with the above will need to be exposed and refuted.

Defence

Our armed forces must be properly funded, supported, reconstructed and trained to meet the perceived threats to the Kingdom, with priority given to flexibility and overwhelming adequacy of response.

Islam

In the not so recent past, immigration was conducted at manageable levels and we were happy to welcome immigrants in limited numbers, to offer voting rights to the law-abiding and ultimately to grant full citizenship to those who aspire to it. We must now recognise that increasing pressures of immigration, together with the associated demographics of human reproduction and the understandable tendency for immigrants to live within their own communities may eventually, through the ballot box, legitimately impose an intolerant, even Islamic, government here in the UK. The available statistics speak for themselves. The crisis is not imminent but is foreseeable.

The undeniable truth is that Islam in its many variants is a collection of controversial and historically insurgent religious and autocratic polities which may condone, even demand activities that are contrary both to British law, and to our democracy. Their Sharia religious laws were laid down around the 8th and 9th centuries to govern aspects of life as it was lived in those times. Many would contend that they have not moved on and adapted over the intervening centuries.

Islam is built upon the overriding religious imperative of obedience to God’s will and their laws are not subject to democratic change but to interpretation by Muslim scholars. Democracy (where it exists) is subservient to those who interpret God’s will, and is therefore not democracy as we would recognise it.Our democratic tradition is founded upon the responsibility of our citizens to shape our society as they see fit within the law that they through their representatives enact in Parliament. Our values have their origin in Christianity. We cannot allow democracy to become the means by which a religious Parliament could impose upon us a theocratic government rooted in the laws of a past age.

The perception that we are heading towards this political, demographic and cultural crunch already exists and will only grow whilst immigration continues at current levels. Our democracy may face its biggest challenge since the Spanish Armada sought to reconcile the recalcitrant English to Papal authority – but that threat was external and could be decisively neutralised.

This debate is multi-faceted and will not be easy. We must bring the immigrant population itself into this debate in order to foster a joint understanding of what is actually happening and develop a satisfactory solution. The majority of immigrants are surely reasonable people, but we must recognise that the same may not always be true of their future Islamic leaders.

We still have time to do this properly.

Not Required

Finally, please forget about the unwanted devolved parliament for England – we have more serious fish to fry.

Jim Makin, p.p. UKIP East Hampshire Branch Committee,

16th March 2017

[Ed: This memo, which we reproduce slightly abbreviated, was embargoed until today, Monday, 20th March, to give Paul Nuttall the chance to read it first.]

But UKIP bosses love the uncritical, easy applause…​​

In Shakespeare’s time, theatre was ​a good way to communicate with the ​​masses​. Then came newspapers, then ​​film and ​later, ​television, which changed the world​. The ​big revolution ​over the last decade, ​video on the internet, has​ been ​stunning. But UKIP’s management haven’t even noticed.

​Mass communication​ ​via online video is the campaigning politician’s dream. It​’s free and ​hugely​ persuasive to audiences of millions but UKIP​ bosses still prefer​ to ‘speak’ to the membership with a laughably inefficient travelling circus of ​conferences, with the same people preaching to the same audience.

​​Why ​do UKIP bosses like conferences? Simple. They are ​easy applause from ​an uncritical audience. For wannabe Farages​,​​​ it’s ​ten ​minutes of fame​ and self importance. And UKIP members are too polite to ever shout ‘rubbish’.​ ​Conferences might have a purpose if they were intelligently staged, properly filmed, properly edited and properly broadcast but UKIP bosses have never mastered this and anyway, a video of a fifteen minute speech is incredibly dull. We can see this in the grim viewing numbers when speeches are ​put on youtube​ – not only are the numbers of ‘views’ pathetic but few people ever watch them to the end.

​​All the money, sweat, time and organisation of conferences should be directed into professionally composed mini-broadcasts, pushed out on a proper UKIP broadcast channel and advertised energetically ​via ​the many platforms at our disposal; we could reach millions, plenty of other people have​ mastered this.​

​I’ve had numerous very revealing emails from our MEPs following my post on UKIP Daily last week (here) about their rubbish output since the referendum. They just don’t get it, that giving members regular updates on what’s happening in politics by email or video is easy and costs nothing. It just takes a bit of gumption and imagination. Being ‘busy’ in Brussels seems to have sucked all the life out of them. A lot of us predicted this would happen.

UKIP output ​since the referendum has been ​dismal. Into this vacuum have rushed countless treacherous, anti-British, pro-Brussels forces​, from Minor to Major (Minor Fart, anagram, Tim Farron). Laughing all the way to the bank is George Osborne, ​newly appointed​ Editor​ of The London Evening Standard. He will use this​ free million-​a-day newspaper​ to undermine Theresa May, ​torpedo Brexit, ​subvert the Tory Party and pay homage to ​the ​pro-immigration globalists he ​touches his toes for. ​And what will UKIP do? Organise another silly conference to talk about it​, ​like in the committee scene from ​​Monty Python’s Life of Brian.​

Sadly it’s all over Guido that UKIP bosses want candidates to shut their social media accounts – this seems the reverse of what we should be doing. The right thing would be for UKIP MEPs and Spokesmen to be feeding candidates and members with juicy revelations to broadcast all over social media! Where’s the ammunition been since the referendum? I thought that when we had a rash of MEPs elected in 2014 that we’d have twenty or more Dan Hannan’s coming up with shocking stories of fraud and waste inside Brussels, something to get our teeth into. But instead, UKIP became the scandals. The amount of useful information we received would fit on a postage stamp.

Soon Theresa May will trigger Article 50. It would be big news if all of our MEPs walked out of Brussels en masse, saying ‘Article 50 has been triggered, we’re not staying in this corrupt, stifling, edifice for one more day, it is a fraud on the people of Europe’. But they won’t will they? I’m starting to think they’re hooked on the money and have no plans for their future employment.

If I sound a bit angry I’ll tell you why: millions of people have given UKIP their votes, their cash, their trust, their hope that UKIP would fight ​for Britain and common sense but since last June, UKIP has resembled Dad’s Army​, ​without ​any of ​the laughs.

Where has been the fighting talk from the UKIP ‘leadership’​,​ demolishing the lies of Blair, Branson, Soubry and all the other appalling bad losers who should be shamed out of politics for attempting to overturn the referendum? ​Where has been the full frontal attack on shocking BBC bias in politics which is poisoning opinion on key issues?

When will UKIP get themselves organised?

I have argued in the first part of this article that there is urgent need to reconsider the point at which the boundary is drawn between what government is responsible for and what is the responsibility of individuals. Why is this necessary? Every government responsibility must be paid for by the taxpayer. Government borrowing just mortgages future tax rates. Increases in taxation and the ever upward march of government responsibility erodes the freedom of the individual and increases dependency on government.

Politicians love having the power to run our lives and make us dependent on them. This keeps them in power. However, as they compete to demonstrate how much more beneficent they will be than any other party if only they are voted in, the result is the ever upward spiral of taxation and government borrowing to pay for these. The cry goes out that the rich must pay as this would be fairer taxation. Well, nearly 50% of the population pay no income tax and the top 1% of earners pay nearly 28% of the entire income tax bill. How can that be fair? Our Chancellor has a problem. As a result of his and previous governments’ need to finance their largesse at our expense they have run out of things to tax. Hence, the ridiculous approach to increasing self employed taxation because they have been given more benefits so that they are the same as employees. If ever there was demonstration of the need to reduce benefits across the board to affordable levels this was it.

The principle that all governments should follow is that the individual should be sovereign over their own lives and the governments powers of taxation, after all really only theft authorised by statute, are exercised to the minimum. All right minded members of society agree that a level of taxation is right and necessary. The aim is to produce a society in which we can live safely and achieve our aspirations. This must include that those who suffer from genuine mental and physical affliction to the point they cannot care for themselves are cared for by all of us.

Sovereignty of the individual goes hand in hand with the sovereignty of our nation. It is this that was at the heart of the BREXIT vote. The fundamental disease of the EU is the transfer of sovereignty to an unelected body. Uncontrolled immigration was just one of the symptoms of this disease. Just as the nation has got its sovereignty back so the government here must transfer powers and responsibilities back to individuals to reduce the increasingly intolerable burden of taxation and restriction of freedom for all of us.

Human nature is such that if we are offered something that is apparently free then we will tend to leap to take it with both hands. Successive governments and politicians of all persuasions are quick to characterise themselves as champions of the rights of individuals. This of course looks and sounds great until we realise that the consequence is ever deeper reliance on the hand outs of government.

We have the Human Rights Act, which again sounds great until you look at the distortions that have been achieved through it such that common sense has fled from being a sound basis on which to make decisions. The problem is that as ‘rights’ have been pushed to the centre of the political stage by governments and by many charities pursuing political lobbying, so responsibilities of the individual have been marginalised. When did you last hear a debate about the responsibility that an individual owes to society for which, if discharged properly, they earn rights? We all accept a right to a fair trial but I think most people regard the string of successful argument of ‘the right to a family life’ defence by criminals to escape common sense justice as abhorrent.

If this analysis resonates with you then the consequence is that there must be a fundamental review of all government expenditure that is aimed at providing benefits at the the level of the individual. The starting point is that the individual must take responsibility for their own lives and the situations in which they find themselves as a result of their own actions.

The major categories would be welfare payments of all types whether cash, housing, disability, unemployment and indeed health. It is not that all of these should be eliminated but we must examine how these can be reduced to achieve a sustainable and affordable framework for the future. One example would be child benefit. There is no very good argument for any benefit to arise just because people have children. These days it is indeed a choice and certainly there is even less of an argument that the more children you have the more benefit you get. It is probably time to eliminate this or at least to restrict it to the first two children of any couple, regardless of whether they remarry.

The first responsibility of government is to ensure the safety and security of the nation and its people. This is primarily achieved by maintaining a credible military capability together with security services and a domestic police force. We have witnessed a continual undermining of each of these services by expenditure reductions over decades. There has been much debate over the renewal of Trident. I am a supporter of the nuclear deterrent this provides but importantly this always was characterised as a weapon of last resort once conventional warfare had failed. The woeful lack of conventional forces is such that we could never hope to carry off any conventional conflict for more than hours. A fleet cannot put to sea as it has no aircraft carrier capability, our air force is small and our army is small and arguably under equipped. Our nuclear option therefore is raised in reality to a weapon of near first resort. The question arises as to why we are in this parlous state when the lessons of history, sadly so terribly experienced by our parents and grandparents, is that we have adopted a foolish and high risk position? Well the answer is that if you are a government intent on providing ever increasing handouts to the electorate to buy votes then you want to pull the trick of apparently doing this for nothing. Cutting defence has no apparent impact on the individual and the government can trumpet it is taking a peace dividend and gloss over the risk it is taking on behalf of a free people.

We must achieve a fundamental re-balancing of government expenditure away from subsidisation of individuals other than those with real need (the ‘there but for the grace of God’ test) and in favour of expenditure to create the framework of opportunity for the individual that is then their responsibility to grasp. Alongside this there must be sufficient expenditure to secure the long term safety, security and defence of our nation internally and externally. If our economy is to be successful then its people must become wealthier to provide the economic fuel for success. We will not get wealthy by ever upward handouts and taxation to pay for them.

Is this going to be popular with everybody? No

Is this radical ? Yes

Is this common sense? Yes

Is it an imperative? Yes.

Is it the right thing to do? Yes

It is this agenda that should drive UKIP’s future policies and I believe will appeal to a large cross section of our community and secure UKIP as a political force that provides the only credible alternative to the current Tory, Labour or Liberal brand of politics that are all just different shades of so called ‘liberal progressive’ thinking.

After the recent somewhat disastrous by-election results in Stoke Central and Copeland, are Brand UKIP and the assault on Labour’s hardworking heartlands failures?

For anyone deluded enough to believe – against the obvious evidence of eye and pocket – that ‘socialism’ (taking everything you have, nannying and bullying you, and throwing back drab crumbs) actually works, there is plenty of choice. The real thing is available from Labour or the Green Party, or in diluted (left-liberal globalism) form from the LibDems and increasingly from the TINOs (Tories In Name Only). On the Celtic fringe, the Scottish Nationalist Party and Plaid Cymru are also in on the act of fleecing the electorate and future generations, whilst depressing real wages through misguided meddling and policies. In this crowded and delusional space, there is little room for another socialism-lite party.

At the same time, the backbone of our country are visibly under assault in their communities as the left-liberal elites continue to destroy their social conservatism through uncontrolled immigration of alien, unassimilated cultures, rampant political correctness and fashionable relativeness where all lifestyles are of equal merit and traditional Judeo-Christian heritage is to be undermined if not eradicated. Consequently, ‘socialism’ (or left-liberalism) is losing its allure amongst the just managing and traditional working class because it means being governed by a high taxing, nannying PC State of Big Government which supports uncontrolled migration, which keeps wages low and which threatens ordinary people with an alien culture. Increasingly, ‘socialism’ (or left-liberal globalism) is only fashionable amongst the urban rich (or at least the well-off), the media and the young highly educated who are not directly threatened by social change.

Who is actually speaking up for the socially conservative, financially prudent, hardworking and increasingly scrap-heaped community of traditional British culture? The nearest voice that actually understands and is not afraid to speak up for forgotten once proud, hardworking communities is 3000 miles away: The Donald. In the USA, speaking up for the ‘forgotten people’ (in Trump-speak) not only produced President Trump but also a swing to the Republican Party generally by traditional ‘blue collar’ Democrats.

This our country could be just a few years behind this trend of increasing disillusionment with the left-liberal establishment, if that. And there are plenty of other lessons to be learnt from this remarkable presidential election and the Trump Revolution; in particular how practical, honest people are preferred to career politicians to bring change, being given a break to being pushed around by ruling elites using state and monopolistic power. And many ordinary people do not want social change thrust upon them by government policies, PC jobsworths or waves of uncontrolled immigration. They actually want to feel safe.

What must be annoying for many – traditionally Labour and Conservative alike – is that there is a glaring need for a patriotic, low tax, small government, anti-bureaucracy, socially conservative government that protects us, our property (in its various forms) and what is best about our existing country. None of the major parties want to do this. After the budget with an own goal by the Chancellor hitting the self-employed, entrepreneurs and prudent savers with tax increases in the name of ‘fairness’, it is glaringly obvious that the once Conservative Party (or at least its leaders) is just another version of NuLabour and the heir to Blair.

UKIP needs to position itself, as a viable anti-establishment party and alternative, to the ‘right’ of the increasingly left wing, high taxing, big spending, invasive, control freak TINOs – not as another version of discredited old or new Labour! As the TINOs march left they will become increasingly bizarre and vacuous. It is already happening with the notion that their failures of policy can be corrected by diverting attention and hammering someone else; for example, high energy prices to hit the energy companies but not to repeal the Climate Change Act, or wasteful government expenditure, e.g. to tax widows’ dividends instead of axing, say, spendthrift foreign ‘aid’.

UKIP needs to develop an honest, coherent, easily understood worldview for today and tomorrow, to explain what is happening, a worldview that resonates with the experience of many of the ignored, hard-working and just managing electorate; the forgotten people. UKIP can then go on to develop appropriate, patriotic, socially conservative, fiscally prudent, enterprise friendly policies and, perhaps most importantly of all, protect the safety, security and freedom of our country, people, heritage and property in its widest forms. This is about empowering ordinary, decent British citizens, not about making us little pawns of an overwhelming state machine!

UKIP can provide a viable set of alternative policies to the other parties, not ‘me too’ copies, and more importantly can be seen as the real and unique voice and defender of the people and all we hold dear. On BREXIT, UKIP can offer practical proposals for controlling immigration, trading within the European Economic Area and collaborating, for mutual benefit and minimum cost, with others and for dismantling the EU’s pernicious control of our lives and country through their alien control-freak laws, regulations, etc.

Plenty to do then especially on BREXIT, as the TINOs appear incapable of making a great trade or other deal with the EU for us. So far, their vacuous global vision and plan for BREXIT, and existing track record of underachievement and delay do not instil confidence. Of course they may actually be more knowledgeable and competent on the complexity involved than appears, or quick learners!

Mission… to defend our common heritage, liberty, and country until we reach our vision…: a prosperous, free, democratic and peaceful country for all people governed by the people and a beacon of hope to everyone.

Let’s make Britain Free and Great Again.

Our Western governments tell us that multiculturalism is the enlightened path and since Enoch Powell’s infamous ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech any criticism of their multicultural agenda is immediately pounced upon by the Social Marxists and Politically Correct brigade, but is this fair now that we have imported abhorrent practices such as Female Genital Mutilation, honour killings and forced marriage which are becoming more and more widespread within the UK?

Any criticism or questioning of these practises has often been aimed at the followers of Islam yet moderate Muslims claim that these are cultural and not religious practices and this is why not all Muslims in the UK subscribe to such barbaric practises. There has to be some logic in this statement or else we would be seeing and hearing of many more of these types of crimes than we already are.

However, if this is the case and these are cultural and not religious practises then surely it raises the obvious question as to why are we are still promoting the concept of multiculturalism?

Surely by doing so we are allowing these practices to continue? Often in secret without the full glare of society falling upon then. These are crimes predominantly against women and children which are happening within our borders. Our authorities failure to intervene is once more the turning of a blind eye to issues which are too hot to handle in the diverse utopian mirage of 21st Century Britain.

Let me state from the outset that the UK is a multi-racial society and has been for centuries and will continue to be so long after this article has faded from memory.

So having stated that now let’s question the unquestionable and ask what are the benefits brought to the UK from the multiculturalist experiment which couldn’t or wouldn’t have been experienced through a policy of managed immigration and laws recognising freedom of religious expression?

Which incidentally already exist

The usual banal response is that our gourmet choice has been improved massively by having a multicultural society, but the notion that somehow if we didn’t allow multiculturalism to exist that immigrants to these shores would suddenly forget recipes at the border is quite frankly laughable and beyond logic.

There must be some advantage in allowing this to happen but I am unable to give one single benefit which could not be achieved and reproduced by a sensible and managed immigration policy and a legal right to religious freedoms.

Can you?

I can think of many disadvantages however in allowing multiculturalism to exist. The first and most obvious is that cultures will inevitably clash when what is acceptable to one group is not acceptable to another. This is how and why conflict exists the world over, people are people but what separates them primarily is culture. Yet we are allowing differing cultures to exist within our island nation and within our towns, villages and local communities without expecting full or even part integration in some cases.

We are already experiencing friction caused by cultural differences and why should anyone be surprised that the indigenous population would find certain practises, views and values from the third world would be unacceptable within our liberal, western secular society is beyond me?

Yet our authorities allow this social experiment to continue, even when at best it offends sensibilities by allowing segregation of the sexes or at worst looks the other way when children are being raped and abused by grooming gangs whose cultural points of reference sees these children as fair game and the lowest of the low.

We are a diverse, multi-racial, multi-ethnic, multi-religious population and for years countless politicians have tried to define what ‘Being British’ is all about.

I would suggest that it’s very simple thing to answer.

It’s about culture, and the shared tradition and values of this wonderful, amazing country. We are weakened and divided by allowing multiculturalism to exist within our borders as we are all British and it’s only through shared values and traditions that we are united and strengthened together.

We need to be one community, where trust and certain standards of behaviour can be maintained and policed.

We need one culture and it’s the culture which millions from the four corners of the world have embraced on arrival here and it’s time to stand up for the values and traditions which have made this country a preferred destination of choice to people from all over the world.

Any traditions and practises which are at odds with the pre-existing culture should not be endorsed, condoned or ignored by our political leaders anymore. They should be highlighted, challenged and changed so as we can all enjoy shared values and standards with which to provide a safe environment to raise our families.

When we have the situation last week where West Midlands Police stated that it may not be in the interests of a child who had endured the horrors of female genital mutilation to see their parents prosecuted, then you know that acceptance of cultural practices which are at odds with those of this country has gone beyond what any reasonable person would ever have imagined possible.

Multiculturalism has failed so many and as it brings no discernible benefit which couldn’t be brought through a sensible immigration policy and religious freedom laws then it must be ended as soon as possible because too many women and children have seen their lives sacrificed to ensure this social construct continues.

Enough is enough and we in UKIP should vow to consign this to history where it belongs. We need to stand up and denounce this social manipulation which has allowed Third World cultural practises to be brought into UK society. These practises do not belong here and if the only way to stop them is to remove the multcultural express which brought them here, then grab yourself a hammer and a spanner as it’s time for UKIP to dismantle this particular train of politically correct thought.

Yet again we witness the aftermath of barbarity carried out by a crazed individual in support of a deranged viewpoint. British born he may have been but in every other way foreign, even alien.

Islam thrives under three basic conditions;

Unquestioning acceptance, which enslaves the many and empowers the few;

Denial, even when surrounded by reality;

Ignorance, which breeds fear of the unknown and thus fosters comfort in numbers.

Every time Islam is mentioned it is always in a pejorative context: violence; bloodshed; barbarity; persecution; fanaticism; grotesque punishments for absurd ‘crimes’; restrictive practices; sexual exploitation; thin-skinned sensitivity to all manner of taboos – the list goes on. It is known for its females to be married off, sometimes when barely out of childhood. It wraps them in varying degrees of submissive attire from the mild headscarf to the divisive, threatening and all-enclosing black garb that resembles an exaggerated bank robber’s disguise. There is the practice of marrying first cousins regardless of the resulting genetic birth defects in their offspring, such as blindness and deafness. Women are little more than baby machines. Look at the many trouble spots around the world and Islam won’t be far away. And why has it becomes the West’s duty to sort them out? What about the oil and cash rich nations of those areas? They must think we are stupid.

The men are the trouble and one sure way to tackle the problems we are facing is to free and empower the women. Their culture’s representative body in this country, The Muslim Council of Britain, is entirely male. The government should insist half its members are independent women or it should refuse to interact with it. Better still, deal with the Quilliam Foundation instead. We should make clear that, without regard to culture, all females in this country must be treated equally, freely and fairly. But where is Labour, self-appointed but grossly derelict champion of women? They harp on about under-representation in politics, business and numerous other areas but when needed to promote and enforce the rights of repressed women in certain closed segments of our society, where genital mutilation and other monstrous abuses are practised in a climate of fear, they are mute. Labour won’t intervene in any meaningful way because they are concerned about lost votes in this large, increasing and what they now regard as their traditional electorate.

This nation is facing a constant threat and what is worrying and tragic in equal measure is that it has its origins from within. Islam seems to lead an unhappy life here, certainly for most bar a few enlightened and integrated adherents to that faith.  Its restraints on thought, word and deed are contrary to what we have fought for and accepted as normal for many generations past. It seems to prefer isolation from mainstream society and only mixes when needs dictate. This breeds frustration and fosters contempt. Its treatment of women is disrespectful at best, criminal at worst and I find this offensive. In my country our ways are clearly not good enough to be treated with esteem by a vocal and over-sensitive minority, which has made the UK its home. In our homeland we feel the need to be alert to the possibility of more attacks from disloyal UK citizens and yet our country provides the

Means, for those who wish to strive;

Understanding, for those who are ignored;

Sustenance, for those who are hungry;

Liberty, for those who are oppressed;

Inclusion, for those who are victimized and

Motivation, for those with inquiring minds.

In short, it provides pretty much everything a person needs to live an enriched, productive and happy life… but from some of them, what thanks and appreciation do we get? Instead, we get a group of

Miserable

Ungrateful

Sexually repressed

Loathing

Insular

Misogynists

who believe in being

Inhibited

Stunted

Lemming-like

Anti-democratic

Mindless slaves to a belief system more befitting Neanderthals that sentient modern humans.

It was always my understanding that if I should wish to emigrate I would afford the chosen country the respect and courtesy of researching its customs, traditions, laws, history and, if necessary, make an effort to learn the language. I would expect to value, engage in and live the way of my new land. And yet in this country we are daily reminded that there are large sections of a community firmly stuck in the pre-enlightenment era and determined to stay there. Their belief system hates free speech but gladly abuses it to spread its own warped message. It hates freedom of thought and sees alternatives as frightening. In countries where it is the only religion it frequently and openly forbids any other practice, often under severe penalty. And our timid politicians describe it as tolerant!

Remember the child sexual exploitation by depraved Somali men in Bristol. Having been given sanctuary in our nation to escape oppression and terror, they then see fit to repay our kindness by inflicting those conditions on young girls here. Their actions now stand alongside Oxford, Rochdale, Rotherham and Telford for scale and criminality. Politicians throw their hands up in revulsion and promise to take action, yet just witness the charade that is the CSE inquiry. What a distressing state we are in.

I say enough; our country, people and good nature are being abused. In return for the safety and opportunities we provide, it is only proper that we, the indigenous heritage citizens, have a right to expect certain standard of behaviour and commitment from all who choose to take citizenship. To enhance peace and advance social cohesion, I believe it is high time and perfectly reasonable for this nation to ask certain questions and seek certain assurances:

Will you state (or restate) your allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II?

Would you fight to defend this country if it was attacked, regardless from where that enemy came?

Will you tell the police if you are aware of the planning or commission of criminal or terrorist behaviour by members of your community?

Can we rely on you to be law-abiding citizens who accept that this country has a long, proud and rich history that existed long before you and your forefathers arrived here?

Will you strive to be full members of our society and accept it is you who have to adapt to us, not vice versa?

Will you accept that while you are free to worship your religion, this not (and I hope never will be) a Muslim country?

We need to hear the answers and they need to be loud, clear and unequivocal.

To any who feel unable to commit whole-heartedly to the United Kingdom then I say this: it would be much better if you were to move to a place where you felt you could give such a commitment.We don’t want you.