Quantcast
Channel: Debate | Independence Daily
Viewing all 668 articles
Browse latest View live

TREASON

0
0
TREASON

High treason, according to Wikipedia, can loosely be described as disloyalty to the Crown. What constitutes treason has meant different things over the years and in 1828, Petty Treason ceased to be a distinct offence from murder and consequently was just referred to as Treason. You’d have to be a legal expert in many cases to be able to define clearly what treason is, but interestingly, people have been tried and executed for offences that although serious, seem relatively minor offences, compared to some of the activities of our more recent politicians. In 1946, William Joyce (Lord Haw-Haw) was executed by hanging for the treason of broadcasting German propaganda during World War 2.

What about today’s constant Islamic propaganda by our politicians? Theresa May, after the recent terrorist attack in Westminster, has had the audacity to maintain the rhetoric that:

“Islam is a religion of peace”.

The evidence would suggest otherwise, lies of course and just as much an act of treason as William Joyce’s propaganda.

According to a damning letter from the then Lord Chancellor Lord Kilmuir, Prime Minister Edward Heath, it is clear that they and the government of the day were plotting treason from the outset before signing the UK up to be a member of the European Economic Community. Kilmuir’s letter states that this was treason and suggests ways around it. Hardly surprising then that we’ve had a narrow escape from a community that morphed into an anti-democratic monster that nearly robbed us of our sovereignty entirely.

There is an interesting government video here, that states clearly what democracy is and compares it with a dictatorship. The people are supposed to be allowed a voice and a say, given a choice. We originally voted to join a common market, not to lose our sovereignty and democratic rights.

The erosion of our democratic rights was further compounded by Tony Blair’s decision to allow almost unfettered immigration from the Third World. Multiculturalism has been a disaster for the indigenous British people. Wherever this has been tried in the world, it has failed and led to endless violence. It has put our social and health services under unbearable strain, made property unaffordable for younger indigenous Brits and cost them jobs: Third World polarisation coming to the United Kingdom. In addition, and perhaps more importantly, we indigenous British are losing control of our own democracy as these immigrants are allowed to vote. We were certainly given no choice, we never voted to lose our country and democracy. As a result, our government is no longer a representative of the indigenous British People.

In my recent article: ‘Hijrah’ I wrote about the Islamic method of conquest, starting with infiltration, consolidation of power, open war with existing leadership and culture and finally; totalitarian Islamic theocracy. Unfortunately, the first two stages are complete, open warfare is imminent.

The mainstream political parties have actively facilitated this Islamic invasion; they are unable to back out now as this would finally force them to admit their decades of betrayal and treasonous propaganda. Even if UKIP were to get its act together, the demographics would be even further against us by the next general election, and by the election after that the situation would be hopeless. We have no hope of regaining our country and democracy by democratic means.

It seems that the best hope our politicians have is to maintain their betrayal and treason until we’re consumed by Islam. The history books will tell us why they saw fit to betray and sell out their own people, but they never seem to retire poor and seem to be well rewarded when they leave office: that’s another story for now.

We native and indigenous Brits have had our country and democracy stolen from us by many decades of stealth and deceit. The European Economic Community that we were deceitfully coerced into joining has tried to morph into an anti-democratic super-state, it has facilitated a mass Islamic Hijrah as a weapon against us.

For all the reasons that I’ve mentioned above, the violence and open warfare with Islam is about to start. The Muslims will not take any criticism or resistance from us and already consider our country theirs. We’ve seen by recent events in the Middle East, just what Muslims do to unbelievers, particularly Christians: they’ve been tortured, beaten, raped, decapitated and burnt alive. If we don’t make a stand, this will be our future too.

The Koran forbids Muslims to integrate with us, they must dominate us, making us convert or dies. What sane white British citizen would wish to be dominated and consumed by a savage, totalitarian, misogynist, violent and barbaric culture that practises Female Genital Mutilation, brutal gang rape and demands total subservience and obedience.

This war is coming whether you like it or not, and for the first time in our history we’ll have no government leadership, they no longer represent us and are just as much the enemy as Islam itself. Our government will be against us, including the police. What side the armed forces will be on remains to be seen.

The attack on democracy is worldwide: the United States are on the verge of a constitutional crisis, the globalists are desperate to start a war with Russia and seem to have formed a partnership with Islam or at least certain Islamic states. The world is aligning for another world war, I have no doubt; the battle lines will once again run through Britain and Europe. The fighting this time though will start on our streets, who knows where it will end up.

So, this is where decades of treason and betrayal have gotten us, it’s important to stop listening to the treasonous propaganda, you’ll be fighting this war as patriots for the return of your country and for the freedom and democratic rights of your children and grandchildren. We have been disenfranchised in our own country and we were never given a democratic choice.

I don’t write this because it’s what I want – I certainly didn’t, and none of us asked for it!

The post TREASON appeared first on UKIP Daily | UKIP News | UKIP Debate.


UKIP policy change from anti- to pro-halal slaughter

0
0
UKIP policy change from anti- to pro-halal slaughter

We must treat animals humanely.  The measure of the way that we treat them is indicative of the kind of people we are.  

Background (written by Ian):

For centuries, and long before the UK had an army of meat inspectors backed by laws affecting slaughterhouses, a culture developed in UK farming that was respectful of the animals kept for human consumption.  British native breeds (the Red Devon cattle, the Dorset Down sheep, and many others) were bred for their docile nature.  This was less so on mainland Europe and further afield. It was a British thing, and was mirrored by the kind way that countryfolk and townsfolk alike treated their dogs, pets, horses, and all animals whether in the food chain or not. No farmer worthy of the respect of his peers would be cruel to his animals.  This included treatment at the end of life, when animals were given a stun prior to slaughter, the purpose of which was to avoid causing the animal unnecessary pain.

Eventually, slaughter on farm declined as population growth led to the establishment of dedicated slaughterhouses. Traditional customs originating on farms were codified into British law.  A key line written into law and still current states :

” … all such animals should be rendered insensible to pain prior to having the throat cut with death supervening by bleeding.”

Although the death of an animal must by its nature be an unpleasant affair, the key part of this important line of our law is the first part, namely that the animal should first be stunned (rendered insensible to pain). Without that provision, the suffering in our slaughterhouses would be unthinkable. Yet this is what the current discussion is about. In the last two decades (since The Welfare of Animals Slaughter or Killing Regulations 1995) and regardless of the above law, there has grown an industry in the UK engaged deliberately in the slaughter of farm animals without the benefit of a pre-stun, see the CIWF report: “Briefing – Religious Slaughter”

The numbers have grown dramatically. In the UK 37 per cent of sheep and goats, 25 per cent of cattle and 16 per cent of poultry in Halal abattoirs were killed without being stunned first.  See this article in the DT: “Sharp rise in halal abattoirs slaughtering animals without stunning them first“  . And even where stunning is used it is “stun to stun” rather than “stun to kill”.

The number of animals affected far exceed the direct consumption requirements of the religious communities. This large scale non-stun practice is surely an outrage; the suffering caused to these animal is unacceptable; the law is not being enforced in that the exceptions are supposed to be for the consumption of religious communities only and not for the general public, see “The Welfare of Animals at the Time of Killing (England) Regulations 2015” . The whole thing is un-British and reflects terribly on the kind of society we are becoming.

Policy U turn  (written by Hugo)

I was delighted when UKIP announced the humane policy regarding animal welfare.  The policy was widely reported by the media in early February 2015.

BBC: “Should religious slaughter be banned in the UK?

Telegraph: “Ukip bans non-stun slaughtering in abattoirs

Guardian: “Sorry Islamophobes, this is about animal welfare, not religion

The policy was announced on the main UKIP website, and I saved it for future reference.

However something was wrong. Ian Kealey (PPC North Somerset) had heard that there would probably be a policy U-turn. Ian is from a farming family, he is very much concerned to treat animals well, as most farmers are.

Ian and I wrote separate documents and submitted them to the NEC. The title of his eight page document is “UKIP policy on the banning of ritual slaughter”.  Dated 13th April 2015.  Ian has given permission for it to be freely distributed, it is available here. The document makes eight well argued points in favour of the humane method using proper stunning of animals. His co-author is Kenneth Barrah, a food animal pathologist with 53 years experience in the meat industry in the UK. He lectures veterinary students at Bristol University.

My nine page document, dated 10th April 2015 has the title “Discussion on the UKIP Humane Policy – Regarding the pre-stunning of animals in abattoirs”.  It gives the background information, and my own thoughts and feelings on the matter, and that of branch members.  A typical response from members was:

“Too right Hugo. I for one am disgusted that we let animals be treated in such a way (it is 2015, we have come a long way as you described). There should be no excuses under any circumstances – these animals cannot ‘fight’ back and trust us to be ‘kind’.” Amorée Radford, B&NES branch.

Amorée is a great campaigner.  She had been heavily involved in the campaign to save the Cadbury’s factory in Keynsham from closure. It is the good, decent, enthusiastic grass-roots members like her who the party needs to listen to. If the party cannot listen to its members then what is the point of the party?

Aftermath (written by Hugo)

For me this is a red line matter.  I felt that I could not continue as a member of UKIP due to this policy. My membership lapsed in the summer of 2015 and I did not renew. I did remain as a supporter, primarily to assist the EU referendum campaign.

I also helped with the campaign in Stoke, of course without knowing about the infamous craven leaflet which Lisa Duffy confirmed to me was delivered only to “Asian” households.  She was not involved with that, it was organised by Paul Nuttall and the local branch.

For me, the term “Asian” used when the word “Muslim” is more accurate is grossly unfair to perfectly decent, well integrated Hindus, Buddhists and Sikhs etc.  We must become more precise in our language, and not inadvertently alienate those who are our natural allies.

It saddens me that UKIP has lost its way.  We must have one law for everybody and everybody subject to the same law. Religious abattoirs are de facto exempt from animal cruelty laws which apply, correctly, to non-religious abattoirs.

Without one law for all it will be impossible to have a coherent society. The issue of non-stun slaughter is important in itself of course. However it is indicative of a deeper malaise within the party and within the whole country too.  We must wake up, preferably sooner rather than later.

 

[Ed: this article has been researched and written by both Hugo Jenks and Ian Kealey.]

 

The post UKIP policy change from anti- to pro-halal slaughter appeared first on UKIP Daily | UKIP News | UKIP Debate.

UKIP and Islam – a Most Necessary Debate. Part I

0
0
UKIP and Islam – a Most Necessary Debate. Part I

[Ed: Freddy Vachha originally posted this text as comment under the article “Appeasers and Cowards”. It was far too long, so we asked him if we could post it as article because of its importance for the debate we must have in UKIP. Freddy agreed and detailed his arguments further. His reply is published below. It comes in two parts, Part II to republished tomorrow.]

For the avoidance of doubt – and, for the many who know me, there shouldn’t have been any – it isn’t as if I am opposed to everything, or even most things, in this article on UKIP Daily

I’m not. There is a lot of common sense there. But there’s a “but”.

I think that approach is a step or more too far. Fairness aside – for one thing, the public are not ready, and this won’t ready them. Enemies will have us promptly branded as BNP-Lite, or similar, within whole swathes of the media, including some who were beginning to gradually lean towards us, or at least stopping to throw the usual tired epithets at us which no longer are as effective as they used to be (“definition of a Racist = Someone who’s just won an argument against a libtard”). If we go down the route that article subliminally suggests, there’s liable to be a vote shift to the Tories (if only as virtue-signalling), and we will face electoral oblivion.

Then, who will there be to fight our corner? Arron Banks – but where are his troops on the ground? They don’t exist. Reality check: keyboard lobbyists and air campaigns don’t win elections without an army of door-knockers and leaflet-pushers; Labour will attack, with or without justification, any party of his as being the result of an attempt to buy one’s way to power. It won’t win us J***S*** up in the Midlands and North, and could lose our cause everything. Liberty GB? You must be kidding!  No numbers there – it’s seen as a single issue micro-movement with one charismatic proponent who sometimes goes too far.

Our party has, in general, got the balance right. We are shifting from being an “EU” focus to a “local issues” one. Membership numbers are back up to where they were when Paul took over. And Paul is sounding more and more decisive and insistent, appearing more and more in the news. Nigel’s was a tough act to follow – give the bloke a chance! He’s aware of mistakes made.  He’s fixing them.

Tragic recent murders (committed by a vile Islamist nutcase, operating, like in all 28 preceding premeditated terror attacks in Europe, during the eight “non-sacred” months of the Islamic calendar – the odds are worse than 100,000:1 that this could be just chance) notwithstanding:

Hysteria = OFF

If – I repeat, if – UKIP gets to be seen as BNP-Lite by the great unwashed, we are on a path with no turning back. I will assume that fear is common ground for almost all of us. How do we shift the debate so as to bring a matter of enormous concern (a permanent, irreversible change for the worse to our country) out into the open, without falling into that trap, is my exclusive focus below.

I am an agnostic/atheist – and if it matters to anyone, I have no Muslim ancestry at all. I wouldn’t be surprised if I knew as much, if not more, of the history of Islam than any other reader here, because I have studied it (and several other religions/cults) on and off since I was a kid, and from the errors I’ve read, especially among Reader’s Comments, it is evident most here haven’t.

Anyone who thinks I’m an apologist for the excesses of (say) Islam would be very mistaken; about half of my distant ancestors, perhaps guilty of being too trusting or naive due to their happy, friendly, millennium-length-duration coexistence with Jews (who were the guests, and my ancestors the hosts), and a shorter one with Christians etc., came into very direct conflict with Islam back when Islam was the brand new kid on the block.

They came off pretty badly, soon achieving Dhimmihood in the worst ways conceivable (hopefully, much of what happened is beyond your ability to imagine) and losing everything except their lives. If they hadn’t fled their homeland forever, they’d probably have lost their lives too, as did most of their brethren. I won’t dwell on this further – it’s all in the history books and contemporaneously recorded works.

Does this bias me at all against Muslims today? Absolutely not. That would be ridiculous and blatantly unjust. The persecution and elimination occurred between thirteen and eleven centuries ago. If we look back far enough in history and bear grudges, no one profits, and an eye for an eye makes the whole world go blind. But it also doesn’t prevent me from learning from history, either, and carefully assessing how much (or how little?) things have changed.

My mum’s dad died, unnecessarily young, just a few days before V-E day because he denied he had acute pneumonia and insisted hospitals were only “for our lads” (i.e., our troops).  The family lived through the Blitz – my mum, evacuated, had returned home during the “phoney” war, only to be greeted by some of the first of Hitler’s love-packets delivered to London. Another relative, a merchant seaman, has a watery grave at the bottom of the Arctic – he perished on one of the convoys, not PQ17, supplying the Soviets via Murmansk. On the other side of my family – one of my dad’s older sisters was a cryptographer in WW2; another drove a truck for the Army.  My dad’s dad was honoured with a C.I.E., the equivalent of a C.B.E., and more.  So, like many of you, perhaps I don’t need too many lectures on patriotism, thanks all the same, or on the imperative need to combat evil, using all means available. I like to think that had I been born half a century earlier and in Germany, I’d have recognised, as Churchill and a few others did, from his book and his works, early on the appalling danger to the world that Hitler presented, and used all my meagre wits, skills and guile to to assassinate the blighter, who had the Devil’s own luck. This, whatever the personal cost.

Recently, a committed Christian sincerely and adversarially wrote to me:

“… your comment that we are talking about a minority of people in Islam is not true. The Quran is to be taken literally… every single word. Any good Muslim will be waiting for the right time to strike down the unbeliever because in Britain they live in the House of War (a non-Muslim country that has not yet been subjugated) and they should be in a perpetual state of Jihad.” (See here.)

There is no reference to “House of War”, i.e. Dar-al-Harb/Gharb, AKA Dar-al-Kufr (region of heathens) in either the Q’ran or hadith, so this is not binding upon Muslims in any way.

That is not to say that many rogue (often Salafist/Wahhabi) preachers don’t claim it is, but their agenda is clear. Paul Nuttall has rightly attacked Saudi funding of UK mosques, and so do I.

These evil or misled people are at the heart of the problem. We need the Police, CPS and Judiciary to start applying laws that already exist, without fear or favour, instead of being cowardly and politically correct.

While helping a fellow UKIP PPC start their election campaign in a part of London where there are plenty of Muslims, mainly from Bangladesh, by luck I struck up a conversation with an elderly Muslim we encountered on the street and who happened to be the head of  a mosque committee. The gent was a history graduate from India, and (while not unsympathetic to UKIP, or so he said – I tended to believe him, partly because his companion was a Hindu who had been his best friend for 20 years) a Labour supporter.  When we asked him what was the biggest problem he faced running his mosque, he said “Young jihadi-recruiters coming from Walthamstow to join our mosque and then mislead our young people”.

Indeed, the “House of War” thinking had main relevance in the 8th century when the Battle of Tours thwarted the Islamic invasion of Europe, and began the reversal which culminated in their expulsion from Spain. Till then, Islamic conquests had appeared unstoppable. The term isn’t in mainstream Islam any more… most Muslims don’t think this way.

It follows that it is incorrect to claim that “Any good Muslim will be waiting for the right time to strike down the unbeliever … in Britain”, as what is in neither the Q’ran nor hadith cannot be considered to be prescriptive for a “good” Muslim.

Christian fundies too are also not unknown, friends, but they don’t go round murdering innocents in the name of religion. Unjust wars (post-WW2) waged by “Christian” countries were not for religious ends – while I’m hugely opposed to the insane 2003 war on Iraq by Bush/Bliar, who I think should face War Crimes trials, it wasn’t fought to spread Christianity.

Disturbing, apparently prescriptive, verses of the Old Testament (OT) are, to the overwhelming majority of Christians, set aside (superseded) by the NT teachings of Jesus. Doctrines like that of Everlasting Torment (Hell), introduced in the NT, leave all punishment to God, not to man. That’s a very significant difference between the NT and the Q’ran.

I don’t subscribe to cultural, moral or religious “equivalence” either, which is just woolly thinking.  If I was forced to adopt a religion, heaven (!) forbid, it wouldn’t be Islam.

However, for the sake of clarity, let’s look at the other major Abrahamic faith (i.e., faiths which profess a belief that Abraham was a prophet, and claim lineage from him), Judaism. Jewish scriptures contain more than a few disturbing, permissive (even if not prescriptive) verses, with no Messiah to later set them aside.

This said, I wouldn’t for a moment think that “Any good Jew will be waiting for the right time to “do whatever unpleasant things are permitted”. That would be absurd and I’d get rightly accused of anti-semitism (unless, heaven forbid, I was in the Labour Party, wherein I’d be promoted).

It’s simple – “Good” people try not to do wicked things. The broad agreement across religions and cultures as to what is “wicked” is better than many imagine. Most are born with this ability to distinguish.

So, IMO, it isn’t fair, wise or correct to say “any good Muslim will “do unpleasant things at the first chance”.  Such assertions simply alienate tens, hundreds or thousands of millions, including many reasonable, reasoning non-Muslims.

A much more significant debate, one where right and logic are very clearly on our side, relates to the Shariafication of Britain.

[Ed: to be continued tomorrow in Part II. Freddy also asked us to post this video showing him ‘in action’ , adding that ‘Freddy was very tired at that time, having been educating LibLabCon Remoaners all day. We’re happy to do so.]

 

The post UKIP and Islam – a Most Necessary Debate. Part I appeared first on UKIP Daily | UKIP News | UKIP Debate.

UKIP and Islam – a Most Necessary Debate. Part II

0
0
UKIP and Islam – a Most Necessary Debate. Part II

[Ed: Read Part I here. Part I concluded with the sentence picked up here in Part II.]

A much more significant debate, one where right and logic are very clearly on our side, relates to the Shariafication of Britain. This is via the Womb, the Entry Permit and the Minbar (mosque pulpit).

Inter alia, I’m a mathematician with a love for statistics, and demographic projections are often challenging. It is my opinion that there are seven factors making the Shariafication of our country a colossal issue:

(1) Significant differentials in birth rates reported by the Office for National Statistics between Muslims and others; Total Fertility Rates for women in Britain, while at about 1.7 for (self-classified) White British, and at about 1.9 – 2.1 for Hindu/Chinese/Buddhist/Sikh communities, are 3.9 for Bangladeshi Muslims, 4.7 for Pakistani Muslims and apparently (source uncertain, as I can’t find an official reference at short notice) 5+ for Somalian Muslims.

(2) Refugees are disproportionately Muslim – this is a matter of record.

(3) “”Refugees”” (spot the difference?) are also disproportionately Muslim – this is a matter of record.

(4) Emigrants are disproportionately non-Muslim – this too is a matter of record.

(5) Net conversion rate is in the favour of Islam, via Dawah – this is also supported by the evidence.

(6) Illegal immigrants (including overstayers) may be disproportionately Muslim, but such is the nature of systems in place (or, more accurately, the lack of them) that there is insufficient validated data on this. It is mainly conjectural and observation-based.

(7) Older Muslims, especially those who are first generation immigrants, are shown by many surveys to be more critical of, and sceptical about, the Sharia than are younger ones, especially those born here.

The older ones – men – may apply Sharia in their personal lives but often don’t want it as the law of Britain. The young, by majority, look favourably on the Sharia, perhaps even to become the law of the land for everyone! Scary. These young folk don’t seem to grasp that many of the freedoms they enjoy under our permissive, inclusive culture (smoking pot comes to mind) would evaporate under the Sharia…

There’s “getting stoned” – and there’s “getting stoned”!

… and the young are the future.

I have always lived in societies (across three continents) where there is freedom of thought, expression, speech, worship/non-worship, with equal rights for the sexes, no discrimination based on sexual orientation etc., and the right to dissent. I’m happy to live in countries with secular or Judeo-Christian values. Tolerance is key – but as with all things, there are limits, and when one tolerates those who are themselves hugely intolerant, one becomes complicit in the intolerance.

Sharia, therefore, even if it comes via the ballot box as suggested by (1)-(7) above, fills me with dread, even if it is only partly implemented.  Also, I can’t fly unaided (a relevant consideration for an agnostic/atheist living under strict Sharia).

Note that Sharia isn’t fully implemented anywhere, including Saudi Arabia or Pakistan, where there is civil law too.  As to Daesh (ISIS), they use the bits they want, and tack on their own stuff (beheadings, burning alive etc) for their own monstrous ends.

As a (neighbouring) Parliamentary candidate for UKIP in 2014-15, I took on hostile hustings in Walthamstow mosques, run by organisations like MEND (specifically by the real charmer found in this link), with CAGE (apologists, if not more, for Jihadi John, and as the link above shows, not unrelated to MEND) perhaps visible in the shadows.

I pressured the lower-level organisers, who had banned UKIP from attending (“no space”) – and they relented only when they realised I would not only complain to the Electoral Commission and force them to register and file expense returns for closing their hustings to us, but furthermore I would have stood outside protesting, in as fluent Urdu as I could muster, my unjust and unfair exclusion to all entering, bearing a poster with scriptural references from the Q’ran showing that “fair dealing” by them was mandated by Allah.  You can well imagine how that went down…

Additionally, if and when we are seen as attacking most British Muslims for things they aren’t guilty of, we increase alienation.  Let’s take FGM (I hate calling it circumcision, which masks the brutal nature of this crime against helpless young girls), for example. Please read this!

FGM is pre-Islamic and is of African (where, exceptionally, in several countries like Niger and Nigeria, it is mainly Christians who practice it) and Middle-Eastern origin. There is no Q’ranic requirement for it at all, and no mention other than in a couple of ambiguous hadiths. At most, it fits with certain “control the female” attributes associated with backward sections of Islamic communities.

Most British Muslims are from south Asia; what is now three countries after Partition and the 1971 Indo-Pakistan war which gave birth to Bangladesh.

FGM is unknown throughout these except among at most 25% of the Dawoodi Bohra community, who themselves represent 0.02% of India’s Muslim community, which is itself about 15% of India’s population.

Talk to the average British Asian Muslim about FGM and he or she will almost certainly express the same extreme abhorrence of it as you do, and will be as critical of traditional Somalian (Muslim) and other African practice of it as you are.

Attack or criticise him or her about FGM, and you will understandably be viewed as spectacularly ill-informed – and it may facilitate all your justifiable criticisms being swept aside by the hostile media, with the focus on the (one) thing you happened to get totally wrong. It is standard technique used (if not by fine upstanding folk like kippers, who wouldn’t stoop to such stuff) when discrediting the enemy…

So, keyboard warriors, please do consider all these things before dismissing me too as an “Appeaser” or “Coward”… and it is I who declare to you that this War on Islam, as it will be perceived, while a predictable outcome of the most recent attack, is ill-conceived and will not yield the fruit that you want.  I’m every bit as upset as you about what’s happening in, and to, our country, but I wish to be effective, not angry. I want to achieve something, not self-indulgently feel good about venting. There’s a huge difference.

Reacting that way is what the appalling perpetrators and their mentors want us to do.

An international movement to stamp out Radical i.e. Extremist Islam, in stark contrast, is long overdue. How exactly is this to be accomplished is a very good question. That should be the debate. Education plays a role in it, but that’s longer-term. Because the need is urgent, changes have to be nearly immediate – including in Britain. Control over immigration needs to be NOW, as do expulsions of enemies of our civilisation. If Frau Merkel’s apologist, guilt-ridden Deutschland can deport German-born people how can we not find a way?

Note I’m not confusing “UK born” with “UK citizens”; we can’t deport the latter, among whom the latest cowardly murderer numbered before he was happily “despatched”, without major changes to international law. But we can prosecute, convict and lock up these enemies of mankind for most of the rest of their lives.

By conflating the two, Islam and Radical Islam, however sincerely, we are depriving ourselves of the best possible allies in this – the majority of educated Muslims, reasonable people who don’t really, truly want to live under a crackpot, shambolic, contradictory, often barbaric system (which isn’t actually consistently enforced anywhere in the world, probably because it simply cannot be) which will rob them of freedoms they seek, or want to continue enjoying.

Many Muslims are only too aware of problems within Islam. They do not speak out their thoughts for fear of being criticised by co-religionists and peer groups, shunned, classified as an apostate, potentially with horrific consequences, or other sanctions. I know of a large number of Muslims who fall into this category.

At one of Nigel’s events at the Emmanuel Centre I’d co-organised, Islam TV asked me why should any Muslim want to support UKIP. My instant reply was:

“For the same reason that any sensible non-Muslim would want to support UKIP. That is, they want their families to lead happy, safe, prosperous and fulfilled lives. Why do you ask me such an obviously stupid question? Do you think Muslims have different needs from the rest? Are you racist?”

This left the bearded presenter visibly reeling – and the cameraman laughing his head off.

Of course, iTV didn’t use the footage, which perhaps didn’t fit in with the agenda. Rather like all the crushing blows I’ve delivered to the BBC and other organs of the corrupt MSM, they almost all end up on the cutting-room floor.

Right then, more than ’nuff said by me, as usual. I apologise for any unnecessary offence given.

Go on, tell me I’m a “liberal”, a fool, gullible (did you know there’s no such word as “gullible” in real dictionaries? Look it up.) or worse, one duped by taqiya or whatever. Plenty of space for that below.

Meanwhile, since atheist-temple building in Jeddah is still off the agenda, as is calling in on UKIP’s MP until we get the New Batch, I’m off to do some therapeutic leafleting. In Walthamstow, with a few from my branch if I can rouse them from spring-cleaning activities …

 

[Ed: Take note: comment posts longer than 400 words will be binned. We don’t care how famous you are, how wonderful your post is, how relevant you links are: if it’s too long – in the bin it goes. Personal attacks and language more suitable for a pub at closing time will also not be tolerated. We’ll be ruthless – this is the final warning!]

 

The post UKIP and Islam – a Most Necessary Debate. Part II appeared first on UKIP Daily | UKIP News | UKIP Debate.

TNS (The Next Step) – Part One: A Week is a Long Time in UKIP

0
0
TNS (The Next Step) – Part One: A Week is a Long Time in UKIP

A week ago I was hurriedly trying to finish an article before going to our monthly branch meeting. I didn’t quite complete it, but promised Viv I would shortly be able to send across a radical manifesto. So much has happened in the intervening period however, I’ve had to completely rewrite the first part of the article. In fact the article has morphed into a monster which has had to be split across several parts. Please indulge me. I’ve saved the radical manifesto until the end.

‘TNS’ is an abbreviation for “The Next Step”. I borrowed it from the title of a newspaper sold each week by the Revolutionary Communist Party at university and I’m still using it 30 years later. I’m not interested in being in a communist party. I’d quite like to be in a revolutionary party. Instead I’m in UKIP, which hasn’t been anywhere near as revolutionary as I would like it to be in recent months.

Last week I was just about hanging on in here in UKIP. My confidence in the leadership and central organisation was at rock bottom after the previous 9 months, with the public perception of UKIP not far behind. Everyone on this site seemed to be feeling much the same. Paul Nuttall had snatched defeat from the jaws of victory in Stoke. The press and the public were asking, “What’s the point of UKIP now?” with Teresa May ready to invoke Article 50 and get on with Brexit. The leadership didn’t seem to have a clear message as to where we were going next, despite contributors to this site having some firm opinions. Those running the party just didn’t seem to grasp the gravity of the situation and how let-down people felt.

Instead we got emails from the boy Oakden telling us everything was in hand, with veiled threats to us to stop all this criticism, because it was doing down UKIP. A party which had only received £35K in donations in the last quarter of 2016 and then spent £100K on a disastrous campaign to parachute its leader into parliament, spent several thousand on a mailshot to reassure members that it was solvent, while begging for money – a move both counterproductive in its primary intent and also demonstrating that it still hadn’t moved into the 1990s and the digital age. On top of this, following a terrorist attack on the home of our democracy, our leader circulated a weak and equivocal statement to members.

It would take dramatic turnaround to renew my faith.

Might a new party emerge which is more strident, focused and savvy than UKIP? Sad to say is a supposedly democratic society, any political organisation which is going to speak out on issues such as immigration and Islamisation needs powerful friends. UKIP has got this far partly by having the support and involvement ofmillionaire businessmen, Tory-linked public school educated establishment-connected persons,one or two lords, sympathetic journalists and editors and a high-profile talented spokesman like Nigel Farage who can tread the line between telling the stark truth and still getting invited onto Good Morning Britain. We’ve seen over the last few years what happens to predominantly working class grassroots organisations who try to tackle these issues. They get crushed and demonised. Their leaders are personally destroyed, dragged through the courts, bankrupted and even imprisoned.

I was therefore excited to receive an email on Friday night from Arron Banks announcing the launch of a new movement called the Patriotic Alliance. Could this it be it? The new movement to be the standard-bearer of the Patriotic Spring in the UK? Well-funded, well-organised and with its finger on the pulse of public opinion? I would join in a heartbeat. Sorry Paul but history sometimes only gives you one chance and you blew it.

As I read the detail of the email though, it wasn’t clear whether this was a new party. In fact it wasn’t clear at all what the Patriotic Alliance would be or who else was involved in it. It vaguely said it would assist independent candidates to win seats in Parliament from the most corrupt and negligent MPs. It also talked about an Australian-style points system for immigration into the UK, when anything short of a near-moratorium is totally inappropriate for a country which is now the fourth most densely populated in the world.

Sadly Arron Banks is just another of those factional egotists which UKIP seems to be plagued by. He’s been talking about setting up a party like the Italian M5S for a couple of years. Instead he just creates bad publicity for UKIP. I thoroughly agree that Paul Oakden should go (as he promised he would) and be replaced with someone who can put a professional organisation in, but really Banks should have made his criticism and offer behind the scenes. There’s no way Nuttall could have caved-in publicly. And the claim be had been suspended from the party after not renewing his membership? Arron Banks is a timewaster who hasn’t given UKIP any money since the 2015 general election.

I was overjoyed on Saturday to hear the news that Douglas Carswell had left the party. It’s a  shame he was allowed to leave of his own volition, giving him the opportunity to spin it that UKIP had now served its purpose. A case of too little too late methinks. He should have been kicked out of UKIP. Nuttall was trying too hard to be a unifier though to bring him into line. He’s gone now at least. I had been seriously asking myself, “What am I doing in the same party as this man?” I am exactly the kind of Brexiteer who Douglas Carswell joined UKIP to neutralise and support just the kind of populism he wants to avert. There’s an outside chance that he was right that the referendum campaign wouldn’t have been with Nigel Farage leading it. In that case I say, “Thanks Doug. I now intend to use the result as a springboard to usher in exactly the kind of nativist populism you despise.”Anyroad, it seems to have set UKIP free.

On Monday UKIP announced its six tests to prove Brexit means Exit. Nothing to disagree with here.Then I’m reading more reports of UKIP statements in the media. Nuttall is talking of rebranding the party – not top of my list of priorities, but it all helps. Freddy Vacha joined the debate on this site to bring out the nuances of how we approach Islam.

On Tuesday night Paul Oakden has emailed members to say the leadership will work with John Rees-Evans on building our direct democracy credentials – something which several UKIPDaily contributors have been calling for. He produces a good video too. So long as he’s kept away from interviewers, I cautiously welcome this.

Nuttall is promising wide-ranging reforms of the party, its structure and its constitution, along with involving the membership in policy and decision-making. I was astonished to learn that I my place at UKIP’s Environmental Forum in June has been confirmed, despite my history of environmental activism. Hopefully it won’t take until June for us to have a full set of policies.

Could it be true? Could Paul Nuttall and the party leadership final be getting themselves in gear and stepping up to the plate?

To top it all, Teresa May has finally, belatedly invoked Article 50. Hot Dang! Even Johnny Rotten has been praising Brexit.

Seriously though, we’ve got a lot of work to do – and we haven’t done ourselves any favours over the last 9 months to put it mildly.

To borrow a book title from Lenin: ‘What is to be done?’ ….

[To be continued in Part II tomorrow!]

The post TNS (The Next Step) – Part One: A Week is a Long Time in UKIP appeared first on UKIP Daily | UKIP News | UKIP Debate.

Torquay – Who and why?

0
0
Torquay – Who and why?

I am loath to write anything negative about the party at the moment, I really am. I have, as many of my fellow kippers have, a renewed sense of purpose, I am excited, both on the back of the historical day yesterday when Article 50 was enacted, together with the promise of re-branding, new policies, direct democracy and especially with the general sense of wellbeing renewed optimism and most importantly unity.

The purge of certain people from the party is a positive, a show of strength and long overdue. It has settled many minds with regards to future travel for this party. Open letters and emails informing and educating are the way forward and you are to be congratulated on these steps.

This renewed hope has filtered down to my own individual campaign to be elected on May 4th as a county councillor in North Yorkshire. I have had help, never had much before, but yes much needed and wonderful help from other kippers with leaflet distribution. I am eternally grateful for that help it is much appreciated. The campaign goes on.

I recently attended an event in Leeds and gave the opening speech about sharia law to an assembled gathering, mainly of UKIP members but other members of the public were there too. Anne Marie Waters was the main speaker from Sharia Watch UK, a brave lady and she spoke very well and passionately about Islam and especially Sharia Law….more on that in later blogs. So all is going well, all is good within the family.

The national conference in September this year is to be the big launch, the big reveal. We are expected to attend in our hundreds to have our souls warmed through, we will be enlightened, enriched and thoroughly thrilled with the new direction, structure and ethos.

Or will we?

Who on this Gods-given earth decided to hold this most important of gatherings in Torquay?

It is simply miles from anywhere, except of course Newton Abbot which is within spitting distance compared to most other places. Bournemouth was a stretch last year to be honest. Torquay is in my humble opinion the most ridiculous place to hold a national event, a national event of such importance to the future of this political party.

What has happened to taking over the labour heartlands, when was ever Torquay a labour heartland? Surely a strong message to the labour supporters in the north would be a conference of their future political friends in their own area.

What about the evident disconnect between the party hierarchy, the NEC, the leader and the rank and file? You are being ridiculous, asking people to travel to such a far flung outpost. The party members in the north and by this, I mean north of Manchester, feel isolated, left out, forgotten and sidelined. This decision goes no further toward healing that perception.

A quick call around of my fellow kippers up here in Yorkshire drew a very definite “will not be attending”. Let`s look at the practicalities:

Train from York £314 return, 5 hours 55 minutes each way.

Train from Birmingham £190 return, 3 hours 26 minutes each way.

Train from London £106 return, 3 hours 5 minutes each way

I stopped looking to compare coach prices, when I found out that the average journey on those enclosed human soup sweat boxes, is 9 hours 55 minutes.

The recent events at Derby Cricket club have been well received, the distance travelled for most of the membership is doable. The hotels around the event are adequate and in abundance. The railway station is not far from the venue. The venue is open modern and airy, lots of places to meet, chat, have a coffee or something a little stronger. It is central.

For goodness sake – this is a mistake. No, before people reading this begin to think that I am just a Yorkshire centric, never leaves Gods county bigot, far from it. I just want a fair shake of the stick for people in the north of the country, and by that I truly mean the people who live and operate north of the Bristol Channel.

Change your minds quickly, Paul and Paul. Make this conference our best ever, make it the turning point on our annus horribilis. Carry on your good work in unifying this party, it is going well. Do not isolate your friends in the north.

The theme of Onwards and Upwards simply must involve everyone. It must give everyone the chance to attend. It must not preclude by geography and cost, because for sure that is what this venue will do.

The post Torquay – Who and why? appeared first on UKIP Daily | UKIP News | UKIP Debate.

TNS (The Next Step) – Part Two: What is to be done?

0
0
TNS (The Next Step) – Part Two: What is to be done?

[Ed: you can read Part I here]

Let’s recap on where we are, so we can grasp the size of the task ahead of us.

After the stunning successes of 2016, early 2017 has seen the Patriotic Spring falter momentarily. Following the excitement raised by his rhetoric, Donald Trump has packed his administration with neocons and former Goldman Sachs employees and settled into Republican business-as-usual, with his top priority further lining the pockets of his billionaire buddies. His supposed Muslim travel ban was slapped down in court and was just a resurrected old Obama order which only restricted a tiny proportion of the world’s Muslims – certainly not his rich Saudi friends.

Our own erstwhile leader showed up in the ‘capital of Brexit’ in a flat cap, promising to scrap VAT on fish and chips, only to find this didn’t cut the mustard with the working classes.

Geert Wilders didn’t top the poll in the Netherlands after all, only winning about two thirds of the seats he had been predicted to get.

As for the French presidential election, Marine Le Pen will be lucky to come top in the first round, only to be trounced by tactical voting in the second. (Sorry, I forgot, UKIP won’t ally itself with the FN, because we regard them as socialists. Why weren’t we there in Koblenz?)

Here in the UK, the possibility of an early general election has receded with Theresa May now having invoked Article 50 at long last. Perhaps that’s a good thing. I feel it in my waters that UKIP is going to take a beating nationally in May’s local elections.

I come to ask myself questions around our UKIP top brass like ‘Would you put yourself on the line for these people?’ ‘Would you give your money to these people?’ and ‘Would you give up your time to traipse the streets and deal with the hostility to campaign for these people?’ I don’t know right now whether I would answer ‘yes’ to these questions. And as for the question ‘Would you have these people running the country?’ Well, having read Thomas Slivnik’s resignation letter, and hearing about how those at the top of UKIP behave, the answer I’m afraid is ‘No’.

Will UKIP even exist as a meaningful political force by the end of the year? I recently listed the existential threats to UKIP:

  • Electoral collapse (If we poll less than 10% nationally in the local elections this may, we might as well call it ‘game over’)
  • Lack of funds, leading to bankruptcy
  • Falling membership/volunteers
  • Ongoing factional/egotistical infighting
  • Financial/legal irregularity (e.g. EU investigation into MEPs’ spending), leading to court/bankruptcy
  • Non-toxic leadership fails to inspire voters/volunteers
  • Lack of professional organisation
  • Arron Banks party attracts voters/volunteers & is better organised
  • Alt.right party with a stronger anti-immigration/Islamisation/PC message emerges
  • UKIP elects a nonentity or liability leader
  • Concerted media demonisation/censorship
  • Intimidation by leftists
  • Legal persecution of party
  • Tories deliver

The painful lesson of Stoke is that, while we’re still banging on about Brexit, as far as the public’s concerned the referendum’s happened. That was last year’s story. Theresa May’s getting on with it. What other policies do UKIP have or were they just a single issue party?

What tilted the balance and won the referendum was that, to many ordinary people, it was a proxy vote on immigration – Muslim immigration in particular. The old Tory Eurosceptics never saw it that way and, going by recent ministerial statements, there’s a strong change the public will feel betrayed when immigration doesn’t come down significantly. That is what we should be putting centre-stage as the next great battle, along with the struggles against political correctness and cultural Marxism.

It takes a very special person to stand up and lead a party which stands for that – someone who will put their head above the parapet and determinedly push on despite the hatred and attacked thrown their way – someone like Nigel Farage. Paul Nuttall may not be that kind of guy. I’m told he sat out of the first leadership election because he had seen what had happened to Farage and didn’t want that for his family. I can understand that. I have had some rather fraught conversations in my household about my involvement in UKIP and its implications. In that case though he should have let Raheem Kassam step up and take on the mantle.

Still, Nuttall seems to be speaking out a bit more now, so let’s give him another chance (even if much of the electorate may not after he exaggerated how much he was affected by Hillsborough). After all, it’s not like we can have yet another leadership election without becoming an even bigger laughing stock in the eyes of the public. Another leadership election would be an expensive, embarrassing navel-gazing diversion which might just finish the party off. We have to keep Nuttall for the time being.

Unfortunately Brexit is the only big thing we can all agree on. UKIP is an awkward coalition of economic libertarians, who welcome free movement of people like they welcome free trade in everything else which benefits business, and patriots who want to halt the demographic disaster which is unfolding. I am firmly in the latter camp.

Paul Nuttall set himself the task of uniting the party, but maybe it’s time for it to split. Thankfully Carswell is now gone. Perhaps his buddies can return to their spiritual home in the Tory Party. Either that or I start looking out for a party which represents what I’m passionate about, along with quite possibly the great majority of UKIP’s members and potential support base.

So, back to TNS. What is the next step?

UKIP still is the largest patriotic party in the UK, with a recognised brand, grassroots organisation and possibly a double-digit share of the national vote. It’s not finished yet. We’ve got 3 years till the next general election now. A lot can change in that time too, quite possibly to our advantage. By that time Stoke will be ancient history, as long as Nuttall learns from the experience, doesn’t do anything else stupid and doesn’t parachute himself into any by-elections for the time being.

And what if UKIP doesn’t survive? Think of the left. The left is not just the Labour Party. If you put an end to the Labour Party there are still legions of left wing groups and activists who would simply carry on doing what they’re doing. Most of them aren’t even in the Labour Party, (a lot of them regard Labour as too moderate – crazy, hey?) but they work together and autonomously and they have been devastatingly effective. It’s like a many-headed hydra. If you slice one head off, it just keeps coming at you.

Next I will describe this many-headed hydra in more detail …TNS (The Next Step) – Part Three: The Many-Headed Hydra

[To be continued in Part III tomorrow]

The post TNS (The Next Step) – Part Two: What is to be done? appeared first on UKIP Daily | UKIP News | UKIP Debate.

TNS (The Next Step) – Part Three: The Many-Headed Hydra

0
0
TNS (The Next Step) – Part Three: The Many-Headed Hydra

 This is the third part in a series of four.  Find the first part and the second part and the last part will be published tomorrow. 

 Politics isn’t just about getting people elected – though that’s part of it. It’s about fighting on all fronts – PR, social media, networks, letter-writing, petitions, consumer pressure, etc. – rather than just one, and achieving change.

Politicians want to get elected, to keep their jobs and advance in their careers. Think of the major parties as policy supermarkets. If they think a policy will sell, they’ll stock it. This way we move the whole political centre of gravity to the right. We’ve already done it with Brexit. We did it with grammar schools. We can get more of our policies adopted without being in government – or even having any MPs.

There’s a lot of political communication going out there, especially online, which UKIP barely seems to be a part of. YouTuber Paul Joseph Watson is getting up to 2.4 million hits per video. The Infowars news site in the US gets more traffic than mainstream media sites like CNN (hence the panic about ‘fake news’). Britain First (dare I mention them) have been very effective spreading their message on Facebook. We may be reticent about being associated with some of these people, but we can learn a thing or two from their communications strategies.

We can all think of ways that UKIP has failed. It’s easy for people like me to carp from sidelines. Building, planning and organising applies equally at the branch level. I have pulled together list of areas we need to think about. Other branches and regions may be far more advanced than South Wales in these areas so apologies if I’m teaching you to suck eggs. Indeed I welcome you experience and advice.

It’s neither a small nor an overnight job but we need to get started. Tony Robbins said most people overestimate what they can do in one year and underestimate what they can do in five. We have three years until the next general election. Hopefully there’ll be no more Euro elections. In Wales we have no elections planned between this May and 2020. We therefore have three years to build support and candidate reputations.

Skills database

What skills do we have within our membership and supporters? Let’s ask them and build a database and utilise those skills. Examples of the skills and experience which may be useful include:

  • Elected political office
  • Election agent
  • PR/media
  • Social media
  • Graphic design
  • Running a business
  • Management
  • Senior public sector
  • Pressure groups/think tanks/campaigns
  • IT/web
  • Organising events
  • Members of like-minded campaigns
  • Who are our willing volunteers?

Candidate support & PR

What support do candidates need? What support is available from Head Office? Here are some examples of support that we can look at providing:

  • PR/media – advice/message/avoiding ambush or embarrassment/research/resources/opportunities for publicity/press releases & briefings;
  • Videos/leaflets – professionally produced by volunteers with applicable skills/standardised;
  • Social media – tweets & retweets/Facebook/YouTube – articles/statements/videos/graphics;
  • How to spin/minimise damage of ‘skeletons in the cupboard’ if they come up;
  • Campaigns between elections – specific issues/co-operation with like-minded groups/campaigners;
  • Counter-campaigns – countering hostile propaganda/narratives;
  • Use sympathetic & alternative media e.g. Breitbart/Westmonster/Express/RT/Infowars/YouTubers.

Communications

  • Targets – Membership/social media/network of like-minded people/campaigners;
  • Website – consider national branch website template – must be good/clear – easy access to policies/candidates/councillors, MEPs & AMs/news & campaigns/feedback/membership & volunteering;
  • Leafleting volunteers/areas – Who in the membership is willing to leaflet? Are they willing to regularly leaflet a specific area?;
  • Newsletter / social media;
  • Networking/co-operating with like-minded groups/campaigns.

Campaigns & Fundraising

  • Membership drives – Street stalls/leaflets/social media/sympathetic media/like-minded campaign groups;
  • Speakers/public events – Party figures/other sympathetic campaigns/debates/film screenings;
  • Publications;
  • Crowd-funding for specific campaigns;
  • Letter-writing – Amnesty-style;
  • Consumer campaigns/boycotts;
  • Petitions – easy-to-do at home online or promote someone else’s;
  • Horses for courses – some people may not be UKIP supporters or willing to be members, but may share some of aims – work with them/involve them in campaigns.

Regional Co-opreration

  • Sharing skills, experience & contacts;
  • Candidate selection – organise hustings – wider source of candidates where suitable ones not available within branches;
  • Co-ordinated election campaigns – policy ideas/common; messages/shared skills/targeting seats/campaign assistance/media;
  • Feedback to Head Office/leadership.

We also need to consider resilience. UKIP may not survive as a powerful political force. In that case we don’t want to lose the work we’ve done or the skills and experience we’ve built up. We should be able to lift and shift it to a new organisation, or for the network to exist outside any particular party, helping like-minded campaigns.

Online platforms such as Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter and Google are increasingly censoring what they brand ‘hate speech’ and ‘fake news’. We need to be able to circumvent them by building an email list and communications network which is not reliant on these. Do we need a legal support/defence fund if the authorities start getting heavier-handed?  Leftists have developed a number of techniques over the years which we can borrow. A telephone or email tree enables fast communications and avoids the whole membership/contacts list being held in one place. We can publish online information and advice so that people know their rights and encourage its copying and wide dissemination.

… And now for my radical 25-point populist manifesto … That’ll have to wait till the next part.

The post TNS (The Next Step) – Part Three: The Many-Headed Hydra appeared first on UKIP Daily | UKIP News | UKIP Debate.


TNS (The Next Step) – Part Four (a): A Radical Manifesto

0
0
TNS (The Next Step) – Part Four (a): A Radical Manifesto

[Ed: Part 3 with links to the earlier parts is here. Part Four has been split into (a) and (b). Part (b) will be published tomorrow.]

In the last part (indeed, in the first part) I promised in radical 20-point populist manifesto. Here it is.

(1) Brexit must mean clean Brexit and we should repeal of the European Communities Act 1972 right away. We will stand for no sell-outs on our fisheries, staying in the ECJ or ECHR or making further payments. Brexit is not an end in itself though. It’s just the prerequisite which enables to restore and change Britain for the better.

Dare I say it though, the general public may have started to get a bit bored of hearing about Brexit. Yes – we must hold the Tories feet to the fire. It’s time however for us to move on to the next battles and put other policies centre-stage.

(2) A near-moratorium on immigration. For many the June 2016 vote for Brexit was a proxy referendum on immigration. Now the Tory establishment is saying it will take years to achieve any significant reduction in immigration and it may not be possible at all. Even UKIP’s own leadership proposes an inappropriate points system as used by Australia – a vast nation of mostly immigrants. Britain is already full. We’re a small heavily populated island with infrastructure, housing and services already under immense strain caused by a net influx of a city the size of Cardiff every year – and that’s just the official figures. Once we have the situation under control, we may accept limited and managed immigration of highly skilled law-abiding individuals from countries similar in culture & income level to the UK.

(3) Protect our borders and stand firm on illegal immigration. Europe is in the grip of a crisis of illegal immigration, from the million or so allowed/invited to pour in through the Balkans in 2015, to the thousands the EU and NGOs assist criminal traffickers to ferry across the treacherous Mediterranean into Italy, to those who still terrorise truckers in an attempt to smuggle themselves via Calais. Reports are there are millions more likely to attempt to come to Europe in the next few years. We do not accept any legal or moral obligation to absorb these people.

We should track, identify and swiftly remove illegal immigrants, visa overstayers and migrant law-breakers. We must streamline the process and remove legal impediments to us being able to do this.

We need to take radical action to police our borders and address the migrant influx at source. This is one area where we can and should emulate the Australians. We must fully resource and empower our border force, coastguard and navy to turn away illegal migrants. We need to tackle both the criminal gangs and the NGOs who assist and promote illegal migration. Where appropriate we should leverage foreign policy, diplomacy and aid money to staunch the flow.

(4) A pragmatic economic policy based on global trade, encouragement and reward of enterprise and hard work, regulation only to the extent strictly appropriate and the  restoration and defence of British jobs. What won the US presidential election for Trump was the promise to restore jobs lost to offshoring. A similar process has been going on with British jobs.

Many Brexiteers in the Tory Party (and UKIP too) seem to want to pursue a more extreme version of Margaret Thatcher’s free market doctrine, which was both brutal and naïve. We saw the closure of whole industries and the buying-up of others by foreign interests, while other European governments supported their key industries. This primarily benefited the wealthy and we have seen a growing pay gap ever since. Swathes of the country have never recovered. Many of those jobs which have been created are low-paid and insecure.

Well-paid jobs are concentrated in London and the South-East of England, causing problems of congestion, overcrowding and unaffordable housing. Our economy needs to be more regionally balanced.

We shouldn’t be looking to immigrants to meet any skills shortage. We should put in place a large-scale training programme to skip-up British people to fill these jobs.

(5) There must be equality before the law and not selective enforcement. Seeing others treated differently creates resentment and division. The must be no softly-softly approach to ethnic minority crime and unrest, while meting out the full force of the law to indigenous transgressors. No allowing leftists to demonstrate and riot as they please while clamping down on the far right! No turning a blind eye to mosques established without planning permission and resulting parking chaos! Especially no sharia law – not only is much of it repressive and at odds with modern Western values, allowing it does an injustice to Muslim women all those from a Muslim background who want to enjoy the same freedoms as everyone else in modern British society.

(6) There are special problems with imported Muslim culture which we need to address. While most ethnic minorities who have settled in the UK in recent decades largely live peacefully and within the law, do not impose their culture on others and have started to integrate into British society, Muslims are notably different. While we shouldn’t tar all Muslims with the same brush, Islam is characterised by a rigid adherence to an intolerant and aggressively superior religious dogma, along with cultural attitudes and practices which are repressive and in some cases abhorrent to modern Western values. Far from assimilating over time, Muslims in the West are becoming more radicalised and uncompromising. The appalling attack in Westminster last week is still fresh in our mind.

Most political and police leaders across the Western world determinedly refuse to admit that large-scale importation of Muslim peoples and their resistance to adopting Western values is a problem. Instead they appease it, thereby emboldening it.

We need to renounce multiculturalism and instead promote cultural assimilation. We need to halt further Muslim immigration. We need to outlaw foreign funding of mosques and root out Salafism. We must not recognise sharia law and instead uphold British law. We must not be intimidated by the threat of a violent reaction. There is no place in the UK for those who cannot live by our laws and values. We also need to stop bombing Muslim countries.

(7) Restore and safeguard freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is a fundamental characteristic of a democratic society, as are freedoms from routine surveillance, political intimidation and victimisation. These rights have been eroded in recent years by “equalities” legislation, “hate speech” laws and a politically correct culture of censorship, no platforming, safe spaces and offended leftists. We are starting to see increasing online censorship of opinions which dissent from or challenge the dominant leftist narrative, ironically described as “liberal” or “progressive”.

This has had a chilling effect on society, with disturbing parallels to other socialist regimes over the last century. Our entertainment culture is bland. People are careful what they say in the workplace for fear of losing their job over making a joke, flirting or not using politically correct language. Respected academics are hounded out of their positions for a slip of the tongue. Universities are places of indoctrination rather than challenging ideas. God help you if you express the work opinion.

Freedom of speech in the UK must be constitutionally protected as it is in the US. Institutions, laws and codes of conduct which inhibit this must be reformed. Those who censor and bully must be brought to book. No one has the right not to be offended. We must all be free to point out that the Emperor really has no clothes.

(8) Military action only be taken to defend our homeland and protect us from tyranny. To that end our military should be appropriately resourced and our service-people supported. Foreign policy not be driven by self-aggrandising politicians or the vested interests behind a shadowy military-industrial complex. The military interventions we have involved ourselves in over the last 15 years have been immoral, exorbitantly expensive, caused widespread death and suffering, left those countries in a worse state than we found them in and been counter-productive for our security. We should not be talking-up a revived Cold War with Russia. We should abandon outdated grandiose notions of being a world power, which necessitate us being allied with unsavoury regimes like Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Israel. Let’s not spend untold billions bombing third world countries and renewing Trident, while we are deeply in debt and the NHS is underfunded. Our sole priority should be to look after ourselves and our own prosperity.

(9) No more public bailouts for the banks. The disproportionate and self-enriching influence of the financial services industry in the corridors of power also needs to come to an end. Lessons haven’t been learnt from the 2008 crash. Global debt and derivatives are now even more dangerously overinflated. Measures need to be enacted to protect savers and minimise impact on the person in the street so financial institutions can be governed by market forces and be allowed to go bankrupt when insolvent. Alternatives to the current system of creating money as debt, such as positive money, should be considered.

(10) Properly-funded NHS and National Insurance for those who have contributed. Ordinary working people are willing to contribute to a safety net, an NHS and a truly invested National Insurance scheme for hardworking people like them. They are less willing to see their money go to those who play the system, those who don’t pull their weight and all-comers who have never contributed. We should be willing to learn from other countries (definitely not the US) to improve the service, efficiency and funding of the NHS.

 

[Don’t miss the final part, Part 4 (b), tomorrow!]

The post TNS (The Next Step) – Part Four (a): A Radical Manifesto appeared first on UKIP Daily | UKIP News | UKIP Debate.

TNS (The Next Step) – Part Four (b): A Radical Manifesto

0
0
TNS (The Next Step) – Part Four (b): A Radical Manifesto

[Ed: This is the final part in the series. Part Four (a) – also providing links to the earlier Parts – can be read here]

Continued from Part Four (a):

(11) Address the deficit with a fundamental reassessment of the role of state. Normally manifestos and campaigns emphasise cutting taxes, defending public services and making new spending commitments. You can’t have your cake and eat it though, especially in these times of mounting deficits and unprecedented national debt. Trimming round the edges isn’t enough. We need to step back and consider what the state should and shouldn’t get involved in. There are too many do-gooders who want to trumpet their morality and be charitable with everybody else’s money, along with funding their pet causes. Charity is a personal choice and shouldn’t be enforced through taxation. Nor is it the role of the state to nanny us. We’re grown adults, thanks, and we’ll take our own decisions.

(12) Roll back cultural Marxism. Media, education, the justice system & popular culture need to be reformed and freed from the dead hand of the leftist agenda. Legislation mandating “equality & diversity” needs to be repealed and obligations for employers to provide “training” in such areas ended. Those in public sector professions, indeed the corporate sector too, who persist in pressing this agenda need to be purged from their positions. A generation of young people, graduates and public sector professionals may need to be re-educated. Orwellian neologisms such as “progressive”, “hate”(as a noun or adjective) and “diversity” must be expunged. Public money must no longer go to leftist pressure groups, advisors and training such as Common Purpose. Popular culture should teach kids it’s cool to be clever and a high achiever, not a criminal drug dealer dropout. Let’s appoint Raheem Kassam as DG of the BBC!

(13) The big come-clean. The establishment needs to be honest about when it has deceived the public and where the shady influence has been brought to bear behind the scenes – from the Iraq War to the deaths of individuals like David Kelly to VIP child sexual abuse. The libel law must be reformed and the Official Secrets Act as well, so that avoiding political embarrassment or protecting powerful people and institutions cannot be deemed ‘national security’. Records must be released, enquiries must take place and the findings be widely publicised. Where appropriate, key players must be prosecuted, including war crimes cases.

(14) A new (or old) deal for young people. The generation now starting work is the first to be looking at a worse standard of living than their parents. Starting out saddled with student debts, they are more likely than not to find themselves in a non-graduate job. Competition for good jobs is tougher if they don’t have wealthy parents to fund them through an unpaid internship. Housing costs are sky high, especially in London, where many of the job opportunities are, and many may never get on the housing ladder. Pension projections are paltry. Even their ultimate inheritance from their parents is likely to be consumed by care costs. We need well-funded technical colleges providing training in the skills our economy needs, immigration under control, high-value employment and reform of the financial system.

(15) Pride in our culture & history. We must abandon what I call “cultural low self-esteem” – the feeling that we should somehow be so ashamed of our culture and history that we must forever atone for it and that we as a people, culturally and genetically, should be allowed, assisted even, to die out. All nations have episodes to be celebrated and to be regretted. Britain has given more to the world than most nations. While we should not whitewash our history, we should celebrate our successes, our traditions and the identity which binds us together. We must teach this to our children. We are all the better for our tolerant attitudes and the evolution of our ideas. This makes us better than societies who have are less tolerant, democratic and civilised. Those who choose to live here need to understand that these are the traditions we expect them to embrace, and they should be happy to do so. Isn’t that what they flee to Britain for? British citizenship is not a right but a privilege. We should seek to restore the traditional appearance of our cities from 20th century brutalism – as they do in Germany.

(16) Favour the law-abiding citizen over the criminal. Criminals must be taken off the streets and suitably punished. Criminals are given too many chances and there is too much focus on their rights, rather than those of the victim. The victim should not find themselves in court for defending themselves. Citizens should not be punished for taking matters into their own hands where law enforcement has failed. The compensation culture and industry of lawyers benefitting criminals and interfering in justice being done must be curtailed. Britain must pull out of the ECHR.

(17) There must be rules for politicians and they must play by them. Being an elected representative is a full-time job and politicians should not be compromised by other interests. They should not have outside consultancies and positions which pay them hundreds of thousands and could influence them. If they have meetings with powerful companies and lobbyists, these should be minuted and made public. MPs and ministers should be subject to codes of conduct no less stringent than councillors or civil servants and these must be adhered to. The right to claim expenses should be strictly circumscribed. There should be automatic recall if attendance falls below a particular level. There should be no double-jobbing. (Does that catch-out some UKIP politicians? Damn!)

(18) Value traditional notions of family, gender & sexuality. We should promote a healthy ideal – a happy family of a husband and wife with children as a model to aspire to. Family breakdown costs society an estimated £48 billion per year. It is normal and healthy for women to want to become mothers and take a break from their careers to do so.

Gender is binary and defined by the biological facts of birth genitalia and chromosomes. The state should stay out of our private lives. It’s our own business whether we want to live in a same-sex relationship, to be promiscuous or be systematic about picking up. Someone may struggle with the mental illness of gender dysphoria and therapy should be available for that.

We are not entitled to expect others to accept our lifestyle though if it deviates from the norm. Homosexuality and transsexuality should not be normalised in education or the media. We should also consider carefully the adoption and fostering of children with non-traditional families and not provide IVF on the NHS in these instances.

Family courts must give a fair deal for fathers.

(19) Britain needs a demographic policy. The transformation afoot is scary if you think Britishness is something worth preserving, look at these nubmers: 824,000 NI nos. registered to immigrants in the year-to-September 2016; 27.5% of births in England & Wales to foreign-born parents, over 80% in several London Boroughs. While immigrant populations tend to have a higher birth rate, that among indigenous professionals is collapsing. It’s not cool to have kids. Meanwhile the number of children taken into care by social services from the underclass is leading to an increasing financial burden on local authorities and thousands of kids predisposed to crime, addiction and unemployability.

We need to consider what our target population is. I would say that is somewhat less than what the population has increased to in recent years. We need to have a working population able to support the increasing number of retired people. We should generate this from our own population, rather than relying on importing immigrants who often don’t share our culture and values. We should encourage those best-placed to raise emotionally healthy and industrious children in a traditional family environment and discourage those who aren’t.

(20) The British people are sovereign in our land. Last but not least. All moral authority for the jurisdiction of this land leads back to the British people. We are the true owners of this land. The ultimate loyalty of the government and all domestic institutions must be to the British people – not to big business or oligarchs, not to supranational organisations or international agreements, not to world humanity, not to any ideology or religion, not to any secret society, not to any landowners or aristocracy, not even (and I’m going to upset some of you here) the monarch. Britain should be run on behalf of, and in the interest of, the British people. It us, and only us, to whom they are answerable.

~~~~~~~~~~ The End ~~~~~~~~~~

Shock! Horror! How could I propose such a hateful nativist politically incorrect programme? Lefties will be running into the streets, screaming and renting their clothes in a state of offence meltdown. Pop stars of yesteryear will be cancelling tours of Wales. I’m expecting a police visit shortly.

Surely non-toxic UKIP will never adopt any of these dreadful policies? In that I think you’re sadly right.

Nevertheless, this is my manifesto and, in the spirit of the many-headed Hydra, that of it which I can’t pursue within UKIP, I may pursue outside.

 

The post TNS (The Next Step) – Part Four (b): A Radical Manifesto appeared first on UKIP Daily | UKIP News | UKIP Debate.

UKIP’s Future

0
0
UKIP’s Future

The question that I’m most frequently asked is: now that Article 50 has been triggered by the Conservative Prime Minister May, what is the point of UKIP?

For decades we have been governed by complete and utter cowards who, when it comes to confronting harsh realities, prefer to indulge in pathetic virtue signalling and thought policing, instead of confronting the issues, and if that doesn’t work they run into their self constructed safe spaces. We live in a country where, both to the media and the political establishment, feelings matter more than facts, where avoiding causing offence matters more than the reality.

First and foremost, The United Kingdom Independence Party is a patriotic British political party. We must be a Party that actually believes in things. We must position ourselves as the only Party that will always put our own culture, our heritage, our people, and our national interest first. There is absolutely nothing conservative about the modern day Conservative Party, they have no interest whatsoever in cutting immigration, promoting our own Western Christian identity, and in encouraging those who have chosen to make our country their home to accept them. They will not take on the critical cultural issues. We must go head to head with our rotten and failed political class on this.

I’m currently pushing the Party as much as I can, on the NEC. We must not be intimidated by the response, which I can guarantee will be yet more pathetic name calling, which is typical of the establishment. UKIP must now take on the issues that our current, politically correct establishment and our liberal media are far too weak and spineless to address: the issues that the ordinary men and women on the street want urgently discussed and addressed. We must never be scared of offending the mainstream media and certain communities, most of whom will never vote for us anyway.

There is an extreme form of Political Correctness in our country, for example in the disregard of Rotherham child grooming or in zero prosecutions of FGM. Post Brexit, there are three critical, era-defining issues that we must have the bravery and courage to confront:

  1. The societal and cultural side of Mass Immigration,
  2. A failed policy of Multiculturalism, a complete lack of integration and assimilation in every major British city.
  3. The rise of Islamic Jihad and Sharia.

The introduction of direct democracy will be giving all members a direct say on official party policy. This will give us a cutting edge over our opponents and it will make the general public feel that their genuine views and concerns are being addressed. This has worked in Italy for the 5 Star Movement and it will work for us as well.

To those who believe that we should run a mile from the aforementioned issues and become more ‘mainstream’, I say: What will you say to your children and other future generations when the next Rotherham, 7/7, Lee Rigby, or Westminster Jihadist attack happens,  or when the next few thousand British born citizens look to go off and join the next Jihad for the next ISIS equivalent? There will come a stage soon when the demographics are far too big for the security services. Will you say that you refused to lift a finger because you were scared of being called “Racist” or “Xenophobic” or any other buzzwords that the leftists use to shut down the debate?

Within the past 2 decades many of our towns and cities have completely changed beyond all recognition – what about after the next 2 decades, how much further will they change? What sort of country, community and society will you be handing down to future generations?

The time is now – now is the time to take on these issues, without any sort of pandering, cowardice or appeasement.

Therefore I would like anyone who agrees with me to back Anne Marie Waters. Her knowledge on Islamic Jihad and Sharia is second to none. She has travelled all over the world to give speeches on this era-defining issue. She is a valuable asset to our party and will help take us onto the next level. The recent Westminster Jihadist attacked happened around 10 minutes walk from my office. This is real, it’s happening and it’s only going to get worse.

What will it take for you to realise that there are very big problems in modern day Britain that must be confronted now, not in 20 years time or later! Time is running out for our country, and one day soon it will be too late. What will you decide?

The post UKIP’s Future appeared first on UKIP Daily | UKIP News | UKIP Debate.

Labour Party the True Racists

0
0
Labour Party the True Racists

What is it about the labour party and its obvious anti-Semitism. Where did it come from and much more importantly where is it going. It is ever to the fore in both their rhetoric and because certain high profile members insist on keeping it to the fore of the news and the mainstream media.

Last year seemed to have been an eclipse with regards to their racism, for that is what it is, but this year so far, has presented so many more problems for the leadership of that once proud working class political brotherhood.

Naz Shah a labour MP for Bradford had to be suspended from the party for six months last year for her tweets which were anti-Semitic and nasty. Suspension it would seem is the current trend and although one could argue it is not enough of a punishment it is the favoured one. The problem here though is not that perhaps the punishment does not fit the crime. No, the problem lies more with the fact that it took such a long time, despite enormous pressure for the leader Jeremy Corbyn to act.

An investigation into anti-Semitism within the party was called for and the civil liberties and human rights campaigner Shami Chakrabarti was appointed witch finder general. She did not though, uncover many, if any covens, no one was burnt at the stake nor was anyone exorcised. In fact the Labour party was, surprise surprise, exonerated entirely. Well done Shami, take a peerage for your invaluable and brilliant work.

The report that proved to be a complete whitewash was very beautifully and with a great sense of ironic timing upstaged, when at the press launch of her much awaited report, the witch finder general was upstaged in front of the worlds press, by the abuse of Ruth Smeeth (a Jewish labour MP) by Marc Wadsworth of the Momentum black connections group. She ran from the press conference in floods of tears, but of course there is no institutional anti-Semitism or racist thinking or doctrine within the modern labour party, oh no.

Forward on a year and that labour stalwart, the elder statesman of the party Mr Ken Livingstone,  reared his loony head above the parapet.He made very public open claims that Hitler was a fan of, and engaged in Zionism prior to what must have been a bang on the head which made him to then go onto murder 6 million Jews. He would not in any way back down, he repeated the claims stating vehemently that it is a historical fact and he was at a total loss as to why he was being questioned.

We were then treated to a moment of TV gold. A wonderful spectre of red Ken being door stepped by Labour MP John Mann and a TV crew that, just happened to be there. Red Ken was on his phone and even though he was being shouted at and castigated as a racist by his incandescent comrade he continued to pretend to be on his phone, oh how wonderful would it have been if his phone had rung whilst he climbed a mountain of stairs with comrade Mann in hot pursuit. Undeterred a host of TV interviews and newspaper articles followed with comrade ken reiterating his thoughts and beliefs.

Suspended, eventually Ken disappeared from the mainstream media, he was bunkering down awaiting his hearing and his fate. A year later and Ken is brought before his peers and after a two day investigation he was suspended, suspended! Of course the suspension is not total, it just means he cannot hold office, he can attend branch meetings and vote, so it`s not really a suspension as most ordinary card holding members would interpret the word to mean. Ken came out to the awaiting press with a smug, yes it was smug, grin on his face, the calls which were many and loud for him to be thrown out of the party had been totally ignored of course.

Corbyn, a few days later and one would assume giving in to the enormous weight and pressure from within his own ranks, has referred the punishment for review. How weak and feckless is this man, he should stand by the panel decision or just simply call for this man to be barred from the party for good. In a final childish prank, red Ken was photographed walking his dog wearing a T shirt with a depiction on it of Corbyn as Che Guevara the other day.

This political party, this bastion of fairness and honesty, this working class based organisation that fought for years through thick and thin for the ordinary people of this country has become an embarrassing joke. Within its structure are groups of revolutionary people hell bent on the destruction of our society and way of life, the leader will not sing the national anthem, on a recent radio interview he refused four times to condemn the IRA but instead he chose to condemn the British Army. He and his shadow chancellor are championed by the Provisional IRA, they have been given awards by them.

The shadow Home Secretary is a racist, proven and true, she is a racist. The shadow foreign secretary had to stand down from her previous position as she quite clearly hates white van man and people who live in council houses. She gets annoyed when given her real title, that of Lady Nugee and woe betide any TV commentator who uses that title.

The labour party is lost, it is useless. It is a mash of a collective of groups who have no parameters in their ideological thinking. I claim that anyone who remains in this party today is a racist, pure and simple, you are signed up to a doctrine that sees Jews as the enemy, anyone who questions Islam is the enemy, anyone who furthers the cause of capitalism is the enemy and they will come for you.

The post Labour Party the True Racists appeared first on UKIP Daily | UKIP News | UKIP Debate.

Getting Fracking and Climate Change into Perspective

0
0
Getting Fracking and Climate Change into Perspective

Fact:  Fracking is not new.

Fact:  Two million wells have been fracked worldwide.

Fact:  Two hundred have been fracked in the UK.

Fact:  Caudrilla never admitted to causing the minor earth tremors. Their statement was:  ‘They probably caused the two small earth tremors’.  Probably is not a fact and cannot be used a proof of an event. It could well have been phrased that way to shut down the medi and the inevitable conspiracy theories if they had said nothing, or gave an outright denial.

Fact:  Great Britain suffers about 300 minor earth tremors every year, with a larger one about every four years. So can we be sure these were not natural tremors?

Fact: Despite alarmist statements no babies have been still born or suffered birth defects which are attributable to fracking. No water tables have been irreparably poisoned by fracking.

Fact: Leakage of methane from drill sites is negligible and would not be sustained because the objective of drilling is to sell the gas, not vent it to the atmosphere. Of course methane is ever present in our atmosphere, it bubbles up in marshy places and swamps all over the world. It has done this for millions of years, it is known by various names such as “Marsh Gas”, “Swamp gas”,  and “wil o the wisp”,  and in mines it is known as “fire damp”. Gas pockets are often penetrated accidentally when water wells are constructed.

Fact:  Physical industrial accidents apart, nobody has been killed by Shale gas.

Fact:  The owners of Shale exploration companies and their operatives are people, too. They have wives and husbands, they have children, and grandchildren and uncles and aunts, parents and grand parents and nieces and nephews, and just plain friends. In other words they are the same as anybody else, thus not likely to wish to kill their families and friends.

Fact:  There are bound to be some minor events as a result of fracking, there is always some risk in any industrial enterprise. Certainly not on the scale of coal mining in the past. Any danger will be  small and local.

Fact:  Shale gas is not a game changer in the UK ? Prior to the development of Shale gas, America used to import 25% of all of the oil produced throughout the world. When Shale gas was exploited in America, their requirement for overseas oil plummeted, causing a glut of oil on the world markets which halved the price of petrol. Just your car alone costs up to £30 a month less to run, and there have been other spin-offs, too.

Fact:  Burning of fossil fuels increases green house gasses and leads to global warming? Shale gas however is less polluting than petroleum and can be used to fuel cars.

Fact:  Global warming will cause coastal flooding? It is regrettable that Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, seem to imagine that there is an OPTIMUM climate for the earth. There is not, and there never has been. In the past 750,000 years, Great Britain has suffered four major ice ages, some of which lasted more than 100,000 years. The last one ended just a scant 11,000 years ago. So it is clear that the Earth naturally cycles between warm and cold.

Logically.

As the world warms up after each ice age, huge areas of land  in places such as Greenland, North Canada,massive areas of Northern Siberia, and islands near to the South pole will become newly productive of prolific plant matter. These plants need CO2, which   they convert to sugars, and oxygen. Therefore,  they will be extracting CO2 from the atmosphere in increasing amounts leading  to CO2 depletion and  a reversal of the global warming process. So the world cools down again… Natural cycling springs to mind!

The Optimum temperature.

To which temperature would Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth wish the world to be pegged? At 1,000,000 years ago, 250,000 years ago, 5000 years ago, 10 years ago, last week? There is also a strong theory that the Sun, itself, cycles a little between maximum and minimum output, so they would have to factor that in,too.

Fact:  With respect to coastal flooding, Great Britain has been largely submerged many times in its history; visit any chalk pit, or limestone quarry, to see the evidence first hand!

Fact:  We can preserve things as they are today? That is poppycock! It  would require heavenly powers that are not readily available to focus groups.

Fact:  Because of the movements of the tectonic plates, Great Britain and Scandinavia are being thrust North East, with its axis somewhere in Russia.

Fact: In another 5,000,000 years, give or take a couple of seconds, Great Britain will be very near the North Pole and somewhere North of where Moscow is today. Eventually it will complete its long voyage to around about where Japan is today, where it may even be sub-ducted beneath the Pacific plate, to be spewed out as lava in various parts of the world, to create new islands. During that time the world will have experienced several dozen ice ages and rewarming  periods.

Fact:  Despite Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, and Frackfree’s determinations  as to how “they alone can save the globe and humanity”,  I am afraid that they cannot, ask any Dinosaur!

Parliamentary petition

Far too much attention has been given by the to apparently “self supporting” protestors against fracking, who are able to pitch their tents for weeks on end at fracking sites. So often the cameras are focused on a small area, giving an impression of a dense ranks of protestors, but zoom out and they are often heavily outnumbered by the police!

The country is going through a very difficult period and paying other countries for their gas affects the nation’s  balance of payments, so why would we wish to do that when gas is right under our feet.

If Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth are really that convinced that they can stop global warming and ice-ages too, then why not work with the Government to siphon off some of the profits from Shale gas into renewable energy projects. Within the space of 50 to 60 years they could well have achieved their objective, but they should also be advised that control of the Solar System, requires powers that are, let us say, better discussed in Church!

Please sign the petition here.

 

The post Getting Fracking and Climate Change into Perspective appeared first on UKIP Daily | UKIP News | UKIP Debate.

The Surreal Events Surrounding Mark Reckless’ Defection

0
0
The Surreal Events Surrounding Mark Reckless’ Defection

Ed: A week in politics is a long time. ‘Events, dear boy, events’ usually blanket out what happened during a week. However, the defection of Mark Reckless which closely followed that of Douglas Carswell deserves to be re-told because it resembles a farce rather than a political thunderclap. The following report is based on information we received by two sources inside the Welsh Assembly who desire to remain anonymous:

Wednesday April 5th:

Source A: Everything began with what seemed, at first glance, to be a reasonably innocuous tweet by a Plaid Cymru AM. He asked when an announcement would be made about Mark Reckless defecting to the Tories. Was this just a snipe at Reckless’s very cosy speech in the Senedd Chamber on Tuesday praising the Prime Minister’s Article 50 letter? Or was it something more sinister?

Source B: Mark Reckless disappeared from the Assembly midway through the morning. His vanishing act began after he had sent his researcher to tell the UKIP chief of staff that Mark had had to go home sick. He had been due to speak for UKIP in a debate in the Chamber later that day.

Over the next two hours, rumours began to circulate on social media – quickly picked up by the mainstream media, of course – that Mark had defected to the Conservatives. Pretty soon, everybody in the Assembly had heard the rumour. People kept asking Ukippers if it was true. But the truth was, we didn’t know.  Reckless wasn’t answering his phone, or responding to texts. And he hadn’t told us Ukippers anything.

Source A: Soon the rumour mill in Cardiff Bay went into overdrive. This doesn’t take much, Welsh politics is not exactly known for being high drama. Very quickly, things started to stack up. Reckless had been in a Committee meeting that morning but left before Plenary, saying he was unwell. He’d also been spotted popping in to see the Presiding Officer. This isn’t something particularly unusual for a Committee Chair, but it’s not exactly an everyday occurrence either. Staffers were glued to social media and Reckless was approached for comment. He had, by then, left the building and wasn’t answering phone calls or text messages. Senior Tory AMs denied knowledge of any defection attempt and by the following morning it seemed the game was up, but still no word from Reckless himself!

Thursday 6th April

Source A: Word got out that a press conference had been hastily arranged to coincide with the lunchtime news on that day. TV crews from the BBC, ITV and Channel 4 descended on the Senedd steps for what was billed to be the great unveiling. A tweet from Reckless and a press release from the Tory office confirmed the inevitable, but the star of the show was nowhere to be seen.

Source B: We went outside the Assembly, for a fag in the sun, and found camera crews, staffed by media people who had all been tipped off about the 1pm press conference, which they assumed would be on the steps of the Assembly. ITV were there and Channel 4 News. Nick Servini from BBC Wales started asking what we knew about the Reckless situation. What were the ramifications of his joining the Tory group?

Soon it became clear that ‘ramifications’ were all we had. No explanation was to be had from Reckless, as he had chickened out of his press (re)launch as a Tory member. He was nowhere to be seen, and instead he sent out a press release. Timid!

Source A: Reckless was later spotted escaping the Senedd, with a senior Tory aide in tow, heading for a TV camera further along the waterfront in Cardiff Bay. UKIP Staffers and an AM followed, hoping to get some answers from Mark about why he’d decided to abandon ship. In bizarre scenes, Reckless bolted, with the aide furiously on his mobile, and was bundled back into the Assembly by a rear entrance. He later gave an interview to the BBC from their own studio balcony inside the Assembly estate, having been denied the fanfare entrance he wanted to show he was back in the Tory fold.

Source B: So, what are the consequences of Mark’s switch? Annoyance for the voters of SE Wales, who had voted for a UKIP regional member, only to end up within a year with a Tory one instead. Anger for members of UKIP Wales, who had gullibly put their faith in Mark when they chose him as the number one regional candidate for South-East Wales a year ago. Distress for his own staff, neither of whom had any inkling when we quizzed them on Wednesday that Mark was planning to leave UKIP. Both his Assembly staffers are UKIP members, and both started working for him only fairly recently. There was annoyance also for the remaining five UKIP AMs, who will now have to shoulder the burden of more Assembly and committee work. For one of them there is also the problem that he recently opened a shared constituency office with Mark.

Source A: Reckless had confirmed to ITV that he has lost his committee chairmanship, so that entails the extra money that goes with it. The Tories have said he won’t be a Party member. Plaid Cymru, who ironically broke this story, now face losing a Committee Chairmanship (given Assembly rules on who gets what) and are now the third party in Wales. Of course, the natural reaction is to call for Reckless to resign as an AM, as UKIP have done, but this would only mean giving up the seat to the next on the list and he’s hardly likely to give up his cushy £64K salary, given that he’s already lost the short money from being Carswell’s researcher. [Ed: Carswell had sacked all his staff once he’d defected from UKIP.]

Source B: Will Ukip’s Assembly group miss him? Well, he was generally an effective speaker in the Chamber itself, where he will be missed. However, he offered little outside the Chamber. He stopped attending the weekly group meetings early on in the Assembly term, as they were held on Monday, when Mark was employed to work in Westminster as part of Carswell’s policy unit. Mark made no attempt to skype into the Monday evening meetings, and had no input into any policy discussions in Cardiff. Neither did he attempt to link up policy ideas between his Westminster group of policy wonks and the Assembly group. In that regard, he was a complete and utter disappointment. (I almost said ‘waste of space’.)

Socially, he was an almost complete outsider who took hardly any part in the UKIP group’s communal activities. So, in a way, Mark Reckless, the natural loner, simply fell off the edge of that periphery and drifted off into ‘outer space’. Otherwise known as the Tory group!

Ed: For me, the intriguing part of this, and a hint of why Reckless left so soon after Carswell’s “exit” (25th March) seems to lie in the fact that he was employed and paid for by Carswell as part of Carswell’s policy unit. Obviously, Carswell wouldn’t pay a Ukipper once he himself had left UKIP. Therefore it would be interesting to know if Reckless now still works for Carswell. Furthermore, this chain of events leads to the intriguing speculation that those two could have carefully worked on a plan for some time, so that the timing of leaving so soon after each other was calculated to inflict maximum damage to UKIP in the run-up to the local elections on May 4th.

The post The Surreal Events Surrounding Mark Reckless’ Defection appeared first on UKIP Daily | UKIP News | UKIP Debate.

The Empire Strikes Back

0
0
The Empire Strikes Back

I, like Nigel Farage, am deeply worried about Donald Trump. Let me explain because for me, this did not start with Syria but it started with Obamacare. True, there were ‘flip-flops’ before this – most notably on NATO following a meeting with Theresa May and right off on the bat on investigating and prosecuting  Hillary Clinton but now Trump is starting to act out of character and that is the cause of most concern.

Trump campaigned on a complete repeal of Obamacare. In fact, he promised its repeal 68 times. Now you will say he was scuppered by House Republicans not getting behind the Bill to repeal it and you’d be right, that is true, however, what struck me as distinctly un-Trump-like, even ‘Anti-Trump’ that when the crunch came he refused to push it to a vote. He would have lost and in the short-term lost some face but in the longer run, those Republicans that had thwarted him would have been faced with the tricky task of having to justify themselves to their electors and in the longer-run, Trump could have won the war but that is not to be so it would seem, the White House is already “moving on”. He blinked first and that is not the Donald Trump we have invested so much in.

Other areas of concern exist (leaving aside foreign policy for now). The marginalisation of Steve Bannon is well documented as are the policy implications – the marginalisation of America First nationalists in favour of more orthodox neo-con voices. I want to add a further reason that this should worry us all. It strikes me that Bannon, whatever you think of his politics, is a man who absolutely will speak truth into power and will not be in any way intimidated by President Trump. This makes him a good person for any President to have around – especially one who, let’s be honest, has an elephant sized ego – when their ego will be being massaged by the siren voices of the neo-cons who are using this as a principal tool of manipulation. Give the order they say, you will look great and can go and play a round of golf.

Trump without Bannon by his side is proving to be more mailable. I don’t think it is a giant coincidence that Trump met the Saudis, then launched a Tomahawk Missile strike against Bashar Al Assad with absolutely no proof what so ever, nor is it a coincidence he has recently met with the Chinese and is now determined to do something about North Korea. Not only has Trump obliged the Chinese by looking to sort out its Fatboy Sl[K]im problem but he has totally reversed his long-standing hostility to the Chinese government on a wide range of issues and on domestic policy as well.

Let’s be quite clear. No conclusive evidence exists that Assad launched a chemical weapons attack in Gouta and indeed notice how the attack on a Syrian bus convoy near Aleppo isn’t on the receiving end of a) as much media coverage and b) as much moral opprobrium from world leaders – that, my friends, is called hypocrisy. Also, there is no conclusive evidence to justify the claim that the stark-staring bonkers regime in Pyongyang is anything but an immediate threat to its own people – in fact, its most recent bungled test suggests the complete opposite. However, there is plenty of evidence that the Saudis want Assad gone and the Chinese want Kim gone. In other words, Trump is turning his Presidency into a lap-dog one and no wonder his closest supporters are starting to cast a weary eye on his Presidency.

My red line is Bannon. If Trump takes action in North Korea then he is definitely off my Christmas card list. However, if he lets Bannon be pushed further to the sidelines or even entirely out then that will be confirmation that the ‘turn’ is complete and for real, not some too-clever-by-half-4d chess exposition of politicking. I hate to say it but I think those who say that Trump is essentially playing a game here are guilty of wishful thinking which flies in the face of the established facts – even if he is (and that is extremely charitable) he is rigging the game against himself which is exactly what his neo-con advisors will want; they, for example, will fail to point out that taking these positions, especially when it comes to involving a country in military conflict, leads a government into a situation it cannot easily control and that can, at any moment, fly off the handle in any direction. So, Trump may not sincerely think he is going to go into Syria at this moment but that is certainly where the Saudis – currently engaged in Yemen and therefore unable to act themselves –  want to lead him, into Syria and into direct conflict with Iran and Russia. Since he has allowed public statements from the likes of Nikki Haley in favour of regime change without public rebuke he is now being hoisted by his own petard – if Assad stays he and the US looks weak and inconsequential but if he is to go then he has put Russia in such a position that it cannot afford to abandon Iran, which is facing humiliation in Yemen and Syria, and Assad – therefore the logic of Trump’s actions will eventually lead him into direct engagement on the ground in Syria.

North Korea offers him a small window of opportunity to change course. However, the signs are not encouraging with the media openly flaunting his cooperation with the Chinese Communist Party. He needs to change course before he becomes just another neo-con globalist puppet and the promise of ‘America First’ becomes a distant dream.

The post The Empire Strikes Back appeared first on UKIP Daily | UKIP News | UKIP Debate.


UKIP: Party of the Family?

0
0
UKIP: Party of the Family?

“Don’t go Daddy, I promise I’ll be good,” sobbed the little boy as his father walked out of home and through the garden gate for the last time in order to move in with another woman. With his face pressed frantically against the window and tears streaming down his face, the lad wasn’t the last child to see his universe fall apart and, tragically and wrongly, feel personal guilt for his parents’ break-up.

His father didn’t return so the desperate boy, aged 4 and known to me, took to stabbing other children at school with a pencil and insisted on changing his first name.

Children are the vulnerable victims of family break-up, but others are affected too. Wider family, neighbours and friends, the local community and society at large are all involved in some way and pay significant emotional and/or financial cost. 

Although social libertarians, self-centred inadequates and anarchists may insist on mailing ‘Celebrate Your Divorce’ cards and throwing parties when families fall apart, for most it is a difficult and draining decision that they do not wish to repeat. It is also deeply personal. But no one is an island and it is not only personal.

The Relationships Foundation (RF) in Cambridge calculates that family break-up (‘family failure’ they call it) is at crisis level and currently costs the UK exchequer £48 billion a year  – that’s £10 billion more than the UK’s total defence budget. It’s the equivalent of nearly £2,000 a year for each UK taxpayer, and rising. You can find RF’s calculations here.

The Centre for Social Justice (CSJ) – formed in 2004 by Iain Duncan-Smith MP – has produced ground-breaking studies around the theme of ‘Breakdown Britain’. It has warned of a “tsunami” of family failure, with the number of lone-parent families – currently over 2 million – growing at 20,000 a year. CSJ also has identified areas of the country that have become “man-deserts” with few visible male role models for children, especially boys. Parts of Liverpool, for instance, have no father-figure in 65% of households and primary schools have not a single male teacher.

Sir Paul Coleridge was a High Court Family Division judge for years, seeing daily before him the human calamity of family breakdown and especially its heartrending impact on children. In 2012 he set up the Marriage Foundation “to champion long-lasting stable relationships within marriage” as the best domestic arrangement for the nurture and flourishing of children. The next year he was formally disciplined for speaking out about his support for traditional marriage, so he resigned from the Bench.

How have we got here? How come a High Court judge cannot promote the marriage-based family, despite its protection by Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights? How come the political class will not talk about the growing crisis of family breakdown, let alone tackle it?

This silence is mainly a result of Gramsci and Alinsky or, if you prefer, a consequence of Cultural and Transformational Marxism.

Antonio Gramsci, who died in 1937, was the original Cultural Marxist theoretician. His political children and grandchildren have dominated the post-war Left and undertaken his proposed ‘long march through the institutions’ of society in order to undermine, capture and destroy them – including of course the fundamental institution of marriage and family.

Fellow-travellers and useful idiots in the political class danced to the Cultural Marxists’ tune – often unwittingly – and this has led to today’s liberal authoritarianism that, like Communism, uses the power of the state to police language and suppress freedom of speech, especially politically-incorrect speech.

It also led to the Establishment’s supine surrender to the EU superstate (now gloriously reversed by the people’s Brexit vote) and to the prosecution of pro-family Catholics who opposed to gay adoption . Melanie Phillips explains the phenomenon clearly here.

The language of morality, virtue-signalling and political correctness is one of the weapons the Left uses to shut down opponents and capture our culture. Hillary Clinton’s college mentor, Transformational Marxist philosopher Saul Alinsky who died in 1972, was the arch exponent. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it,” was his rule which, being translated, means “Demonise your opponents so the media won’t give them column inches or airspace”.

If you opposed David Cameron’s 2013 same-sex marriage legislation, gay activist leaders Ben Summerskill or Peter Tatchell could smear you as a homophobic bigot and you’d find yourself ejected from the media mainstream and excluded from polite metropolitan society.

At the same time the elite – Conservative’s Cameron, Labour’s Ed Miliband and LibDem’s Nick Clegg, Gramsci’s ‘progressive’ grandchildren and lemming leaders of the political class – could link arms politically and celebrate together the destruction of faithful marriage as understood in these islands for over a thousand years.

“Spiked Online” editor and former Marxist Brendan O’Neill was a vocal critic of same-sex marriage. He slammed gay marriage campaigners’ Alinskyite demonization of opponents and exposed the state’s Gramsciite policing of language, for instance here.

What’s to be done? There is a great opportunity for UKIP to do again what it does best: ignore the demands of Political Correctness, stop worrying about tomorrow’s headlines, confront the political establishment head-on and insist on pushing a vital but avoided social issue onto the national political agenda whether the old parties like it or not.

We did it courageously with Brexit and uncontrolled immigration. We stood boldly alone over grammar schools and gay marriage. For the sake of our children let alone the cost to the tax-payer, we should repeat this by tackling the crisis of family breakdown and promoting the traditional stable family.

In fact we should become the Party of the Family.

What is the way forward?

First, Paul Nuttall should immediately appoint a ‘Spokesperson for the Family’ whose brief is to develop UKIP policies that protect and promote the traditional nuclear family. Also in our general election manifesto we should commit UKIP to appointing a Minister for Families.

Second, at its next meeting UKIP’s National Executive Committee should approve the application for SIG (Special Interest Group) status within the party lodged by the Support4TheFamily (S4TF) group of UKIP members. I helped establish S4TF two years ago with a view to giving legitimate voice to family values within the party alongside other voices.

Third, we should develop a UKIP Family Impact Assessment (like the Environmental Impact Assessment for major building projects) and apply it to all government legislation and regulation.

Fourth, UKIP should campaign immediately against our biased tax and benefits regime that makes it more advantageous for couples to live apart than together – the so-called ‘couple penalty’. The Marriage Foundation calculates it can be worth up to £7,100 a year for a couple with a child to stay separate rather than move in together.

Paul Nuttall has committed UKIP to stealing the patriotic working-class vote from Labour. In urban areas and council estates up and down the country, normal life is primarily about ‘my family and kids’.

If UKIP stands alongside the socially conservative working-class and middle-class, as distinct from the anti-family liberal establishment, we will soak up their votes and gain UKIP’s first proper seats in Parliament.

 

The post UKIP: Party of the Family? appeared first on UKIP Daily | UKIP News | UKIP Debate.

UKIP must back the best chance Brexiteer

0
0
UKIP must back the best chance Brexiteer

This is the Brexit general election. It is about trying to save Brexit from being reversed or overridden by a newly-returned House of Commons, dominated by Remainers, claiming a fresh mandate to implement or ignore last year’s referendum result as it sees fit.

UKIP’s object in this general election is therefore simple. It should be to try to ensure that the new House of Commons has as many Brexit MPs and as few Remainer MPs as possible. UKIP can do this by supporting in each constituency that candidate who is a genuine Brexiteer and who has the best chance of winning irrespective of their party affiliation.

Traditional party labels are meaningless in this situation. This election is a rerun of last year’s referendum. There are therefore only two types of candidate: Brexit candidates and Remain candidates. Many Remainers recognise this, working to create an anti-Brexit campaigning and tactical voting coalition in initiatives like the “Progressive Alliance” or Gina Miller’s “Best for Britain” campaign. Brexiters need to reciprocate by trying to create a cross-party pro-Brexit alliance. As others here have said, the interests of the country come before the interests of UKIP as a party.

I would like to see the UKIP leadership make an announcement in the next few days along the following lines:

“SUGGESTED UKIP STATEMENT:

The General Election scheduled for 8th June 2017 has been called specifically to strengthen the government’s position on the UK’s exit from the European Union. UKIP’s founding purpose and reason for being has always been to achieve the UK’s complete and full exit from the EU.

Given the special circumstances of the forthcoming election, and given UKIP’s belief that it is imperative in the national interest for the UK to achieve a complete and full exit from the EU, the Single Market and the Customs Union as soon as possible and without any transition period, UKIP proposes, in this general election only, to coordinate its electoral strategy in a way to maximise electoral support for a full exit from the EU by not competing with like-minded candidates from other parties where those other candidates have, in UKIP’s assessment, a better chance than UKIP of being returned.

Further, in order to make best use of its limited electoral resources, UKIP will take into account the results of last year’s EU referendum in deciding where best to devote its resources in the forthcoming election campaign.

UKIP therefore will not contest every constituency in the forthcoming election but will put forward candidates in constituencies according to the following principles:

Principle 1: UKIP will not stand a candidate in any electoral area which voted Remain in last year’s EU referendum. UKIP supporters in those Remain-voting areas will be advised to vote for whichever candidate in their constituency supported Brexit in the EU referendum and has the best chance of winning or, in the absence of such a candidate, the Conservative candidate.

Principle 2: In the case of constituencies in areas which voted Leave in last year’s referendum, where the constituency in question is presently held by either Conservative or Labour and where that incumbent party fields a candidate who has a provable record as a consistent and genuine Brexit-supporter before and/or during last year’s referendum campaign the UKIP candidate will stand aside in favour of that incumbent candidate, and any UKIP members in that constituency will be given permission, in this election only to campaign, using UKIP literature, in favour of that incumbent party candidate.

Principle 3: In the case of constituencies in areas which voted Leave in last year’s referendum, where the constituency in question is presently held by either Conservative or Labour and that incumbent party fields a candidate who does NOT have a provable record as a consistent and genuine Brexit- supporter before and/or during last year’s referendum campaign the UKIP candidate will stand against that incumbent party candidate unless the party which came second in the constituency in the 2015 election (not being UKIP) fields a candidate who has a provable record as a consistent and genuine Brexit-supporter before and/or during last year’s referendum. In this case the UKIP candidate will stand aside in favour of that second-placed candidate and any UKIP members in that constituency will be given permission in this election only to campaign, using UKIP literature, in favour of that second-placed party candidate.

Principle 4: Notwithstanding anything in the above, UKIP reserves the right to field a candidate in any constituency where UKIP judges the national interest or the interest of justice and fairness to require it, for example if the incumbent party has been investigated for election expense irregularities in a recent election. If both the incumbent party and the second-placed party (not being UKIP) field provable pre-referendum Brexit-supporting candidates UKIP will decide in the circumstances which candidate to support.”

These principles may need tweaking but the underlying aim is clear: unite behind whichever party has the best-chance, genuine Brexit candidate in that constituency.

Often in politics principle and pragmatism conflict. But in adopting the above position principle and pragmatism coincide. It is a principled position because it puts country before party and protects UKIP from the charge of splitting the Brexit vote so as to let in the Remainer LibDems. But it is also a very pragmatic position because it strengthens the hand of Brexiteers in the Conservative and Labour Parties in the selection of their candidates. They can point out that if provable pro-Brexit candidates are chosen UKIP will stand aside in their favour.  It is also pragmatic because it enables UKIP to devote its resources to contesting those constituencies where UKIP will have the most chance of success, namely constituencies where both of the following conditions are met: the constituency voted Leave in the referendum and neither the incumbent party candidate nor the second-placed party candidate (assuming this is not UKIP) is a provable pre-referendum Brexiteer.

 

The post UKIP must back the best chance Brexiteer appeared first on UKIP Daily | UKIP News | UKIP Debate.

Don’t trust Theresa 

0
0
Don’t trust Theresa 

The debate is raging among Kippers – since this is the Brexit election, should we take Theresa May at her word and give her the mandate she claims she has “reluctantly” gone to the country for?

I don’t trust Theresa May and it is not because of her volte face from being a Remainiac to committed Brexiteer. I think there is an element of realpoltik in this apparent flip-flop in the sense that she sees in Brexit as her ‘Falklands moment’ – a chance to cement her personal place among the pantheon of Great British Prime Ministers and maybe even eclipse Margaret Thatchers record stay in office. People do change their minds often and there is no inherent harm in that, especially in politics.  If they can’t, that is essentially a bad thing because circumstances and experiences shape and form us and we should be open to that as political actors; if we are not we become fossils. However, what generally do not change are people’s hearts. 

In her heart, Mrs May is deeply authoritarian and it is her egoism and hubris that I find sinister. Her time at the Home Office was marked not just by her much maligned, and publicised, failure to deliver on immigration but also by massive attempts to increase state power including the infamous ‘Snoopers Charter’ her new Brexit Secretary ended up in the bizarre position of taking his new boss to court, ironically, an EU one. 

Her leadership campaign was marked at its end by what appeared to be the ruthless dispatch of Andrea Leadsom via the medium of a carefully coordinated ambush in the pages of The Times newspaper. Mrs Leadsom’s comments in support of her own campaign and character were made to look like a low-blow attack on Mrs May, something Mrs Leadsom explicitly sought to avoid in the infamous interview:

Yes. I am sure Theresa will be really sad she doesn’t have children so I don’t want this to be ‘Andrea has children, Theresa hasn’t’ because I think that would be really horrible, but genuinely I feel that being a mum means you have a very real stake in the future of our country, a tangible stake.”

I have no doubt Mrs May and/or her team lay at the centre of the ensuring faux outrage of course that is far from being proven but then again these things rarely are demonstrably provable because if they were then they would not be considered a legitimate weapon of war in politics.  So while I stress this is purely conjecture and speculation, I would argue it is fair conjecture.  Further display of these character traits came in her recently rejection of the TV debates  “the choice is already clear” she declared. 

Forget Remain v Brexit or even Election v Non-Election (both occasions on which Mrs May has changed her mind drastically).  The pretext she has called on this election is demonstrably false. As The Economist rightly points out:

Mrs May says the election is necessary to protect the Brexit process from mischievous opposition parties that plan to derail it. That is nonsense: although most MPs, including her own, campaigned to Remain, they have dutifully upheld the referendum result in Parliament.

Her motivation is more likely to do with self-preservation (her majority could have been ended by the looming CPS cases) and an egoistic yielding to the temptation to finally, as she sees it, smash Labour and UKIP.  So it is nothing to do with Brexit. 

However, none of this will matter to most Kippers as long as she delivers on what she is purportedly going to promise ‘hard’ or clean Brexit. The above however should give them pause for thought. So should the fact that if she does smash UKIP and Labour and the Liberal Democrats do well then as The Economist again points out:

The Liberal Democrats, reduced to just eight seats at the last election, are the most pro-EU force in British politics. Their resurgence – and the likely collapse of the vote for the pro-Brexit UK Independence Party – would increase the ranks of Remainers in Parliament and encourage the Conservatives to choose Eurosensible candidates in marginal seats.

People who are inclined to trust Mrs May to deliver ‘Hard Brexit’ should read the whole Economist editorial because it lays bare the reason the establishment is so gleefully behind Mrs May, and they should listen to Ruth Davidson who makes a very similar point to the Economist. The signs are there for all to see that is all is not as it seems and that putting our trust in Mrs May is likely to lead to a very big disappointment. 

The post Don’t trust Theresa  appeared first on UKIP Daily | UKIP News | UKIP Debate.

My proposals for UKIP’s manifesto

0
0
My proposals for UKIP’s manifesto

Rhys Burriss presents his ideas for a manifesto commitment on the justice system.

1]     Minimum sentence to be served of 30 Years for all convicted of murder.
Current mandatory sentence of Life to remain as the nominal sentence, but 
minimum thirty years to be served.  This is a very big change  from current practice (which often lets murderers out after 10 or so years, sometimes less)  and is designed specifically to both deter and to contain (where deterrence has not worked) the most dangerous criminals.

If ever the need for such a change were proven it is in the recently reported case where a spurned boyfriend actually looked up on Google what sentence he could expect to receive for murder (suitably reassured he then, in broad daylight, stab to death his ex girlfriend who had broken with him and her new boyfriend – grotesque but true). 

(Nb: no specific change proposed for manslaughter cases where culpability/wickedness are more nuanced and on a wider spectrum); 

2]     Crown Prosecution Service to be abolished, with all prosecutorial decisions to be returned to the individual police forces (who would establish in-house legal departments to advise/represent in cases of particular complexity/ seriousness ). Individuals charged by police to be brought before (or bailed to) the next available sitting of the local Magistrates’ Court; 

3]     Magistrates’ Courts’ powers to be increased to three years’ imprisonment (thus avoiding the current need to transfer accused in many cases to the Crown Court); 

4]     Third and subsequent convictions for burglary/theft of and from motor vehicles/assault occasioning grievous bodily harm/carrying of knives and other bladed weapons to be met with minimum mandatory sentences of three years’ imprisonment;

5]     Privatisations of prison and probation service to be stopped forthwith and reversed (re nationalised, if you like) where they have already occurred;

6]     Recruitment as probation officers of recently retired police and army officers to be encouraged by making the simple fact of having served for at least 10 years in that capacity sufficient qualification for appointment as probation officers (in other words moving the service (which UKIP values highly) away from the concept of recruitment of persons in their 20s with academic degrees and in favour of staffing the service with persons with many years’ relevant work and life experience).

In my respectful view the above  six policies would represent a substantial improvement to the way society/the law currently deals with serious and repeat law breakers.  The policies  ought also to have considerable resonance with the general public.

Further in my view the above six policies are entirely sufficient of themselves to be UKIP’s ‘offer’ to the public at this election, however worthy other/additional policies might be – dealing with in-prison discipline for example, or actual numbers of prison officers. I believe such policies would be  getting us into detail which the public generally will have no appetite for and could distract from the key six policies  proposed above.

As to costings, quite simply there is no way, certainly not in the time available, to provide detailed, quantified costings  –  but when asked we need to argue that the six policies are quite simply ‘the right thing to do’. Some will provide savings (increase of Magistrates’ Courts’ powers/abolition of the CPS) and some may require additional expenditure, such as the increased numbers in prison occasioned by minimum mandatory sentences and the increase in sentences to be served by convicted murderers.   

However, even the latter is not certain, as we may reasonably hope that some intending murderers will be deterred by the prospect of a genuinely long period of incarceration if convicted. 

In my view we do not need to seek to provide detailed costings of specific policies. The value of them is signalling to the general public where we stand, on a broad brush basis, on important issues of law and order (how the great majority of law abiding people need to be protected from the very small minority of career and repeat evil-doers).

UKIP believes such policies to be necessary in the wider interests of society in reducing violent crime and that the costs will simply have to be absorbed.   Over time effective deterrence policies will reduce actual offending, which should reduce (over time) the need for imprisonment, but we accept that for a period, until potential criminals realise ‘ the game is not worth the candle’ there will be an increase in numbers of persons imprisoned. So be it. 

The post My proposals for UKIP’s manifesto appeared first on UKIP Daily | UKIP News | UKIP Debate.

An open letter to my next MP

0
0
An open letter to my next MP

Dear (insert name after 8th June 2017 …….…………….) MP,

Now that the UK is leaving the European Union, isn’t it about time the  apparently “obsolete” law called Statute of Praemunire (1392), repealed by the Criminal Law Act 1967, be brought back into active legislation for the EU? It was a law designed to stop Papal jurisdictions from having influence or supremacy inside the UK by making it an offence of asserting or maintaining papal or foreign jurisdiction imperial or foreign or some other alien jurisdiction or claim of supremacy in England against the supremacy of the monarch.

It is now time to reintroduce an updated version for the EU and other globalist subversive ideological groups, who have a sinister desire to rule over us or interfere in public policy or even campaign to subsume the United Kingdom into a supranational institution that would have supremacy over the UK.

In the interest of national security & nation state sovereignty all globalist groups and members of them who actively campaign and plot to strips our great country of its right to self-determination (e.g. Bilderberg Group, Tri-Lateral Commission, Royal Institute for International Affairs and other Illuminati type groups) be classed as extreme and placed on a blacklist as if they were from the Nazi and Communist parties.

The Statute of Praemunire was only one of numerous stringent measures passed for the purpose of restraining the Holy See and all forms of papal authority in England, and of eliminating in general the influence of foreign powers, especially creditors and the Holy Roman Emperor. Because the Papacy had long claimed a form of temporal supremacy over England and Ireland, from the beginning of the 14th century, papal intervention had been particularly active, more especially in two forms. The one, the disposal of ecclesiastical benefices before the same became vacant to men of the pope’s own choosing; the other, the encouragement of resort to himself and his curia, rather than to the courts of the country, for legal justice.

It is my firm belief that, if this legislation of a similar manner and force is not brought in for the EU in particular, Brussels will continue to promote schemes in the UK to undermine the Westminster Parliament and devolved regions as well as many other UK institutions by buying influence wherever they can, even deciding or influencing how public service vacancies are filled, contracts are awarded and policy is proposed and delivered: effectively paying for a chorus of UK elected or appointed officials or public institutions to sing the EU’s and other international bodies praises and legislate and award contracts accordingly. That funding maintenance and influence has to be blocked if not made illegal in the public domain.

Remember the saying “who pays the piper calls the tune”? What if the piper has two or more paymasters? Whose tune will the piper play for? I think we’ve come to know which one they have a heavy bias to play for now! Some have called it the EU gravy train, but it’s actually a form of legalised bribery and corruption, designed by politicians and bureaucrats with a globalist bent to cream money off the top for themselves and their cronies in big corporations, to subvert the democratic and public institutions of this country towards further EU integration.

I would propose amendments to the new Statute of Praemunire Bill (2017) to also include:

1/ To be an offence for any political parties or organisations or political charities in the UK and NI, publicly elected or appointed officials, Civil Service employees, military personnel, MPs, judicial members, to be in receipt of foreign funding, through employment, grants, financial securities, bonds or shares, loans, EU pensions (now or in the future) grace and favours from any foreign agency, international banking, international corporations,  including the EU.

2/All publicly elected or appointed officials and civil servants to declare any vested and ideological interests they have and membership or association of any foreign or international agency or organisation now or the past, society secret or not, to an official public standards board. This may or may not affect their appointment but failure to disclose this information (which will be available to the general public after freedom of information requests) at the time of election or appointment and any existing after Brexit has concluded could mean instant dismissal or suspension or demotion with no right of appeal.

3/To disqualify anyone who accepts continued or new employment or be affiliated with any EU agency or EU part or fully funded organisation from playing in a public service capacity.

4/To be made an offence for any public servant to receive EU funding or loans or pensions, or employment executive or non-executive positions with any EU agency or EU funded organisation or any other foreign agency or any international corporation or organisation their public office had influence over providing government or council contracts, or participated in legislation affecting those organisations or policy decisions, for a period of up to 10 years after they have terminated their service in public life.

5/To be an offence and/or disqualify from public funding for any UK Universities, schools and other national educational establishments or publicly owned bodies, government or local government department or privately owned corporations working in a public capacity to promote, maintain or receive funding from the EU.

6/ To be an offence for Monnet Professors to teach or hold events anywhere in the UK & NI or have any Jean Monnet scholarship programs in any school, college or university, public or private in the United Kingdom & NI and UK Overseas territories.

7/ To be an offence for any TV or radio broadcast station in the UK or UK Overseas territories, to accept any EU funding,  EU grant money or grace and favours either directly or indirectly while providing a public broadcast service for the British public.

What do you say to this proposal?
Yours sincerely,

(- insert name -)

The post An open letter to my next MP appeared first on UKIP Daily | UKIP News | UKIP Debate.

Viewing all 668 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images