Thursday, 30 May 2013

EU Commission considering legal action against Spain

The EU Commission is considering legal action against the Spanish government because some hospitals have been refusing to accept EU health insurance cards.

The BBC have dutifully tracked down someone from the UK who was asked to pay for treatment in a Spanish hospital to try and justify the EU Commission's interference in Spanish domestic affairs.

The NHS has to pay the cost of any treatment carried out abroad under the EU health insurance card system but the national health service of the country where treatment is being carried out bears the cost until it can be reclaimed.

The Spanish government is broke so it's hardly surprising that they're looking to cut costs.  The EU health insurance card scheme is undoubtedly useful but it's expensive and bureaucratic and social security is a reserved matter for national governments.  If the Spanish health service decides not to accept the card any more that's a matter for the Spanish government to decide, not unelected eurocrats in the unelected EU Commission or unelected judges in the EU Court of Injustice.

EU Commission suing UK over benefits restrictions

The EU Commission is taking legal action against the UK for making it too hard for EU immigrants to claim benefits.

They are claiming that the "right to reside" test illegally discriminates against EU citizens by making it harder for them to claim benefits than a UK citizen even though the test is applied to UK citizens moving back to the country after living abroad.

Iain Duncan Smith says that the British government will fight the EU Commission so expect a cave-in pretty soon.

Stourport Tory councillor defects to UKIP

Stourport Town Councillor, John Holden, has defected from the Conservatives to UKIP.

Cllr Holden joined UKIP for a "fresh start and the beginning of a new approach to local politics" and because UKIP doesn't operate a whip telling its councillors what to think and how to vote.

Cllr Holden will be Wyre Forest UKIP's candidate for the upcoming by-election to fill the vacant Stourport seat for Worcestershire County Council.

Tuesday, 28 May 2013

ComRes poll predicts EU election win for UKIP

A ComRes poll for Open Europe puts UKIP on 27% for the EU elections with Labour in second place on 23% and the Tories on 21%. The Lib Dems are a distant fourth with just 9%.

The same poll predicts 37% for Labour, 26% for the Tories and UKIP on 20% in a general election.  The Lib Dems are once again a distant fourth on 9%.

The poll also found that while 41% of people would vote to leave the EU with 37% voting to stay in, that would change to 47% voting to stay in and 32% voting to leave if significant powers could be repatriated from the EU.  Human nature will always favour the soft option, the compromise.  But as it's not possible to take power off the EU once you've given it to them without leaving the mythical "third way" isn't going to be an option.

Open Europe has tried to spin the poll as massive support for the EU as you would expect from a pro-EU think tank that campaigns for reform but really it's not.  Most people want to leave the EU and most would take the easy way out if it was possible which it's not.  Open Europe can spin it all they like but this isn't a positive poll for the europhiles.

Monday, 27 May 2013

Farage suggests he could do a deal with 20 "eurosceptic" MPs

Nigel Farage has said that he could do a deal with 20 "eurosceptic" MPs for the next election which would see them standing on a joint UKIP/Conservative ticket.

David Cameron has already made it clear that he won't allow this to happen so it's pretty academic unless he gets deposed before the next election but there's an important principal at stake: UKIP is a political party, our job is to win elections not just campaign to leave the EU.

We've only just started throwing off the "single issue" label that's plagued us for years and here we are contemplating standing aside once again for MPs that claim to be eurosceptic but prop up pro-EU parties.  We have a full manifesto and leaving the EU is just one of our policies so why isn't someone suggesting we stand aside for MPs that support tougher immigration controls or advocate a flat tax?

100% think tax dodging EU civil servants should pay more tax

Last week we asked if tax dodging EU civil servants should pay their fair share of tax.

I'd say that was a pretty clear message.

Sunday, 26 May 2013

UKIP opposes transfer of tax powers to the EU

The eurofanatical LibLabCon have been criticising UKIP for voting against an EU Parliament report entitled "Fight against Tax Fraud, Tax Evasion and Tax Havens".  They say that it means UKIP is supporting tax evasion.

UKIP is absolutely committed to combating tax fraud and evasion but not by giving the EU control over our tax system, harmonising tax rules across the EU and giving EU institutions access to our tax records which is what the report - supported by the Tories, Labour and the Lib Dems - calls for.

Here are just a few of the 75 resolutions in the report that UKIP voted against:
Emphasises that the EU should take the leading role in discussions on the fight against tax fraud, tax avoidance and tax havens in the OECD, the Global Forum on Transparency and Exchange of information for Tax Purposes, the G20, the G8 and other relevant multinational fora;
Considers it of paramount importance that Member States authorise the Commission to negotiate tax agreements with third countries on behalf of the EU instead of continuing with the practice of bilateral negotiations producing sub-optimal results from the point of view of the EU as a whole and often also of the Member State concerned;
Calls on the Commission to propose common standards for tax treaties between Member States and developing countries
Welcomes the US Foreign Account Tax compliance Act (FATCA) as a first step towards an automatic exchange of information between the EU and the US to fight trans-border tax fraud and tax evasion; regrets, however, that a bilateral/intergovernmental approach has been taken in the negotiations with the US rather than a common EU negotiating position;
Asks the Commission to study the possibility of introducing European taxation on cross-border business models and electronic commerce;
Calls on the Member States to remove all obstacles in national law that hinder cooperation and exchanges of tax information with the EU institutions and within the Member States, while also ensuring effective protection of taxpayers’ data;
Calls on the Commission to carry out an in-depth study into the difference, in the Member States, between legal and actual corporation tax rates in order to ensure that the debate on fiscal harmonisation is based on objective data;
Calls for a common EU approach towards tax havens;
So the Tories, Labour and the Lib Dems have all voted for the EU to take the place of the British government in discussions on tax fraud and evasion, for direct EU taxation, for the harmonisation of our tax system with the rest of the EU, to share taxpayer data automatically with the rest of the EU and to have the EU take over from the British government in concluding treaties relating to taxation.

In fact, the Tories haven't just supported it, David Cameron has led the campaign for the report to approved and wants to take it to the G8.  What a mockery this makes of Cameron's pledges to negotiate a new, less intrusive and dictatorial relationship with the EU and surely transferring all these powers to the EU will need a referendum under the impotent and useless EU Act?

Saturday, 25 May 2013

UKIP brings undemocratic Tory cabinet to an end in Norfolk

The UKIP group on Norfolk County Council has successfully negotiated the end of the undemocratic cabinet system and formed a coalition with Labour and the Lib Dems.

The minority administration of 39 councillors was formed with the support of the Greens and independents and brings an end to the exclusive Tory control of the council under the cabinet system which excludes the majority of councillors and concentrates power on the largest minority.

Tory supporting blogs like Guido Fawkes and ConHome have unsurprisingly criticised the loss of a council claiming it as evidence that a vote for UKIP means a vote for Labour, referring to the fact that the council now has a Labour leader.  The council isn't Labour controlled though, it is jointly controlled by UKIP, Labour and the Lib Dems and because it's a minority administration (39 UKIP, Labour and Lib Dem councillors versus 40 Conservatives) it will need the support of some or all of the Tories, Greens and independents to implement policy meaning most people in Norfolk are represented in the decision making process, not the biggest minority in political terms.

UKIP isn't an offshoot of the Conservative Party and it's ridiculous to assume that a group of UKIP councillors would automatically support the Tories as the lesser of two evils.  There is no whip in UKIP so councillors are free (and expected) to determine what is right for their local area.  If that doesn't involve the Tories then tough, they should have done a better job when they had the opportunity.

The cabinet system of local government, like the First Past the Post system that supports it, is an undemocratic anachronism and hopefully more councils will change back to multi-party committees.

Friday, 24 May 2013

Labour councillor defects to UKIP

A Labour councillor on North East Lincolnshire Council has defected to UKIP.

Cllr Jayne Bramley said that being dictated to by whips was the last straw and having read UKIP's policies decided to defect.

You could have your own opinion but when push comes to shove you have to vote as dictated. I've had enough of that. I want to represent my constituents in their best interests and not just as laid down by the Whip.

I have not made this decision lightly but having studied UKIP's policies I know I am making the right choice.
It is thought that Cllr Bramley is the first Labour councillor to defect to UKIP.  This means that UKIP has now attracted defectors from the Tories. Labour, the Lib Dems, the Green Party, the English Democrats and a number of local parties as well as independents.

Thursday, 23 May 2013

EU backs down on olive oil ban

A plot they did foil
to ban olive oil
by Dacian the EU man
The EU has dropped its ridiculous plans to ban restaurants from putting olive oil in reusable bottles after attracting criticism not just from the UK but from many other EU countries.

Environment Secretary, Owen Paterson, has called it a victory for common sense but his government allowed the ban to be driven through the EU's regulatory process by commercial olive oil producers without a murmur and then allowed a regulation to be drafted without opposition.  If it hadn't been for public opposition, his department would have allowed the ban to be passed into law without a murmur!

The EU Commissioner, Dacian Ciolos, admitted that there was no evidence that the widespread fraud in restaurants cited as the reason for trying to ban olive oil in reusable bottles and that the committee considering it was just acting on hearsay.

Iceland abandons EU membership application

The leader of the Icelandic Independence Party, Bjarni Benediktsson, has said that Iceland's brief flirtation with the EU has come to an end.

Very few Icelanders are in favour of EU membership but the Social Democratic Party pressed ahead with a membership application regardless, devoid (as the left usually are) of ideas on how to deal with their economic problems.

Joining the EU would have decimated Iceland's fishing industry which accounts for 40% of exports and provides employment for 7% of the population and would threaten Iceland's low tax regime.  Iceland is currently running a budget surplus of about 5% and its national debt is just 11% of GDP - the EU would jealously destroy that because prosperous countries aren't dependent countries and without economic instability and financial dependence there wouldn't be an EU.

Wednesday, 22 May 2013

Lincolnshire County Council multiculturalism declaration

A few days ago, UKIP's Lincolnshire County Councillors were slated for refusing to sign a pledge to promote multiculturalism.

The LibLabCon councillors on Lincolnshire County Council are claiming that UKIP councillors are refusing to condemn racism but as you can see from the text of the declaration it's clearly not.

This pledge isn't just about promoting multiculturalism, it also calls for racial quotas for public sector jobs to "reflect the wider community".

No wonder UKIP councillors refused to sign it!

We, in Lincolnshire, are proud of our diverse and multi-racial heritage, which we regard as a source of cultural, social and economic strength. We will work vigorously to combat all forms of racism to rid Lincolnshire of racial discrimination and to enshrine the principle that individuality and universality are the foundations of justice and peace.

We declare that:

We value the contribution that all communities make to the quality of life in Lincolnshire and recognise ethnic and cultural diversity as a source of cultural, social and economic enrichment.

We endorse the principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and are opposed to racism in all its forms.

We will encourage a changing culture within the public services and the wider community that recognises the unacceptability of all forms of racism and takes action to combat it.

We acknowledge that progress towards a more just society may not always be smooth, but as partners we are committed to maintaining dialogue and resolving our differences.

We accept that without transparency and openness in the public services, progress towards a successful multi-cultural community will be hampered.

We believe that the composition of the public services workforce should reflect that of the wider community, and will work to break down perceptions and barriers that prevent equal access to employment.

We believe that all citizens should have the right to expect equal protection and equal treatment from all public services.

We believe that children from all backgrounds are entitled to an education free from discrimination and harassment.

We understand the essential role of the education system in Lincolnshire in developing the future of our multi-cultural community and commit ourselves to supporting and enhancing this work.

We believe that our success will properly be measured not by our policies but by our actions in promoting equality for all the people of Lincolnshire.

We call upon the residents of Lincolnshire to support us in this by respecting the dignity of all people and by constant vigilance for any expression of racism or racial discrimination.
As we said, UKIP councillors don't need a piece of paper to tell them to treat everyone equally.

Gay marriage bill is divisive and unnecessary

The British government has voted to legalise gay marriage in England and Wales but David Cameron has suffered yet another embarrassing rebellion with 133 Tory MPs voting against the party.

I personally couldn't care less whether gay people want to get married and I don't have a problem with gay marriage being legalised.  What I do have a problem with - and this is where UKIP's opposition to the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Bill stems from - is with religious organisations being forced to conduct them against their if it's against their beliefs.

I listened to some of the debate yesterday and I can't decide whether the MPs talking about the protections for religious organisations in the bill were deceitful or just ignorant.  The protections were described as a "triple lock" and later a "quadruple lock" but really any protections are useless when the EU Court of Human Rights can (and will) rule it a breach of human rights.

The British government has started on a dangerous path with this legislation that will see the rights of religious people not to have to take part in something that is against their beliefs pitted against the rights of gay people to get married.  I'm neither religious nor homosexual so don't have a vested interest in either side and I don't think the rights of either side are more important than the other.  But the EU Court of Human Rights will rule in favour of gay marriage because it always rules against Christians trying to protect their religious rights so one group of people will lose their rights so that another group of people can call their marriage a marriage rather than a civil partnership.

Yesterday's vote wasn't a victory for gay rights or "equal marriage" (although it was good to hear an MP call for civil partnerships to be extended to straight couples in the name of equality) - it was a victory for a relatively small group of militant gay rights activists fronted by Pink News who have created the illusion of demands for the right to call their civil partnership a marriage.  I don't profess to be an expert on the gay community but I do have a few gay friends and the ones I've spoken to about gay marriage really don't care.

There is no difference in the legal rights of a gay couple in a civil partnership or a straight couple in a marriage, this law will change nothing other than the name of a civil partnership.  It is divisive and unnecessary and has wasted huge amounts of taxpayers' money for what?  A friend of mine is in a civil partnership, he calls his partner his husband and says they are married.  So what if the law says that it can't be called a marriage on a legal document because they're gay?  It doesn't change what it is and what it is is a marriage in all but name.

Tuesday, 21 May 2013

Poll: Should EU civil servants pay their "fair share" of tax?

EU civil servants pay as little as 8% income tax on their salaries, rising to 45% for the highest earners who can be on a salary of £190k or more. Big companies like Google and Starbucks (but not the left wing Guardian or Huffington Post of course, they're beyond reproach) have taken a battering over their perfectly legal exploitation of stupid tax laws to avoid paying tax.

Should tax avoiding UK citizens working for the EU be forced to pay their "fair share" of tax like the rest of us?

Monday, 20 May 2013

UKIP now 2% behind the Conservatives in latest Survation Poll

How Has Political Opinion Changed Since Before The Local Elections? Fieldwork May 17th-18th

Fieldwork May 17th – 18th
General Election Voting Intention, Change Since Survation poll May 1st
Conservative: 24% (-5)
Labour: 35% (-1)
Liberal Democrat: 11% (-1)
UKIP: 22% (+6)
Other: 8% (nc)
European Election Voting Intentions, Change Since Survation poll Jan 5th
Conservative: 20% (-4)
Labour: 31% (nc)
UKIP: 30% (+8)
Liberal Democrat: 8% (-3)
Green: 6% (nc)
Other: 5% (-1)
EU Referendum Voting Intention, Change Since 25th January
Stay: 36% (nc)
Leave: 50% (nc)
Don’t know: 14% (+1)
This is the first national opinion poll post the allegations of a senior Conservative party member’s “insulting” of local Conservative associations. The figure of 24% for the Conservatives is the lowest (by 1%) of any pollster this cycle and a record low for Survation. Although difficult to be exact, UKIP’s rise in European Election fortunes would likely give them the most seats in the European parliament of any UK party.
Full tables can be found here:
Survation conduct regular bespoke telephone and online research in constituencies and for local, national and European elections.  Survation is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules.

An open letter from Nigel Farage

Today's Telegraph carries a full page letter from Nigel Farage inviting "swivel eyed loons" in the Conservative Party to join UKIP.

UKIP: A Party For The People In A Neo-Medieval Age

Our continued advance in the opinion polls, crystalised by our recent successes in the local elections, has led to much virtual ink been spilled trying to analyse the UKIP phenomenon. Much of this has amounted to the same old dross about us being a bunch of golf club reactionaries that we have always had to contend with but nonetheless is really quite useful, showing as it does that our enemies consistently underestimate us. As Michael Heaver aptly put it, how can the people who failed to anticipate the rise of UKIP expect to understand it, let alone stop it?

By far the best analysis put forward was by Russell Taylor's "In Praise of UKIP" on, who really nailed the cultural mind-set of the Metropolitan Liberal classes, how ill-equipped it is to deal with the rise of UKIP and why UKIP appeals so much to many people outside that bubble.

That said, it is worth considering the wider context to Taylor's critique: why has this strange and culturally so alien elite emerged, and how do the rest of us deal with it?

The answer is that in important social and economic - and therefore political - terms we live in a neo-medieval age. The original medieval period was a time when the concept of the nation state, and by extension national identity, was considerable weaker than in the modern era up until the last few decades. Society was essentially oligarchical, with great wealth and power concentrated in the hand of a few landed noblemen. Very importantly, the mind-set of that elite was largely an internationalist one, with court life revolving around power-plays and wars where territories were regarded as chessboards upon which the game was played. A player at a medieval court would have far more in common with his French or Spanish counterpart than he would with the uneducated peasant working his land, about whose life he would know or care very little. Important social and political organisations, most notably the Roman-Catholic Church, were also internationalist in outlook.

And so it is today. In an interconnected world bound together by the knowledge economy, enormous wealth is accumulated into the hands of the very talented, the highly educated and the well-connected. These sovereign individuals, living highly kinetic lives immersed in a frenzy of career success, often have exceptionally little contact with people from outside their own narrow social sphere.  Their minds concentrated on their glittering presents and futures, such people also have little need for strong roots in place or time.  Instead, they travel and deal in a select few locations where business, wealth and power are concentrated such as London, New York, Paris, Singapore or Zurich. (Many of these cities - notably London - can be viewed as the modern equivalent of the medieval city-state, utterly dominating the countries that contain them.)

 It is really not surprising that the culture of this new elite tends to egotistical, narcissistic and shallow - "Metropolitan Liberal" in other words. Unsurprising also, that the international organisations they often work for are arrogant, over-mighty and often authoritarian. International corporations again and again show us mere mortals that they regard themselves above the rule of law, whereas the European Union - the Roman Catholic Church of it's day - shows a dogmatic contempt to those it brands heretics. (It must be said, however, that it has not started condemning UKIP activists to death by fire: I suppose we be must thankful for small mercies.)

What is so damaging about this new globalist elite is not that it exists in itself but that it has completely captured the national politics of the nation states to which it feels little responsibility. This is not only because international organisations such as the European Union or powerful corporations have successfully subverted national democracies, but also because the profession of national politics is seen as a route into this global elite for those not blessed with great business acumen: in recent years Tony Blair, David Miliband and Peter Mandelson have all used British politics as a stepping stone onto greater things. Once in power, this elite enacts policies that suites it's own needs but are severely damaging to the population of the nation as a whole. In a British context the best example of that has been the New Labour policy of unlimited mass immigration. Seeing things only on a global scale, rootless New Labourites simply could not see the problem as local communities were irreversibly changed out of all recognition. Similar distortions of priorities are evident in the current coalition government. Indeed, seen from the outside, the other three main parties increasingly appear to people like factions at some medieval court, all jostling for power but in the end all part of the same elite. Hence the growing popularity of the phrase "The LibLabCon" to describe them.

It is because UKIP instinctively understands this new dispensation from the "other side of the tracks" (or should that be "turnpike") that it is gaining so fast in popularity.

Firstly, of course, is it's rejection from that most malign of neo-medieval organisations - the European Union.

Secondly, UKIP understands that most of us do not lead stellar global lives: our ambitions are more limited by circumstances or talent, and instead we find meaning in seeing ourselves as part of a wider whole rather than as an atomised individual. Hence the need to safeguard communities against the unnecessary dislocation wrought by mass immigration. Also, that patriotism and pride in your country is neither dangerous nor a quaint relic of a bygone age but a benign force that can enhance the quality and meaning of people's lives.  At the same time, the party is realistic and mature enough to know that a country that exhibits a small-minded hostility to globalism will suffer as a consequence. That means competitive tax rates and sensible flexibility when it comes to allowing the immigration of talented people with needed skills.

Moving forward, perhaps UKIP can exploit another fact of our neo-medieval world to it's advantage - the desperate need for policies that devolve power from an over-mighty London city-state towards the rest of the country. The situation is becoming increasingly socially unstable: if renewed economic growth is concentrated on London, as seems likely (40% of all currently operational cranes, for instance,  are situated there) then the clamour for action to be taken will become deafening. The answer must be that taxation and spending should be set as locally as possible so that local people can develop their own models of capitalism more suited to their needs than to those of elite Metropolitans:   At the same time, policies such as the HS2 rail line which will tend to magnify London's power still further, sucking in people from the rest of the country, should be scrapped.

Whether we like it our not, we will all need to make our peace with our globalised neo-medieval world. Of all the parties, UKIP shows at present by far the best understanding of this new reality from the point of view of the average person. As long as we keep developing policies based on that, we will continue to advance.

Sunday, 19 May 2013

Cameron calls eurosceptics "swivel eyed loons"

The Daily Mail is reporting that David Cameron has referred to Conservative Party activists pressuring him into honouring his promises for an EU referendum as "swivel eyed loons".

Since news of the Cameron using the kind of insult he usually reserves for UKIP to describe his own people, visits to the UKIP website have reportedly increased by 300%.  It also coincides with 36 Tory constituency associations writing to Cameron telling him to ditch his support for gay marriage or resign.

UKIP averages 18% across three polls

UKIP is polling 19% in a ComRes opinion poll for the Sunday Mirror, 20% in an Opinium poll for the Observer and 15% in an ICM poll for the Sunday Telegraph.

Lib Dem7%

Lib Dem8%

Lib Dem16%

Across all three polls, Labour are averaging 35%, the Tories 28%, UKIP 18% and the Lib Dems 10%.

Saturday, 18 May 2013

UKIP: Friend or Foe of Black Britain? - Interesting article from the Voice

UKIP: Friend Or Foe Of Black Britain?

NO CLOWN: UKIP famous black member, Winston (left) and UKIP leader Nigel Farage
DURING THE 2010 general election I stumbled across a leaflet for the UKIP parliamentary candidate for Tottenham, Winston McKenzie.
‘A Jamaican-born black immigrant in UKIP?’ I thought. This should be interesting. I rang him and asked for an interview. He initially refused. Then he called me back and said “You know what Nels, let’s do this.”
He requested that I interview him at his church after the service ended. After sitting through a three-hour church service I hadn’t bargained for (due to the incorrect usage of the words ‘starts’ and ‘ends’) the interview commenced. It quickly became clear to me that I had underestimated Winston and bought into the UKIP stereotype perpetuated by David Cameron. Winston was no loony, clown or fruitcake and I somehow doubt he was a closet racist. He was sharp, articulate, convincing and UKIP to the core. He truly believed what he was saying.
At the time of the interview UKIP were nobodies on the national, non-EU related, political scene. Half-jokingly I mentioned in a 2012 wrap-up article that UKIP did not need to win a single seat in Parliament in order to be treated like a party that has just been asked by her Majesty to form a government. My words were true enough then to be credibly stated in jest. Now they are looking practically gospel. UKIP is boldly dictating government policy on our relationship with the EU, immigration and other major issues without a single voice in the House of Commons. As leader Nigel Farage stated on The Telegraph’s excellent weekly podcast, UKIP has gone from speaking about who runs the country to how the country is run.
It cannot be credibly denied that this is truly people power. But does that include black people? What does the target audience of this publication stand to gain or lose by the rise and rise of a party to the right of the Conservative Party? What do the children, the fruit of generations of immigrants that have given much to this country, stand to benefit from the emergence of a committed, well-funded, likeable and certainly electable anti-immigration party? Let’s take a look.
UKIP purports to be a non-racist party. Which, of course, should not be mistaken for an anti-racist party (I’m happy to be corrected on this). However their flagrant anti-immigration (anti-foreigner?) stance renders their ‘non-racist’ selling point less than credible. But in reality, as all of the major parties fight to appear tough on immigration it is difficult to determine how UKIP is discernibly more racist than, say, the parties that bought us John Cherry or Phil Woolas or the Iraq war.
If we want to know how one set of minorities will be treated by UKIP a few clues might be found in how they treat another set. UKIP formed the backbone of the opposition to the movement for equal marriage. They performed a similar role in the campaign to ban the hijab and the niqab. In fact UKIP has played a front line role in most recent populist movements against oppressed minorities and social groups. With that said, as far as I am aware they have been remarkably silent on the black community. But the treatment of Muslims and homosexuals cannot help but cause alarm.
UKIP proudly claims to be anti-political correctness. This negates the fact that one person’s political correctness is another’s bullying and discrimination.
Political incorrectness at a national political level has very real and negative consequences for ordinary people, especially minorities.
UKIP’s position on tax, a 31 per cent flat rate, would serve me very well. But even in my most selfish fat cat moments I do not for a second believe that the concept of fairness is consistent with the idea that a person on minimum wage should pay the same rate of tax as a percentage of their earnings as a person on a large salary.
UKIP’s signature policy is a total and immediate withdrawal from the EU. The UKIP stock response to the question of how Britain would compete with the likes of China, US, and the EU if we withdrew from the EU is that we would trade with the Commonwealth. To a community with roots, family and interests in the Commonwealth this is appealing.
Choice breeds enhancement. The more political parties are forced to compete for our votes the better. Some of UKIP’s policies could certainly have appeal in the black community. Our community is not the uncomplicated block vote many consider it to be and as such is open to competition. This is where the interests of black Britain and UKIP converge. The problem is that UKIP has not set out its stall as far as black Britain is concerned. We don’t know what they stand for or where they stand. Which in turn begs the question: are UKIP friends or foes of black Britain?
It would be very nice to hear Mr Farage’s answer.

Marta Andreasen and Richard Ainsworth deselected

Marta Andreasen has been deselected by the Tory electoral college meaning she'll have to slug it out with the plebs for a place on the regional list.

Marta isn't the only sitting MEP to be snubbed by members of the Tory electoral college: their europhile leader, Richard Ashworth, has also been deselected.

Dan Hannan and Nirj Deva have been reselected which means that realistically, unless Ashworth or Andreasen can get themselves voted into third place on the south east regional list by the Tory party general membership they're most likely going to be out of a job.

UKIP councillors don't need a piece of paper to remind them to treat everyone equally

UKIP's 16 councillors on Lincolnshire County Council have been criticised by their LibLabCon counterparts for refusing to sign an "anti-racism" pledge.

Cllr Chris Pain, leader of the UKIP group, says it's because the pledge is all about promoting multiculturalism, "one of the fundamental things that’s wrong with our society".  Multiculturalism is divisive and damaging to society because it emphasises our differences and encourages people to isolate themselves from the mainstream.

If the pledge - which doesn't appear to have been made public thus far - was about promoting multiculturalism and not combating racism then Cllr Pain and his colleagues were perfectly justified in refusing to sign it.  And even if it was just about combating racism and not promoting a damaging agenda of multiculturalism and self-imposed racial segregation, UKIP councillors don't need to sign a piece of paper to remind them to treat everyone fairly and equally and it's a little concerning that the LibLabCon councillors in Lincolnshire don't seem to trust themselves or each other to do the same.

Friday, 17 May 2013

Setting the Agenda...

Well lets get real for one moment. UKIP  made fantastic gains recently (County elections) and it begs the question 'WHY?'  As a fervent UKIP supporter / activist however you wish to label me. Let me share my thoughts with you. That is to say (imho) we are a part of history right now and those that subscribe will BE remembered. For like it or not the political landscape is changing and daily I witness more and more people from a so called (working class) background.  Previously and historically Labour supporters are finding a new home, what gives?

One can bury one's head in the sand and pretend that the 'old guard' still call the shots, however what appears apparent (speaking with people on the doorstep) can be simply put as ~

"I've had my fill"  of the Three headed triad (all the same) and we've had enough of their lies , seems UKIP provides an outlet for disenfranchised voters  ,this is to be applauded *if* you are that person that loves democracy.

2014?  My prediction, UKIP will continue to make advances in all quarters and those that make a stand must be applauded. Crystal ball  has been vanquished, let hard work and determination be the measure of our success moving forward.

Feel free to send donations :)

Peter Smith
Branch Treasurer
UKIP Thurrock and Basildon.  

Thursday, 16 May 2013

Cameron fails to stop £6.2bn EU budget increase

Someone's been practising their angry face
David Cameron's Cast Iron Guarantee™ to cut the EU budget was shown to be as worthless as his Cast Iron Guarantee™ to hold an EU referendum after almost every EU finance minister voted for a £6.2bn increase in the EU budget.

Thanks to Cameron agreeing to increase the percentage of the EU budget we pay to cover the cost of bringing in destitute eastern European we've got to pay a massive £14.7bn into the EU budget this year - an increase of £770m (nearly 13% of the increase in the budget).

Back in October last year, after Cameron said he would use the veto to oppose any "outrageous" budget demands from the EU we said don't be surprised if the 6.85% increase the EU Commission is demanding is just shy of "outrageous".  With the extra £6.2bn added to this year's budget, it's a 6.8% increase over last year's and is Cameron wielding the veto?  Is he buggery.

Cameron was no more serious about opposing the EU Commission's demands than he is about holding an EU referendum and if he can't even get the Greeks to agree to pay less money into the EU how on earth does he expect to secure the unanimous agreement of every EU member state to sign a new treaty allowing the UK to take powers back off the EU?  How can anyone take this clown seriously?

Scottish racists tell Farage to leave Scotland

Scottish racists were today responsible for barricading Nigel Farage in an Edinburgh pub.

The sweet irony is that the racists shouting "Leave Scotland, go back to England" and "You can stick your Union Jack up your arse" at him claim to be anti-racism protesters and being barricaded inside a pub and the centre of attention is a dream come true for Nigel Farage!

When conference delegates in Birmingham voted to send Farage to Scotland on a unionist "tour de force" I warned that it was Scotland's business and we'd be resented for interfering.  Let's see how the Scots react to today's events before anyone else's safety is put at risk spreading an unwelcome message to an intolerant audience.

Who voted for the EU referendum amendment?

Jolly well cross
The BBC have published a list of which MPs voted for last night's amendment to the Queen's Speech criticising the British government for not including another promise of an EU referendum.  The list is as follows:

Adam AfriyieWindsor
Peter AldousWaveney
David AmessSouthend West
Stuart AndrewPudsey
Richard BaconNorfolk South
Steven BakerWycombe
Stephen BarclayCambridgeshire North East
John BaronBasildon & Billericay
Gavin BarwellCroydon Central
Guto BebbAberconwy
Andrew BinghamHigh Peak
Brian BinleyNorthampton South
Crispin BluntReigate
Graham BradyAltrincham & Sale West
Andrew BridgenLeicestershire North West
Steve BrineWinchester
Fiona BruceCongleton
Aidan BurleyCannock Chase
Conor BurnsBournemouth West
David BurrowesEnfield Southgate
Dan BylesWarwickshire North
Alun CairnsVale of Glamorgan
Bill CashStone
Rehman ChishtiGillingham & Rainham
Christopher ChopeChristchurch
James ClappisonHertsmere
Geoffrey CoxDevon West & Torridge
Tracey CrouchChatham & Aylesford
David DaviesMonmouth
Philip DaviesShipley
David DavisHaltemprice & Howden
Nick de BoisEnfield North
Caroline DinenageGosport
Nadine DorriesBedfordshire Mid
Richard DraxDorset South
James DuddridgeRochford & Southend East
Graham EvansWeaver Vale
Lorraine FullbrookSouth Ribble
Roger GaleThanet North
James GrayWiltshire North
Robert HalfonHarlow
Simon HartCarmarthen West & Pembrokeshire South
Gordon HendersonSittingbourne & Sheppey
Sir Gerald HowarthAldershot
Stewart JacksonPeterborough
Bernard JenkinHarwich & Essex North
Gareth JohnsonDartford
Marcus JonesNuneaton
Daniel KawczynskiShrewsbury & Atcham
Chris KellyDudley South
Simon KirbyBrighton Kemptown
Andrea LeadsomNorthamptonshire South
Jessica LeeErewash
Phillip LeeBracknell
Edward LeighGainsborough
Charlotte LeslieBristol North West
Julian LewisNew Forest East
Ian Liddell-GraingerBridgwater & Somerset West
Jonathan LordWoking
Tim LoughtonWorthing East & Shoreham
Karen LumleyRedditch
Jason McCartneyColne Valley
Karl McCartneyLincoln
Stephen McPartlandStevenage
Anne MainSt Albans
Paul MaynardBlackpool North & Cleveleys
Mark MenziesFylde
Patrick MercerNewark
Stephen MetcalfeBasildon South & Thurrock East
Nigel MillsAmber Valley
David MorrisMorecambe & Lunesdale
James MorrisHalesowen & Rowley Regis
Caroline NokesRomsey & Southampton North
David NuttallBury North
Matthew OffordHendon
Eric OllerenshawLancaster & Fleetwood
Priti PatelWitham
John PenroseWeston-Super-Mare
Andrew PercyBrigg & Goole
Stephen PhillipsSleaford & North Hykeham
Chris PincherTamworth
Dominic RaabEsher & Walton
Mark RecklessRochester & Strood
John RedwoodWokingham
Jacob Rees-MoggSomerset North East
Laurence RobertsonTewkesbury
Andrew RosindellRomford
David RuffleyBury St Edmunds
Andrew SelousBedfordshire South West
Alec ShelbrookeElmet & Rothwell
Sir Richard ShepherdAldridge-Brownhills
Henry SmithCrawley
Mark SpencerSherwood
Andrew StephensonPendle
John StevensonCarlisle
Iain StewartMilton Keynes South
Gary StreeterDevon South West
Mel StrideDevon Central
Julian SturdyYork Outer
Sir Peter TapsellLouth & Horncastle
Justin TomlinsonSwindon North
David TredinnickBosworth
Andrew TurnerIsle of Wight
Martin VickersCleethorpes
Charles WalkerBroxbourne
Robin WalkerWorcester
James WhartonStockton South
Heather WheelerDerbyshire South
Chris WhiteWarwick & Leamington
Craig WhittakerCalder Valley
John WhittingdaleMaldon
Bill WigginHerefordshire North
Dr Sarah WollastonTotnes
Nadhim ZahawiStratford-on-Avon
Peter BoneWellingborough
Philip HolloboneKettering

Rosie CooperLancashire West
Jeremy CorbynIslington North
John CryerLeyton & Wanstead
Natascha EngelDerbyshire North East
Frank FieldBirkenhead
Roger GodsiffBirmingham Hall Green
Kate HoeyVauxhall
Kelvin HopkinsLuton North
Grahame MorrisEasington
Dennis SkinnerBolsover
Graham StringerBlackley & Broughton

Lib Dem
John HemmingBirmingham Yardley

George GallowayBradford West

Nigel DoddsBelfast North
Rev William McCreaAntrim South
David SimpsonUpper Bann
Sammy WilsonAntrim East

Nadine Dorries wants to be a Tory/UKIP candidate

Wants her cake and eat it
Newly reinstated Tory MP, Nadine Dorries, has suggested that she might stand as a dual Tory/UKIP candidate in the next general election because she feels a lot of empathy for UKIP.

Yeah right.  She's scared of losing her seat and thinks that having the UKIP logo next to her name would give her a better chance of another 4 years on the gravy train more like.

Unfortunately for poor Nadine, UKIP hasn't decided whether to allow dual party candidates (and the general consensus amongst the membership thus far is no) and David Cameron has already told her it's against Conservative Party rules.  She had the chance of defecting to UKIP with a clear conscience during her time in exile from the Tories but chose to go back to them instead so like the rest of the "do as I say, not as I do" plastic eurosceptics, she'll face a challenge from UKIP in the next election.

Wednesday, 15 May 2013

Should it happen?

Should MPs and candidates be allowed to go on a joint UKIP/Tory ticket at the next General Election in 2015?

130 MPs vote for EU referendum amendment

Not happy
About 110 Tory MPs and 20 from other parties have voted in favour of an amendment to the motion welcoming the Queen's Speech to express concern at the lack of an EU referendum in the speech.

The names of the MPs who either don't trust Cameron or understand that promising an EU referendum in the next parliament is worthless because no parliament can bind its successor have yet to be published.

EU-Sceptic Conservative? Ain't no such thing! Vote #UKIP

David's Failings - do these sound democratic or EU-Sceptic?

1) Broken promise of a referendum on the EU Constitution/Lisbon Treaty.

David Cameron calls for referendum on EU constitution (Telegraph 2/6/2009)
Tories rule out treaty referendum (BBC 3/11/2009)

2) Three line whip against EU referendum demanded in a public petition.

EU referendum: Cameron to impose three-line whip (BBC 20/10/2011)

3) Ignores debate on private members bill calling for EU exit.

MPs debate case for UK pulling out of European Union (BBC 26/10/2012)

4) Letting an EU referendum bill run out of time in 2012.

Referendum (European Union) Bill (HoC 29/5/2012)

5) Forced to reintroduce EU referendum bill - but with no action required regardless of the result!

Conservatives publish EU referendum bill (BBC 14/5/2013)

(originally published at

Tuesday, 14 May 2013

UKIP and the immigration issue.

UKIP and the immigration issue.

UKIP is often in the news getting slated by people who do not realise what our policy is about.
Here is a rough guide:

UKIP Immigration Policy is currently undergoing a review and update. The full policy will be published in due course. Meanwhile this is a statement of principles on which the detailed policy will be based.
1. UKIP calls for an end to the age of mass, uncontrolled immigration.  Since 1997 immigration has added almost four million new people to the British population; this figure does not include illegal immigrants, the exact number of which is unknown but is probably at least one million and possibly much higher.
2. Britain is very densely populated. England, where the majority of people live, is one of the most densely populated countries in the world: more densely populated than China, India and Japan. We simply cannot sustain the level of immigration that adds another one million people to the population every four to five years. This puts an intolerable burden on our infrastructure and public services.
3. UKIP would introduce a five year freeze on immigration for permanent settlement (with some exceptions) until we regain control of our borders, put in effective immigration controls, and deal with the issue of illegal immigrants. Overstaying a visa would become a criminal offence.
4. Any future immigration for permanent settlement must be on a strictly limited and controlled basis where that can clearly be shown to benefit the British people as a whole and our economy. Immigrants would not be able to apply for public housing or benefits until they had paid tax for five years.
5. Meanwhile UKIP would enable people to come and work in the UK by means of a points based work permit system for limited periods of time and to fulfil specific gaps in the job market that cannot be filled by the existing work force.
6. Measures would be taken to identify illegal immigrants and remove them to their country of origin. Exceptions may be made in limited circumstances, but there would be no general amnesty for illegal migrants.
7. EU citizens who have been established in the UK for seven years or more will, depending on their circumstances, be able to apply for permanent leave to remain (provided they fulfil certain criteria and are eligible to apply for work permits).
8. UKIP would withdraw from the European Convention of Human Rights and the European Convention on Refugees. This would enable us to deport foreign criminal and terrorist suspects where desirable.  UKIP would allow genuine asylum applications in accordance with our international obligations.
None of these policies can be implemented while Britain is still a member of the European Union, and that is just one of the reasons why UKIP policy is to leave the European Union. 

So there you have it, the policy outline is obviously similar to the Austrailian, New Zealand and Canadian models. Yet we still get called racists and fruitcakes. 

We stand people from all walks of life immaterial of background, religion or ancestry.
Yet we still get called racists.
We have the fastest rising membership base since the SDP in the 80's, yet the government friendly call us a fringe party or single issue.
We speak common sense and the language of the everyday person in the UK. Yet the so called mainstream parties say they are in tune with the people. In some of their eyes they think they actually are of the common people.
We have been truthful when asked about some of the candidates that got through the net and were slightly dubious. Even though we have a blanket ban on any member being from a far right organisation or proscribed party. Michael Fabricant  the nutty Tory MP from Litchfield openly admitted on Have I got News For You last week that all the parties have ex far right and especially BNP in their parties, we strive not to in UKIP. He also stated that the cast from Rising Damp all looked foreign to him. Veiled racism has been cried, stupidity and not being one with the people is to blame really.

So deep down we would hope that the blinkered media would highlight all the wrong folk in the other parties from the established parties to the micro parties like the ex BNP and racist welcoming English Democrats (After their dalliances with such groups as Russky Orbaz, EFP and other holocaust denying nazi groups)

Instead of that, where they are running scared of the changes UKIP could bring to British Politics and offering a real voice for each home nation including England, they just mock, poke, pry and plain make stuff up.
Here is a story from the mail where Mandelson admits Labour went searching for immigrants for political gain.

Immigrants? We sent out search parties to get them to come... and made it hard for Britons to get work, says Mandelson

  • Former minister admits Labour deliberately engineered mass immigration
  • Between 1997 and 2010 net migration to Britain totalled 2.2million

'We were sending out search parties for people': Former Labour Cabinet Minister Peter Mandelson has admitted that his party actively encouraged immigration to the UK while in government'We were sending out search parties for people': Former Labour Cabinet Minister Peter Mandelson has admitted that his party actively encouraged immigration to the UK while in governmentLabour sent out ‘search parties’ for immigrants to get them to come to the UK, Lord Mandelson has admitted.In a stunning confirmation that the Blair and Brown governments deliberately engineered mass immigration, the former Cabinet Minister and spin doctor said New Labour sought out foreign workers.He also conceded that the influx of arrivals meant the party’s traditional supporters are now unable to find work.By contrast, Labour leader Ed Miliband has said his party got it wrong on immigration but has refused to admit it was too high under Labour.Between 1997 and 2010, net migration to Britain totalled more than 2.2million, more than twice the population of Birmingham.The annual net figure quadrupled under Labour from 48,000 people in 1997 to 198,000 by 2009.Lord Mandelson’s remarks come three years after Labour officials denied claims by former adviser Andrew Neather that they deliberately encouraged immigration in order to change the make-up of Britain.Mr Neather said the policy was designed to ‘rub the Right’s nose in diversity’. He said there was ‘a driving political purpose: that mass immigration was the way that the Government was going to make the UK truly multicultural’.Senior Labour figures have been reluctant to concede they deliberately engineered the influx of migrants who have transformed communities over the past decade.But, at a rally for the Blairite think-tank Progress, Lord Mandelson said: ‘In 2004 when as a Labour government, we were not only welcoming people to come into this country to work, we were sending out search parties for people and encouraging them, in some cases, to take up work in this country.’He said: ‘The problem has grown during the period of economic stagnation over the last five, six years.’When Labour encouraged new arrivals ‘we were almost ... a full employment economy’ but, he 
admitted: ‘The situation is different obviously now.‘We have to just realise... entry to the labour market of many people of non-British origin is hard for people who are finding it very difficult to find jobs, who find it hard to keep jobs.‘For these people immigration tends to loom large in their lives and in their worlds, now that is an inescapable fact, and we have to understand it, address it, engage with people in discussion about it.’Former prime minister Tony Blair Former prime minister Gordon Brown seen leaving the Leveson inquiry in LondonMr Mandelson's admission that New Labour sought out foreign workers is a stunning confirmation that governments led by Tony Blair, left, and Gordon Brown, right, deliberately engineered mass immigration
His words are far franker than Mr Miliband’s. Asked earlier this month whether ‘too many people were allowed to come’, he replied: ‘I wouldn’t put it that way, no.’
'I think we have to realise that the entry of migrants to the labour market is hard for people who are finding it very difficult to get jobs, or to keep jobs'
 Lord Mandelson yesterday

'Migrants are filling gaps in our labour market that Britons are not available to fill or unwilling to fill. There has not been an adverse effect on employment of British nationals'
Mandelson in March 2009
Tory chairman Grant Shapps said: ‘Peter Mandelson’s candid admission that Labour were purposefully letting immigration spiral out of control when in government is yet another damning indictment on their record on immigration.’
Sir Andrew Green of Migration Watch said: ‘This is an astonishing admission from the highest level that Labour’s mass immigration policy was entirely deliberate.
‘It will be a very long time before their own working class supporters forgive them for the enormous changes that have been imposed on their communities.’
Gordon Brown yesterday accused the Tories of emulating Enoch Powell by using immigration to head off the growing electoral threat from UKIP. 
Mr Powell’s 1968 ‘rivers of blood’ speech ignited huge controversy in the debate on immigration.
Former prime minister Mr Brown – who once called for ‘British jobs for British workers’ – told a pro-union rally in Glasgow: ‘A party that was anti-Powellite on immigration is now becoming very close to being Powellite on that issue.’

Cameron's EU referendum bill is an empty gesture

Guido has a copy of Cast Iron Dave's empty EU referendum promise and points out that there is no requirement in the draft European Union (Referendum) Bill to actually leave the EU when we vote for it.

Spot the empty gesture

David Cameron was telling us only last week that he was unable to introduce legislation for a referendum because it wasn't in the coalition agreement (just like same sex marriage) yet today they’re introducing a bill. How easily the lies trip off his tongue.

But regardless of Devious Dave’s habitual dishonesty, surely the bill is a good thing if it means we get a referendum? Well I'm afraid you’re going to me disappointed.

One of the most important principals of parliamentary sovereignty is that no parliament can bind its successor. That means that any law passed before the election can be repealed after it.

This draft bill is an empty gesture – it is for a referendum in 2017 and after the Tories lose the next election the next government can repeal it. The only way to guarantee a referendum on our membership of the EU is to pass a law for it now for it to happen before the next election.

So-called “eurosceptic” MPs will no doubt claim this empty gesture as a victory and judging by the conversation I had with Daniel Kawczynski recently they’re probably ill-informed enough to believe it! Between now and the next election we need to remind voters of David Cameron’s broken promises on the EU (remember his “Cast Iron Guarantee”?), that Labour went to court to have a judge rule that it was unreasonable to expect anyone to keep their manifesto promises and that UKIP is the only party committed to an in/out referendum on membership of the EU.

Sunday, 12 May 2013

UKIP aims to abolish undemocratic cabinet system in Cambridgeshire

The leader of the UKIP group on Cambridgeshire County Council, Cllr Peter Reeve, has told the Ely Standard that he has enough pledges of support from Labour, Lib Dem and independent county councillors to prevent the Conservatives controlling the council.

Cllr Reeve wants to do away with the undemocratic cabinet system and replace it with all-party committees so no one party can dominate.

The UKIP plan is to create a rainbow cabinet for the next 12 months while the necessary changes are made to allow the cabinet system to be abolished.

Cllr Reeve is a Cambridgeshire County Councillor, Huntingdonshire District Councillors and Ramsey Town Councillor.