Sunday, 31 January 2010
Mike Nattrass MEP has a public meeting each evening next week and with the local PPC in each case. Everyone is welcome to attend. There may be local issues to address.
If you would like to attend or tell others please do.
Mike will explain about the power of the EU and why he is an MEP but these meetings depend on questions. Previous ones have gone well.... he hopes these meetings educate a few constituents about the policies of UKIP MEPs or perhaps they will educate him! Especially in relation to local issues.
The locations are listed below. Plus a premature mention of the Stourbridge meeting in March.
Monday, February 1st @ 7:30pm at Edgecliff High School, Enville Rd, Kinver DY7 6AA
Tuesday, February 2nd @ 7:30pm at St. Mary’s Church Hall, Gorge Rd, Sedgley WV14 9RH
Wednesday, February 3rd @ 7:30pm at The Lodge, Wellington Rd, Dudley DY1 1RD
Thursday, February 4th @ 7:30pm at The Kingfisher Club, Kidderminster Rd, Wall Heath DY6 0EN
Friday, February 5th COSELEY : To Be Confirmed Please call : 0121 333 7737
Friday, March 5th @ 7:30pm at Amblecote Room, Stourbridge Town Hall, Crown Centre DY8 1YE
Friday, 29 January 2010
It would seem that the Labour peer spends more time on the Eurostar commuting home to London than in her office, where nobody answers the phone after 8pm.
Too bad when the caller is Hillary Clinton saying that she’s on her way to Haiti. Was Catherine en route? No. On Friday January 15, she had cancelled all appointments to go home earlier. José Manuel Barroso had to send Karel De Gucht, the Development Commissioner.
A few days later, Lady Ashton tried to defend herself. Her arguments fell decidedly flat: “I’m neither a doctor nor a fireman.” Indeed, but surely she must know that diplomacy at this level implies symbolic gestures and fast action. The EU has committed four times more in aid to Haiti than the US, so it would have been logical, if not crucial for Europe’s image that its Foreign Affairs Minister stood alongside the Secretary of State.
READ THE STORY AT THE TITLE LINK
This week it's the Nedge ward, covering Holinswood and Stirchley.
Because the Nedge ward is so large, leafleting is being spread over 2 days starting today.
Anyone wanting to help out can meet at the Nedge club today or tomorrow at 10am.
YOUR HELP IS URGENTLY NEEDED AT BUCKINGHAM
UKIP are fighting two council By Elections in the Buckingham Constituency Area and urgently need your help over the next few days in order to achieve the best possible results.
The results in these By Elections are an important part of the build up to winning the Westminster seat.
Please come along and help if you possibly can.
Please contact Chris Adams 0754 655273orBuckingham Office 01280 822228
Please ring or email Chris to let him know you will be able to attend. Thank You
Cllr Peter ReeveRegional OrganiserUKIP Eastern Countiesreeve@ukip.org07792 290434
Thursday, 28 January 2010
The European Parliament will next month vote on the agreement — and could scupper data-sharing, if the legislators oppose a temporary deal that EU governments want in place for nine months while they negotiate a fuller and longer-term accord with the U.S.
Such a deal would formalize a secret program launched in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks that skirted Europe's strict privacy rules. It did that by transferring millions of pieces of personal information from the U.S. offices of the bank transfer company SWIFT to American authorities.
Go to title link for full stroty.
The answer by one student was so "profound" that the professor shared it with colleagues, via the Internet, which is, of course, why we now have the pleasure of enjoying it as well.
Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic
Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law
gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some variant.
One student, however, wrote the following:
First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we
need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate
at which they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once a
soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are leaving.
As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the different
Religions that exist in the world today. Most of these religions state
that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell.
Since there is more than one of these religions and since people do not
belong to more than one religion, we can project that all souls go to Hell.
With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of
Souls in Hell to increase exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand proportionately as souls are added.
This gives two possibilities:
1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls
enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until
all Hell breaks loose.
2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in
Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes
over. So which is it?
If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman
year that, "it will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you, and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number 2 must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen over.
The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is therefore, extinct...leaving only Heaven thereby proving the existence of a divine being which explains why, last night, Teresa kept shouting
"Oh my God."
THIS STUDENT RECEIVED THE ONLY "A"
The online survey of a representative national sample of 2,001 British adults showed respondents pictures of three different garments—the burqa, the niqab and the hijab—and asked whether their use should be forbidden in the UK under three specific scenarios.
The burqa is an outer garment worn by some Muslim women that is meant to conceal the entire body. In addition to a full veil, the burqa usually features a net that covers the eyes.
More than 70 per cent of respondents would agree with banning the burqa in public places (72%), at schools and universities (79%) and at airports.
The niqab is also meant to conceal the entire body and also features a full veil, but differs from the burqa because the eyes are usually exposed.
Two thirds of Britons (66%) would ban the niqab in public places, while higher proportions would forbid the use of the garment at schools and universities (75%) and airports (85%).
The hijab is a type of head scarf that usually exposes the entire face. A majority of respondents believe the hijab should not be banned at airports (63%), schools and universities (69%) or in public places (75%).
While two thirds of Britons (67%) believe that garments that conceal a woman’s face are an affront to British values, a majority of respondents (58%) claim the Government should not be allowed to tell individuals what they can and cannot wear.
It would appear not for the first time the public are at odds with themselves, and whilst the prejudice amongst society may well see the 70% as vindication of a ban policy clearly, when push comes to shove the public don't like bans.
For complete survey click on title link.
Tuesday, 26 January 2010
Alan Sked and Richard Milne (letters, Jan 19) have missed the deeper points about UKIP’s suggestion that the burka should be banned in public places. Your leading article (Jan 16) warned that our proposed ban on wearing the burka in public buildings could set us on the road to fascism. However, one of the 21/7 bombers escaped wearing the burka; the hidden face can also hide a terrorist.
When we talk of terrorism, we usually refer to a problem coming from within Islam. Of all the religions, Islam is the only one whose leaders do not wish their followers to integrate into our society, and Sharia, which can alas be described as gender apartheid, holds growing sway in too many parts of our country. So the burka is a symbol of separation, discrimination and fear.
Nor does it have any place in mainstream Islam. The Grand Mufti of Egypt has said it is “not Islamic”. The Muslim Canadian Congress has described it as a “political issue promoted by extremists”, and called for it to be banned.
Let us not forget that Islam is very different to our Judaeo-Christian culture. It is a religious, political and legal system rolled into one, a whole way of life based on the Koran, and the penalty for leaving it can be death. A ban on the burka would be for freedom, not fascism.
We must not run away from Islam, but debate it openly, particularly with the vast majority of Muslims who are our friends.
Lord Pearson Of Rannoch
Monday, 25 January 2010
Nikki Sinclaire has been instructed by the UKIP NEC to stop using the party name and intellectual property and banned from attending UKIP meetings after she resigned from the EFD group that UKIP formed in the EU Parliament and the ensuing media frenzy.
All MEP candidates had to sign an agreement before they could stand under the UKIP banner to join whatever group UKIP formed in the EU Parliament. Nikki signed this agreement but later felt that she couldn't remain in a group that contained parties that had values she was opposed to - homophobia, anti-semitism, etc. - and resigned from the group.
The views on this amongst the membership are varied - some believe that she signed an agreement to join a group, received support from the party as a result and should stick to that agreement whilst others believe she is making a principled stand and should be allowed to leave the group. From what I've seen, the internet activists lean more towards the latter, whilst the member on the street seems to lean more towards the former. Why this should be the case I don't know, I'm sure a psychologist could explain.
There is usually a fall-back position for Councillors, MPs or MEPs that have had the party whip withdrawn but haven't been expelled from their party in that they would describe themselves as "Independent UKIP" but that doesn't appear to be an option for Nikki as she's been told to stop using the UKIP name even though she remains a UKIP member.
As things stand at the moment we as members don't know the full story. We have rumours and conflicting stories from both camps but what we don't have is an understanding of exactly what is going on here. Resigning from the EFD group clearly isn't the only reason for the actions of the NEC - that's like cracking a walnut with a sledge hammer - so there must be more to it and until this is all done and dusted we aren't going to find out what's going on.
On one hand we must have faith in Lord Pearson and the NEC who we elected to lead the party but we must also question their decisions when it is clear that it is driving a wedge in the membership. If Nikki has been, in effect, suspended from UKIP then we as members should at least be given clarification on her status and when details will be available. Leaving the rumour mill and anti-UKIP trolls like Junius and Greg Limp-Wrist to fill the void will make matters worse.
Clearly we can't expect details because it's an ongoing (disciplinary?) matter but vagueness encourages rumour and discontent and with a general election looming, the last thing we need to be doing is fighting each other instead of the europhile establishment.
I would also suggest that the NEC and Nikki both stop airing their dirty linen in public. If the matter is too private for members to know what's going on, we shouldn't be reading snippets in the newspapers.
Saturday, 23 January 2010
Friday, 22 January 2010
Yet another Tory Cllr has joined UKIP .Edward Poole an Aldershot Cllr and has joined UKIP. Mr Poole was interviewed on Meridan News (ITV) at 11am this morning about his defection. I will, if possible put a link up later.
Wednesday, 20 January 2010
Bloom described Gordon Brown as "a dysfunctional individual", to which Jones added "there's something wrong with that man", "he's some kind of freak"!
Alex says of UKIP, "these guys have really got it right". Well, there's an endorsement!
Unknown is an author at Bloggers4UKIP.
Let's start by putting this into perspective. The burkha is not in the Koran. It is no more a genuine religious tradition than gospel singers or gay vicars.
Go into a bank or a petrol station forecourt or even some shops and you'll see one of these:
It's obvious why - if you were going to rob a bank or a petrol station, a bike helmet with a blacked out or reflective visor is an excellent disguise. So why is it wrong to see one of these?
It is believed that one of the key suspects for the 7/7 terrorist attack (a man) in London escaped the country wearing a burkha. In Afghanistan and Iraq, our troops are putting their lives on the line every time the encounter a burkha wearer - is it a suicide bomber or not? But not just in Afghanistan and Iraq: on the streets of our own cities you will find many people covered head to toe in a burkha - the perfect disguise for a suicide bomber.
Like it or not, since the IRA stopped bombing the mainland, the only terrorist attacks or attempted terrorist attacks we have experienced have been down to muslims.
But it's not just the security risk, it's the social aspect as well. It is essential that immigrants and the children of immigrants integrate with society rather than setting themselves aside from the rest of us by refusing to speak the language, refusing to associate with the "natives" and by covering themselves from head to toe. All of these send out a very clear message - I am different, I am off limits.
If most people in this country don't want to see the burkha being worn on our streets then why should we have to see it? It's not a genuine religious garment, there is nothing in the Koran to say that women have to wear it. It is simply a lifestyle choice and not a matter of religious freedom.
It is not unreasonable to expect followers of an alien religion and culture to make an effort to integrate into society. The burkha is a barrier to integration, it is anti-social and a security risk and if a majority of people in this country want it banned then who are we to say that is unacceptable? Lord Pearson and Nigel Farage are responding to legitimate concerns about the burkha and the wider issue of Islamisation, something no other mainstream party will do. Voters no longer have to choose the BNP if they want a party that will deal with immigration, overbearing political correctness and multiculturalism.
I am sure the burkha ban would be preceded by a referendum under the Swiss-style referenda policy that Lord Pearson announced as a key manifesto pledge and that it would actually be voters who decided with a UKIP government putting the case for the ban.
At the end of the day it's down to whether you think a minority of religious fanatics should be able to segregate themselves in public because of a fake tradition or whether the wishes of the majority are more important.
Tuesday, 19 January 2010
Pryor was an advisor to Margaret Thatcher when she was Prime Minister and like many Tories at the time, left the Conservative Party to join the fledgling Referendum Party. And like so many Tories nowadays, has joined UKIP.
As a party we've cracked EU elections, the number of UKIP councillors is increasing almost on a weekly basis and we have two UKIP peers in the House of Lords but if we are ever going to leave this corrupt, hugely expensive and undemocratic European Empire we need to fight the LibLabCon from inside the House of Commons with UKIP MPs. We can't rely on the electorate's distrust and disappointment with the LibLabCon to put UKIP MPs in Westminster, we have to fight a professional and sustained election campaign from now right up until the day of the election.
The general consensus is that the general election will be held on May 6th, allowing Labour to spend taxpayers money on their election campaign with a giveaway bonanza budget in April. Pryor will be starting work on the election campaign straight away devising strategy and policy.
However, Joan Smith acknowledges that the burka ‘limits women’s contact with non-relatives and maintains barriers between people who have different ethnic and religious backgrounds’ and that the garment signals a woman’s ‘deliberate separation from people unlike herself’. Smith points out that regardless of the woman's motive, whether it be family pressure, religious belief or political statement, the meaning of the burka remains the same: ‘separation, rejection, an acceptance of shame’. Thus she neatly concludes ‘wearing it in the 21st-century is preposterous’ but she concedes she would never support a ban.
A fellow feminist, who I believe would be more likely to support the ban is the Swiss, best-selling author of psychology books Julia Onken. Onken’s last minute email campaign was vital in swaying the vote of the recent Swiss referendum which banned the building of any further minarets in Switzerland. For Onken ‘the minarets are masculine symbols of power’. This has nothing to do with the minarets themselves but what they connote: a religion whose fundamentalist strands suppress women’s freedoms.
Many Swiss nationals were persuaded; the building of any future minarets was not voted against because they are an eye-sore, but because they represent a religion which has led to a perceived breakdown in social cohesion. Voting for the ban was making a statement.
If you overlook the genuine Islamophobes and racists, the desire of the Swiss people to ban minarets is very similar to the desire of UKIP’s leadership to ban burkas. Onken viewed the minarets as a symbol of Islamic patriarchy and this is just how Smith and Farage view the burka. Mr Farage said himself on The Politics Show that it is a ‘symbol of something that is used to oppress women’. Like the Swiss and minarets, Farage also views the burka as a symbol of the breakdown of social cohesion.
Mr Farage’s argument leads us into dangerous territory. Take the minaret example: Julia Onken attacked them because she saw no other way of expressing her views about extreme Islam. Surely It must be asked: why stop at minarets? By her own logic, if she had the chance, Onken would want to ban all the Islamic symbols in an attack on the religion's patriarchal nature, why not ban mosques, the Koran etc. And the exact same could be said of Farage’s line of argument. Why pick just the burka? Surely Mosques should be banned as they are spreading the doctrine of patriarchy and seclusion which he detests so much.
As any liberal will tell you tolerance and pluralism are the keystones to a free society. As Evlyn Beatrice Hall attributed Voltaire with writing: 'I detest what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it'. You might hate what is being worn but that gives you no right to ban it. If we believe the burka is inappropriate because it goes against our traditional British cultural values then so too must we ban that which is worn by Punks and Goths or the short skirts which our grandparents would of been shocked by in the 1950s.
Yes, let's encourage British culture in society, but forcing people to take part by restricting their liberty connotes fascist ideology (no surprise at all we're being linked with the BNP). Our Party would do well to concentrate on serious policy proposals in the regions of Foreign Affairs and Terrorism Legislation to deal with the real threats of Islamic extremism.
Saturday, 16 January 2010
Branch Chairman Greg Heathcliffe, said, " Despite the cold and damp conditions we collected over 100 signatures and handed out a lot of leaflets. This was a good first time effort which will be repeated in the coming months. I would like to thank those members who gave up their time for this event."
Why have you not made any comment on the terrible abuse of Nikki Sinclair by Nigel Farage and other senior party officials. Do you lead UKIP or not.
Nikki says you fully supported her decision to leave the EFD, if true, why have you not called a halt to the on going character assassination.
Name: Robert Feal-Martinez
I have today received a reply which I cannot disclose other than to say the possibility of justice being done exists. I cannot say more than that at this time, in deference to a request in the email.
I am content at this time, but will report as soon as I am able to.
I speak as a UKIP member who believes in fairness, tolerance and democracy. As someone who comes from a mixed race back ground, my father was Spanish, it was not easy growing up with the 'w*p', w*g, jibes but one learnt very early on that these reactions were from a base of ignorance. That said more about the adults /parents than of my peers, using the language.
I am British and I am proud to be so, many of us within the party warned that the agenda for UKIP would change were Lord Pearson of Rannoch to be elected Leader, given his somewhat ill thought out comments on Islam and Muslim women.
I do not believe that a total ban is the answer. I believe that anywhere where other forms of facial covering is deemed unacceptable, banks, building society, airports etc then it should only be right that the same applies to burka's.
I think that there is a lot to be said for this policy, were it not to be perceived as a political tool, as the Times article says,
"It is, ( I prefer to ask Is it) therefore, stirring racial discontent, for its own electoral benefit and this is reprehensible. Calling for withdrawal from the EU is respectable, if wrong-headed. Increasing fear and misunderstanding between communities is not."
I think in future we as front line members interacting with our peers will now find it just a touch more difficult to convince the public we are not the BNP in Blazers.
These are personal views as a member of UKIP and are not the necessarily the views of my branch.
Friday, 15 January 2010
As an aside I have still not received a reply to the email I sent him.
The Guardian Associate Editor agree with Nikki that the some of groups within EFD were very extremist.
All in all despite the clear BBC agenda to put her down. I believe she has shown her commitment to UKIP. What was interesting once again, is that the NEC has not followed party rules with the actions they have taken. Let's wait to see them spin this.
I've put the daily politics link in the header, the interview should appear there soon.
Paul Nuttall in his condemnation of Nikki Sinclair does not mention that 'the breach' referred to concerns the allegation made by Nigel Farage on National television. Nikki Sinclair states quite categorically that two of the most senior figures in the party were fully aware she was a discharged bankrupt. She named these as the Party Secretary Michael Zuckerman, who also doubles as the parties legal adviser, and Clive Page, the now former Chief Press Officer for the party and formally a close confident of Nigel Farage.
It is clear for those with an open mind Nikki Sinclair, after leaving the EFD group, and my only comment about that would be that we are told Lord Pearson of Rannoch, the party leader, who has kept silent on this, fully supported Nikki Sinclair in leaving, has been subjected to a witch hunt to justify her removal from the position of PPC, and the possible expulsion from the party.
This once again indicates that it matters not that a member of 16 years standing who has donated thousands of pounds to the party, who has been in very large part responsible for a huge rise in support for UKIP in her region, has had her reputation impugned by the former leader of the party Nigel Farage, for what many have said is his personal dislike of her.
I think it is important that both sides of this story be told.
Click on the link to Paul Nuttalls statement above.
This is Nikki's response.
Thursday, 14 January 2010
1. Entry was made to Nikki Sinclaire's office on Tuesday morning by a party official.
2. An office junior was present who was distressed by the sudden, unannouced entry. 3. The party offical advised both Nikki and the office junior that they were acting on direct instructions of the NEC.
4. Items were removed from Nikki's office
5. The office junior telephoned Nikki's Brussels office to inform Nikki of the entry.
6. Nikki was not given any prior warning and no request was made to her to hand over any items of property.
6. Nikki made contact with the party official who had removed the items and they were then returned to the office.
A clarification on the "raid" on Nikki Sinclaire MEP's office:
The NEC asked an officer of the party to remove UKIP equipment from the office of Nikki Sinclaire believing it was jointly occupied with Mike Nattrass MEP. The officer in question visited the office, spoke to a member of staff, confirmed that nothing belonging to UKIP was present and left. Nothing was removed from the office.
I don't think this will be making the front page of Private Eye any time soon.
Wednesday, 13 January 2010
Tuesday, 12 January 2010
Thanks for your e-mail.
We note your concern that UKIP has not been invited to take part in the planned Prime Ministerial Debates.
You’re twisting things with your very first sentence. My concern was that once again UKIP is being kept out of the debates. Calling them Prime Ministerial debates is your way of keeping the 4th party out. If the BBC seriously want to argue that Nick Clegg can be Prime Minister, then please explain where those 200+ gains are going to come from.
Televised debates between those party leaders who aspire to be Prime Minister of
the UK have never taken place before, despite some evidence that the electorate
would welcome such a development. The BBC – along with ITV and Sky – put forward
proposals aimed at establishing in principle that such debates would take place
during the coming General Election campaign for the Westminster Parliament.
It was announced on December 21st that the three largest parties at
Westminster had agreed, in principle, to the broadcasters’ proposal.
This is basically a repetition of what you’ve already said – but interesting to note the use of the word “proposal”. Proposal to whom? The state? The British public? Because if either were the case there are a great number of questions that would then follow.
The broadcasters have also made it clear that each – individually – would put
forward additional proposals to ensure due impartiality across the UK. The BBC
intends to hold election debates between the largest parties in Scotland, Wales
and Northern Ireland. The details – both of the BBC’s UK-wide debate and those
in each of the nations – have yet to be agreed.
For all other parties,
the BBC will also bring forward proposals to ensure that there are opportunities
for their views to be given appropriate coverage in the context of the UK-wide
Ah ok….so Plaid Cymru, who only contest 40 constituencies, and who live in a part of the UK where power is already considerably devolved, will get a full hearing. But UKIP, who are contesting 500+ constituencies WON’T? And you consider this fair?
The basis on which judgements are made about relative levels of coverage rests
on past and current electoral support. For the election to the House of Commons
in 2010, the starting point is the last General Election, in 2005.
As I told you in my original letter, and reminded you with my second response – this “argument from incumbency” is not only heavily biased in favour of the status quo, but demonstrates again the “innate bias” which the BBC has more than once quietly admitted.
Similarly, the starting point for coverage of the 2009 European election was the
previous European election of 2004. This meant that UKIP – on the basis of its
strong performance in 2004 – was given the same level of coverage in the 2009
election as the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties.
This is just utter fiction. Anyone who was involved in ,or followed last June’s election knows that UKIP didn’t receive equal coverage. By ramping up your lies in this fashion, you are showing that the BBC really is fighting a war of propaganda.
In 2005, however, at the last General Election (notwithstanding its performance
at the European election less than a year before), UKIP attracted just over 2%
of the vote and won no representation at Westminster.
Is it surprising that UKIP suffered in the polls when the free coverage awarded to the incumbents was denied them? You essentially kept them off the TV.
It is, therefore, appropriate and consistent for the BBC – and other
broadcasters – to offer the opportunity to take part in the Prime Ministerial
debates only to those parties which have substantial electoral support in the
context of Westminster. There will be additional opportunities across the BBC
for other parties to receive appropriate coverage responding to the Prime
There’s your other big twist. Initially it was to be a debate “between those party leaders who aspire to be Prime Minister” (which I’m sure would include Malcolm Pearson anyway), now you change it to “those parties which have substantial electoral support”.
Once again you aptly demonstrate that the BBC is inconsistent, corrupt and immoral.
I invite you to respond to the points I have made here.
The move means UKIP now have a total of two councillors in the Borough as he joins fellow colleague, Belmont UKIP Cllr David Pickles. Cllr Theobald, 51, said: “I do not perceive UKIP as a party of the right, left or centre, but see it as a broad spectrum and I will continue to exercise my moderate left of centre ethics.
“I have enjoyed many debates and conversations with Cllr Pickles over the past few years and have found that, despite opposing views on some issues we can always find common ground and a viable road forward”.
Frank Day, chairman of UKIP Sutton Borough branch, who is the parliamentary candidate for Carshalton and Wallington at the coming general election, said he was “delighted at the news”.
Monday, 11 January 2010
Nikki was uncomfortable with the EFD group from day one for understandable reasons. Some of the members of the EFD group are, if not homophobic, not exactly complimentary of homosexuality.
There are 27 countries in the European Empire and what may be considered unacceptable to most people in one country isn't necessarily considered unacceptable to most people in another country and in the case of some of UKIP's Eastern European partners in the EFD group, their views on homosexuality are a case in point.
I can fully understand Nikki's feelings on the group although it's a shame no compromise could be found that would have enabled her to stay in the EFD grouping with her fellow UKIP MEPs. I am sure she will continue to work for UKIP, for the country and most importantly, for the people in the West Midlands that voted for her to represent them in the EU Parliament.
Edit: Apologies for the post disappearing overnight, I assume it was deleted in error.
“At the heart of Cameron’s political philosophy are the conjoined ideas ofSo after “decades of neglect” of the state’s cultivation of the personality of the people (I beg to differ), Reeves and Cameron have decided to lay out the attributes which are most desirable to their “new agenda for character education” – summed up by the “ability to put the needs of others before your own”.
social responsibility and commitment. But the “big society” which he
optimistically hopes can replace the “big state” is one which has to be composed
of big people – people who are willing both to discipline themselves and to
sacrifice some of their own interests for those of others. In other words,
people of character.”
Such blatant calls for self-sacrifice cannot be sanctioned, and so I defer to Ayn Rand, who remains the world heavy-weight champion debunker of altruism.
There are two moral questions which altruism lumps together into oneSo the “test of character” posed to the British people is “how selfless can you be for the public good”? This is an indictment of moral vacuity, and as clear a sign as any that it is dangerous to underestimate quite how evil the next government will be – regardless of who wins, since even Reeves admits “both the main parties…promote social responsibility”.
“package-deal”: (1) What are values? (2) Who should be the beneficiary of
values? Altruism substitutes the second for the first; it evades the task of
defining a code of moral values, thus leaving man, in fact, without moral
Altruism declares that any action taken for the benefit of
others is good, and any action taken for one’s own benefit is evil. Thus the
beneficiary of an action is the only criterion of moral value—and so long as
that beneficiary is anybody other than oneself, anything goes.
‘Evil?’ I hear you ask.
‘What could be more evil?’ I retort.
You are being prescribed sacrifice of your livelihood and your moral code, and then told such an action is the height of morality. The two parties who are vying to form government are now clearly trying to outdo one another in the altruism stakes. Gone is any believable rhetoric about freedom, prosperity, or even the cliché of ‘change’, from British politics. This election will be fought between rival cabals of corporatist interest as to whom can construct the most effective socialist technocracy.
As for the grit crisis I wrote about in my last piece- well that has nothing to do with salt, but everything to do with character, according to Reeves – the implicit suggestion being of course, that any sector of the economy, be it rock salt distribution or the socialised health system, can be improved if only us individuals are willing to sacrifice ourselves.
I hope for my sake that you’re not.
FROM THE UK INDEPENDENCE PARTY IN THE EASTERN COUNTIES
11th January 2010
"The Conservative Party no longer represents real conservative values" says Ramsey Councillor as he defects to UKIP.
Cllr Andy Monk, who was elected as a Conservative to represent Ramsey on the Huntingdonshire District Council, has today (11th January) announced his defection to the UK Independence Party (UKIP).
Cllr Monk joins Cllr Peter Reeve, who won the double by-election for UKIP in July 2009 and represents Ramsey on the District Council as well as being a Cambridgeshire County Councillor. They will now be establishing a UKIP Group on the Huntingdonshire District Council.
Cllr Monk says "I am very pleased to have joined UKIP. Like many other Conservative members, I have agreed with UKIP on the key issues for many years. I really do feel that the current leadership of the Conservative Party no longer represents real conservative values and that local Conservative leaders do not allow their councillors the freedom to properly represent the local community.
"In contrast UKIP strongly champions the local community and is the real voice of local people. That is why I entered politics and it was because I promised to listen to local people that I was elected in April 2009 and it is why I have decided to join UKIP now."
UKIP Deputy Leader and MEP for the East of England, David Campbell-Bannerman said: "We are delighted that Cllr Monk has joined UKIP. Our political influence and support in Cambridgeshire is growing fast, as it is around the country because we are the only Party with real common sense policies. We expect our councillors to work very hard for the local community and Andy has risen to the challenge. He joins a fast growing band of UKIP Councillors fighting to challenge the complacent career politicians who no longer listen to the ordinary man in the street."
Sunday, 10 January 2010
Let me give some background to those of you that don’t know. In Britain, whether your home is signed up to EDF (French), nPower (German), or to Eon or British Gas (global corporatists), your supplier will still be the same. Your gas will be piped by Transco, and your electricity will come from a regional generator already chosen for you by the wonders of government-sanctioned monopoly. Changing the name on the top of the bill really changes nothing, and is very unlikely to make you much of a saving in the long run (believe me, I used to sell energy for a living!).
The cartel nature of the supposedly “deregulated” energy industry doesn’t, of course, stop salesmen coming to your door promising you all kinds of gimmicks (price fixes, duel fuel discounts, ‘free’ telephone and broadband packages) to persuade you to change. This is because the administrators (and that’s all billing companies consist of) can only make money off you by persuading you to change. My guess is that any Brit who reads this can recall changing their billing company in the last 5 years, at least once. When they did this, they brought new costs onto themselves, because the unit price of their energy was inflated so that the company could make money. If they told you on the doorstep that it would cost you money to change, would you bother? Of course not.
In the same way, David Cameron and Gordon Brown are both vying for your signature. Only this time it won’t be a cautious scribble while you look in the salesman’s eyes and wonder if the £200 saving he has promised you is real – it will be a ‘X’ on a piece of paper, while you fidget behind a screen and invent reasons to continue to legitimise the most outrageous criminals in all of British history.
To ease you through the sales process, both Red Labour and Blue Labour promise you the same kind of irrelevant gimmicks. This year’s election sees the gimmicks naturally revolve around “deficit reduction”. Speaking now to those millions of people who are thinking of changing their energy supplier, how many of you– it must be asked – have considered where that deficit came from in the first place?!
To distract people from the true nature of the Ponzi scheme being levelled on them, Red Labour talk about “tax rises” as if this is suddenly a good thing, and Brown is smug and self-satisfied – as if he deserves a medal for his bold admission of the rises. Blue Labour, and Cameron, on the other hand, talk about “spending cuts”, not on ideological grounds, or even practical grounds, since he leaves the most wasteful sinkholes like the NHS untouched. No, it’s pure electioneering, pure gimmick, pure fascia, pure surface. Both of these concepts are sham short term measures which cannot change the basic structure of the system in place – the immorality of centralised banking and deficit financing.
If you want any clearer proof that these ‘policies’ are irrelevant gimmicks, just watch Cameron’s recent interview with Andrew Marr (and compare it to the Brown interview). When asked the most straightforward question on budgeting – as to whether the Tories will beat the Labour pledge and will “more than half the deficit in 4 years” – Cameron’s piffle is the furthest thing from a straight answer you will ever see.
I’m not going to go into Cameron’s interview in detail because his policy on the only thing that matters (Britain’s membership of the EU), is exactly the same as Gordon Brown’s. His gimmicks are slightly different, but just as I wouldn’t waste my time examining my stools for fiber, I’m not going to pick out the differences between Red and Blue Labour (I do encourage you to watch the interviews).
Lets look instead at some of the really telling comments Cameron made:-
Andrew Marr (paraphrased): “Your list of cuts is nothing like enough to make theThat should be tomorrow’s headline…but it won’t be. The leader of the opposition is ADMITTING he’s lying, but is allowed to continue. What a shameful state of affairs.
savings you’re claiming”
David Cameron: “I accept its not enough”
DC: “There are some things we don’t want to do, but we know we HAVE to do”
He’s a man of no principles, no ethics, no moral code whatsoever. He will do whatever is necessary to allow the corporatist elite to keep raping and pillaging British freedom and prosperity.
DC: “We’re gonna tell people they have to retire a year later”
Excuse me, but exactly when was it decided that it was a good idea to let cultural Marxists like David Cameron tell you whether or not you can work, and for whom, and for how long?
DC: "Here’s the thing: you never HAVE to agree with what the government say"
Isn’t the purpose of government to represent the people, not shepherd or tyrannise them? I put it to you that the only legitimate role of the government is the protection of individual liberty. Please feel free to disagree if you still don’t see how that position is SELF-DEFEATING.
With this I shall leave you to ponder whether you will continue to sanction the gimmicks and lies of the billing companies, or whether you want to withdraw from the EU and change your supplier.
A few months remain. Join, and work together with others to save the remnants of your livelihoods and your dignities, and begin to reverse the rot afflicting a once prosperous country. Join with, and vote for UKIP. It’s your only hope. I kid you not.
Thursday, 7 January 2010
Joining the English Democrats in their "Anglo-Christian Democratic Alliance of Political Parties" are the Christian Party "Proclaiming Christ's Lordship", Jury Team, Popular Alliance, the UK Fascist First Party and Veritas. Strangely absent are the England First Party, a BNP off-shoot that the English Democrats formed an electoral pact with during the 2009 EU elections.
Let's have a look at the English Democrats' new bed-fellows:
The Christian Party ... well, what can I say? The Christian Party is headed up by a Scottish Reverend and has a homophobic, anti-abortion, illiberal manifesto. As well as the UK Christian Party, there is a Christian Party Scotland and Christian Party Wales - something the English Democrats criticise other British political parties for!
Jury Team isn't even a proper party, it's just a rich bloke paying deposits for no-hopers who can't make it onto a party list. Jury Team candidates collectively gained only half a percent of the national vote between them in the 2009 EU elections.
The Popular Alliance is an off-shoot of UKIP and Veritas, itself an off-shoot of UKIP. The Popular Alliance has a policy to "restore British culture, tradition and history, especially in schools". Their website describes them as a "Political party opposing Labour, Conservative, Lib Dem, UKIP, Veritas and BNP as an alternative for government".
The UK First Party is yet another UKIP off-shoot and already has an alliance with the Popular Alliance. The UK First leadership and its handful of activists consist mainly of disgruntled former UKIP members including Greg Limp-Wrist, one of the EU moles who writes on the anti-UKIP "Junius" blog.
Veritas is the original UKIP off-shoot, formed by Robert Kiljoy-Slick when he threw his teddy out of the pram after failing to get himself installed as leader. Veritas' biggest achievement is to still be in business despite having virtually no success in its 5 year history. Robert Kiljoy-Slick once tried to take over the English Democrats but failed.
The combined vote in the 2009 EU elections of every party in the Alliance for Democracy (Veritas and Popular Alliance didn't stand any candidates) was just 4.4% - 1.8% less than the BNP, slightly over half the Green vote and just over a quarter of the UKIP vote. Three of the six parties in the Alliance for Democracy are UKIP off-shoots, one of them is specifically opposed to one of the others, one of them has a "British" party to cover England with local parties for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and all of them except the English Democrats are UK parties.
I'm not sure how you can have an alliance of Anglo-Christian parties in England, Scotland and Wales as they claim to be and I'm surprised that the English Democrats are so keen to declare themselves a Christian party when one of their national council members and founder members, who happens to be one of their best people, is Jewish. There's even a Scottish and Welsh branch of the alliance!
I could be wrong, of course, but I seriously doubt anyone will be unduly concerned about this schizophrenic alliance of British/Scottish/Welsh/English nationalist Christian (apart from non-Christians) unelectable political parties.
There is little doubt that the EU Court of Injustice will rule in favour of the EU Commission because the judges, who are already on a salary of £215k, will be ruling on their own pay rises! As Nigel Farage says, "it would not take Nostradamus to predict the result of this particular case".
It would be interesting to see what happened if an individual was to take their own legal action over this because the EU Court of Justice is not the independent tribunal guaranteed by the EU Convention on Human Rights.
Tuesday, 5 January 2010
The appointment will need to be ratified by the National Executive Council (NEC) on Monday.
Lisa hasn't exactly shone in the post of Chairman of Young Independence, with members complaining that she is out of contact for weeks on end. This is apparently due to work commitments - she juggles a full-time job and the Chairmanship of Young Independence. Presumably the post of Chairman Director of UKIP is a full-time, salaried position otherwise I fail to see how she can possibly be effective in this role.
This is all just speculation of course, she might not even get the job and the terms won't have been confirmed yet. We will have to wait and see and give her (or whoever gets the job) the benefit of the doubt until they have the opportunity to prove their worth.
The post is Director, not Chairman as previously thought.
Sunday, 3 January 2010
What comes as a slight surprise is that the FIRST aspect of the issue mentioned is the EU’s role in global governance; but now that they have the fascist superstate, why not go for the mystery star prize, eh? Gavin Hewitt is obviously being coached, directly or indirectly by the same Alphaville-style technocrats that wrote Van Rompuy’s maiden speech. These people can’t be fucked to hide their crimes anymore – in fact they’ve begun to assume they don’t need to. Only the British people are to blame for the loss of their own sovereignty, and only the British people can prove or disprove the validity of the elite’s assumption as to their acquiescence. The majority of the people have never WANTED political union*, but now they’ve got it, can THEY be fucked to do something about it?
The SECOND point Mr. Hewitt makes is about “divisions within the union” and by this he is presumably talking about the petty squabbles between the far-left and the centre-left over how swiftly to accelerate their Soviet model agenda. These disputes – which you the taxpayer sponsor – iron out smaller details such as whether the elite need Turkey to help them or whether the rising Islamism there – and the prospect of sharing borders with some of the worst dictatorships in the Mideast – might prompt (finally) a negative public response.
THIRDLY, Hewitt babbles his way through what would normally be some sound concerns about the economy, but then sadly disposes of the final shreds of his respectability when he says that readers should expect the European Commission (a.k.a the unelected bureaucrats who recently completed the most recent stage of their ongoing power grab) to “enforce competition policy rigorously and to resist…protectionism”. One CANNOT regulate markets in order to make them free! And…ladies and gentlemen, I ask you PLEASE…..HOW is funnelling wealth into a (now visible) oligarchy whilst perpetrating mass theft and looting on the people NOT protectionist???
FURTHER outrages from Hewitt may well be deliberately designed to make the reader want to give up interest (and possibly hope) altogether: “Europe will continue to be anxious over its identity”. What a blatantly collectivist pro-EU lie! This is the kind of targeted, one-size-fits-all propaganda that ensures the stooges feel moralised, their patsies capitulate, and the ignorant masses abdicate their minds.
LASTLY, Hewitt concludes with: “Finally, how will we judge whether Europe is serious about managing the environment? My pick is the bluefin tuna. That may be the litmus test of how serious the EU is in protecting species under threat.”
No reference here of the Anthropogenic Climate Change fraud, or the carbon taxes and green financial frauds being carried out under its auspices…just some fucking fish.
It’s often been said that technocrats view people as ants, but now you know you’re more like fish in a barrel. You really must love getting shot to stay as quiet as you do.
* = Q: When was the last time that any people were the driving force in developing rational and ethical truths in Western politics?
Friday, 1 January 2010
The meeting will be to elect a new committee to take the group into the next local and general elections. It will also be used to make the final selection of the two PPC's.
Chairman Greg Heathcliffe hopes all Swindon members will attend this meeting as the formation of this committee is perhaps the most important in the history of the Swindon Branch. Please note whilst non members are welcome, they will not be able to take any part in the election process, or speak to the event.