UKIP surge in the Polls?

A lot of nonsense has been written about Nigel Farage recently. We had Alex Singleton comparing him to Gandhi (LINK). And we had the Telegraph's Peter Oborne claiming that Farage is a "jolly chap" who "occasionally gets into minor trouble". So financial irregularities, public drunkenness, consorting with prostitutes, refusing to provide audits of your accounts, conducting smear campaigns against Nikki Sinclaire and being accused by Mike Nattrass, one of his own MEPs, as having the morals of "Alley Cat" are clearly of no concern to Mr Oborne!

Mr Oborne claims that UKIP, according to a poll, are now ahead of the Lib Dems. He states:

"I believe that Ukip is about to take over from the Lib Dems as Britain’s third largest political party".

We suggest that Mr Oborne takes a look at recent by-elections before making such rash statements. It may prevent him from looking more foolish than he already is!

Glasgow City - Hillhead: First count SNP 1026, Lab 945, Green 435, C 372, Lib Dem 307, Ukip 36, Britannica 11. (May 2007 - Four seats first count SNP 1899, Green 1675, Lab 1192, Lib Dem 1184, Lab 1080, C 912, Lib Dem 463, Solidarity 344, Scottish Socialist Party 184, Nine per cent growth party 51. Elected SNP 1, Green 1, Lab 1, Lib Dem 1). SNP hold. Swing 3.4% Lab to SNP.

Isle of Wight Council - West Wight: C 640, Lib Dem 116, Ukip 78. (June 2009 - Ind 719, C 624). C gain from Ind

Ribble Valley Borough - Salthill: C 208, Lib Dem 204, Ukip 158, Lab 40. (May 2011 - Two seats C 323, Lib Dem 266, Ukip 223, C 211, Lib Dem 157, Ind 178, Lab 109, 100). C gain from Lib Dem. Swing 2.4% C to Lib Dem. UKIP vote down by 65 since May 2011.

Warrington Borough - Poulton North: Lib Dem 776, Lab 733, C 147, Ukip 79. (May 2011 - Lab 1442, Lib Dem 1204, C 426; July 28 2011 by-election: Lib Dem 1106, Lab 895, C 190, Ukip 97). Lib Dem hold. Swing 5.1% Lab to Lib Dem. UKIP vote down by 18 since May 2011.

As you can see, the facts are somewhat different! UKIP is still trailing behind the Lib Dems. So much for becoming Britain's third party. And so much for Oborne's claim that:

"The main parties’ cosy alliance is about to be blown apart by Nigel Farage’s Eurosceptics".

It was left to The Independent to provide a more realistic account of UKIP's electoral failure:

"Despite the eurozone's woes there was little sign of a surge by Ukip which fought four of the five contests declared so far". LINK

Nigel Farage: The new Gandhi?

Nigel Farage: A drunkard and a fool. And it certainly shows!

Much nonsense has been written recently about the so-called surge in popularity of UKIP in the polls (more on this tomorrow). One writer - Alex Singleton - even made the ludicrous claim that Nigel Farage was the new Gandhi! We suggest that Mr Singleton does a little bit more research into Farage's background and real motivations before insulting the dead by comparing them to a degenerate. It may even prevent Mr Singleton from looking foolish in the future.

What has poor Gandhi ever done to deserve such an insult? Gandhi was motivated by a desire to see his people freed from British rule. He was a humble man, a person who did not seek riches or glory for himself. He also hated sycophancy and deplored racism. To compare this man with Farage is frankly insulting to both the Indian leader and the Indian people.

Farage is motivated solely by ego and wealth. He has claimed millions in expenses since becoming an MEP and has amassed a fortune, most of which is safely placed in his Isle of Man back account. He STILL refuses to publish a full audit of his accounts. This is despite numerous promises to do so. And why does he still refuse to explain what happened to the £211,000 that 'vanished' from UKIP's South East accounts? A similar amount was later paid into his Isle of Man account. Coincidence?

Farage surrounds himself with sycophants, drunkards and liars. Any criticism of his 'leadership' is met with smears against the critic. And exactly the same thing happens when new talent emerges in the party. Farage's deep-seated insecurity just won't allow it. They are either forced out of the party or kicked out on trumped up charges of 'disloyalty'. Look what happened to Nikki Sinclaire! However, Farage always gets others to do his dirty work as he lacks the courage to face his party critics in open debate.

Farage openly sits with racist MEPs in the EFD group, including those who have praised the Norwegian mass murderer, Anders Behring Breivik. See: LINK.

He has the morals of a Alley Cat - the words of Mike Nattrass, UKIP MEP - and thinks nothing of cheating on his wife with Annabelle Fuller and various other assorted 'alley cats'. See: LINK.

This is what Richard North, his former researcher, had to say about his time with the UKIP leader:

 "I am not and was not prepared to be a bag-carrier. Nor would I fetch and carry for Farage, or write his letters, or be available to pour him into a taxi when he was so blind drunk that he could no longer stand, or cover for him when he failed to turn up for morning appointments because he had been out on the tiles all night long. I am almost old enough to be his father, but I am not in the business of being his nanny. I am a professional researcher and that, in my mind, was what I was employed to do."

We could go on but to compile a complete list fully illustrating Farage's dishonesty, lack of ethics and greed would be endless!

Farage is just another example of the worst in British politics - a man without integrity or honour. His 'euro-scepticism 'is nothing more than a cynical ploy in order to stay on the EU Gravy Train at the British taxpayer's expense. Farage is now an extremely wealthy man thanks to his career as a UKIP MEP. And yet in all his years as an MEP he has given virtually nothing to UKIP in the way of donations. Hardly the actions of a man committed to leaving the EU! Farage went 'native' years ago.

Britain's new Gandhi? Don't make us laugh!

Richard North on the ignorance of Nigel Farage

We are pleased to see that Richard North is back blogging after his recent heart operation. Here's to a speedy recovery!

Here is one of Richard's recent posts. It concerns the EU and Nigel Farage:

Maybe it is just post-operative blues, but I'm struggling to get back into the frame, with the news agenda lacking any apparent coherence. We are seeing much the same EU stories as before, nothing has been resolved and the UK political position is no further forward.

I am grateful, therefore, to Witterings from Witney, for picking up a comment of mine on the Norwegian situation, brought up by Cameron in his Lord Mayor's Banquet speech, and supposedly rebutted by Farage.

This affords me an opportunity to display some irritation (hey! I'm entitled occasionally) at the limitations of our "own" side. For, while one expects nothing of Cameron – or any of the other Tories who seem impervious to knowledge on the EU – one would hope that our own would take the time to find out something of the organisation of which they speak.

In the case of Norway, this is quite important, as the situation is deemed to be a weak point in the eurosceptic armoury. Even outside the EU, it is held, Britain would have to adopt common trading law, as does Norway but, unlike currently, we would lose any influence in its framing, having thus to adopt in the manner of Norway, laws sent to us by fax from Brussels - the so-called "fax law" option.

Bizarrely, Farage concedes this point, although it is not true and can easily be demolished. We have rehearsed it many times and wrote a definitive piece in May 2008, pointing out the actual situation. Most of these laws are not agreed by the EU at all, but by intergovernmental bodies such as UNECE, of which Norway (and the UK) is a member. The legislation is then processed by the EU commission acting in more of a bureaucratic than legislative role.

In other pieces, such as this, I have pointed out that there are dozens of UNECE-type bodies, which would also continue in place even if we left the EU, and through which we would continue to agree international standards, to which EU members would also be bound.  Outside the EU, therefore, we would have just as much influence over single market-type law, adopted by EU members.

The down-side, of course, is that leaving the EU would actually provide less relief from petty regulation than we might imagine, although we could disapply much of it from the domestic market.

This though, is core knowledge which should be shaping the debate. But, tediously, one of the leading players continues to do nothing other than display his ignorance, having never troubled to expand his knowledge-set beyond the basic minimum.

And this is why UKIP risks being left at the starting gate, should we come to a real debate about the mechanics of leaving the EU. The Party has no more to offer than the Tories, and that is perilously little.

One sees, for instance, the halt and the lame in that direction, talking blithely about which powers to repatriate and how they would go about reclaiming them, demonstrating absolutely no practical understanding of the complexities involved.

Strangely, of all the policies at present managed by the EU, the first we should claw back is the research programme. This is quite simply because, to repatriate powers, we must replace policies – otherwise there is no point in so doing. And those that are aware of the processes will be aware that a huge amount of policy development (a complex, expensive and time-consuming process) is funded under the research programme.

Thus, is order to reclaim powers, we must develop new policies and, to do that, we must reclaim the policy-making tools.

And so do we need coherence in the debate. Leaving the EU is eminently practicable, possible and necessary, but only if we are able to offer a credible and realistic pathway. To its shame, the eurosceptic community has yet to deliver on this and, when we hear the likes of Farage parade his ignorance, we wonder how longer we are going to have to wait.

To read the original: LINK

Nikki Sinclaire: Sign the New EU referendum petition!

Click HERE to sign the new petition!

UKIP: Steve Allison resigns

Readers of this blog may recall that Steve Allison - NEC member and Party Vice-Chairman - was fast becoming disillusioned with the so-called leadership of UKIP. His realization that the NEC was nothing more than a rubber stamp for a corrupt leader ultimately led to him questioning why he was wasting his time attending the monthly NEC meetings. See: LINK and  LINK

As you can imagine, his outspoken views on the NEC and Lisa Duffy hardly endeared him to Farage and his nodding donkeys. Criticism of the Fuhrer can only result in the critic being sidelined, smeared and ultimately forced out. Indeed, certain members of the Farage Sycophants Club have been conducting a whispering campaign against Allison for months.

So much for democracy and freedom of speech - something that Farage is more than happy to pay lip service to when it suits him. But woe betide anyone who dares suggest that the sun doesn't shine out of Nigel's backside!

Allison's membership of another party - Putting Hartlepool First - was used against him. It was claimed that membership of that party was 'incompatible' with membership of UKIP. So why are other members allowed to retain membership of other parties, including senior officials!

Mr Allison decided that enough was enough and resigned from the NEC. He also resigned as Vice-Chairman. He now intends to concentrate on campaigning for Putting Hartlepool First. See: LINK . Mr Allison is the Party Secretary.

UKIP: Notorious extremist joins EFD group

Frank Vanhecke, former Chairman of the Vlaams Blok, and banned racist party, and subsequently Chair of its successor, Vlaams Belang, has joined Nigel Farage's EFD group in the European Parliament.

 

Vanhecke is notorious for wrongly naming a number of ethnic minority youths in connection with the vandalism graves in Tereken. In fact the perpetrators were indigenous Flemings like himself.  As a result, he was stripped of his parliamentary immunity.

 

In 2007, he was arrested in Belgium for assaulting a bus driver.

 

The Stephen Roth Institute had this to say about Vlaams Blok: "The Vlaams Blok of Flanders has become one of the strongest extreme right parties in Europe. The most serious anti-Semitic incident in 1997 was the attempt to set fire to the Anderlecht synagogue in Brussels."

 

Our photo shows Vanhecke alongside Bruno Grolnisch and Jean Marie LePen, both of the French National Front.

 

Nice company you keep, Nigel!

 

UKIP: Gerard Batten draft document on multiculturalism

With thanks to GLW for passing this draft document to the Junius Team.

Gerard Batten MEP

CONFIDENTIAL

DRAFT

Dismantling Multiculturalism

Policy Discussion Document

10^th February 2011

Multiculturalism has failed

Multiculturalism depends on the proposition that all cultures, cultural beliefs, customs and practices are equally valid. Mass immigration into many western countries for the last forty years or more has brought with it some cultures and cultural practices that are alien to western cultures and liberal, democratic political systems. Instead of taking a robust attitude against these alien practices western countries have mostly adopted an attitude of appeasement and cultural relativism. Western Governments have been terrified of criticising or standing up against these practices for fear of being branded ‘racist’ or ‘Islamaphobic’.

Most European and Western countries are multi-ethnic societies and is no reason why people of difference racial and ethnic origins cannot live together peacefully; but to do so requires emphasising those things we have in common rather than those things that separate us.  It requires that all citizens living in a given state have broadly the same allegiance, loyalty and belief in a common set of public and political institutions and the acceptance of one legal system. Multiculturalism does precisely the opposite: it creates different and competing groups within one public and political space and is a recipe for division and conflict.

Many European and Western countries have adopted a policy of state-sponsored multiculturalism, designed to preserve and enshrine the beliefs and cultural practices of migrants and to protect and advance them by law and public subsidy. The objective was that the policy of multiculturalism would help absorb and integrate vast waves of migrants from foreign lands. In that it has conspicuously failed – as now has been publicly attested by figures such as Trevor Philips Head of the Race Relations Commission, President Angela Merkel of Germany, President Sarkosy of France, and latterly Prime Minister David Cameron of the UK, to name just four.

However from the point of view of those groups that use multiculturalism to promote their own separate interests it has and is succeeding and they have a vested interest in seeing it continue.

Private Multiculturalism Good: Public Multiculturalism Bad.

A clear distinction must be drawn between private and public multiculturalism. The private practice of religious and cultural beliefs, customs and traditions should be precisely that – private. We can all enjoy the private practice of different cultures and beliefs and share them with our friends and neighbours. That is a good and positive thing that can help bring people together.

The public policy of state-sponsored multiculturalism is quite another thing and it has created an increasingly more fractured, divided, contentious and uneasy societies. It cannot go unsaid that the biggest beneficiaries of this public policy of multiculturalism are Islamic fundamentalist and extremists who use it to extend their own power and influence in order to bring about their long term goal of an Islamic or Islamic dominated state in each one of those countries where they settle. Multiculturalism also undermines those moderate Muslims who wish to embrace Western values but see power and influence being extended to their extremist co-religionists.

Islamic fundamentalism is the cuckoo in the Western multicultural nest. We can either address it now or be destroyed by it in the course of time.

Dismantling Multiculturalism

This short paper is not a detailed history, analysis and critique of multiculturalism and its failure. It is taken as a given that it has failed and has to be dismantled. The points below are suggested policies that could be adopted by political parties and governments of any political colour and in any country in the world that wishes to preserve and promote common western liberal democratic values. The points below are specifically aimed at Britain but can adapted as required.

Policy Suggestions

1. Recognise that Christianity is the cultural heritage of Britain and affirm the secular nature of government and public institutions. This should be recognised by an exception for the Church of England as the historically established church but bishops should be removed from their positions in the House of Lords and the Monarch should lose the power (exercised through the Prime Minister) to appoint the Archbishop of Canterbury.

2. A commitment to end the policy of state-sponsored and funded multiculturalism by local and national government.

3. A commitment to promote a common public culture, expressed in a common language (excluding existing historic regional differences), one legal system and one set of political institutions – none other should be formally recognised by the state.

4. There must be equal application of the law. There can be no separation of people based on religious practices in public places, e.g. in swimming pools and hospital chapels.

5. There must be one language used in national and political institutions and publicly funded places (excluding historical differences such a Welsh in Wales or Gaelic in Scotland). In England only English must be displayed in public buildings such as local and national government offices, universities, colleges, schools, hospitals, clinics etc.

6. Repeal the Act of Parliament that recognises Sharia law in some tribunals, (e.g. for family law, child custody, inheritance etc). Sharia law must be given no official recognition or legal status whatsoever.

7. Repeal the Act (???) that gives official recognition to Islamic Banking. There must be no financial or banking regulations based on religious law.

8. Repeal those Acts (???) which give recognition to polygamous marriage for tax or social security and benefits purposes. There must be no official or legal recognition of polygamous marriages.

9. Stop all government funding to organisations that promote religious fundamentalist or extremist views, e.g. the Muslim Council of Britain, the Quilliam Foundation, the Union of Imams & Mosques in the UK and Ireland etc. Any organisation that requests public funding must be required to sign and actively abide by a Code of Conduct (see Appendix I).

10. Social Security and benefits payments can only be claimed in English where the recipient has been living in the UK for 12 months or more. For those who have entered the UK and do not speak English subsidised English classes must be made available.

11. No granting of planning permission to religious organisations that: do not abide by and actively practice a Code of Conduct (see Appendix I); are funded from outside the UK  unless they have a special dispensation from the Home Secretary, such dispensations should discretionary and will only granted where it can clearly be shown where the money originates from, and where it can be demonstrated that it is not from extremist sources, or is intended to promote religious fundamentalist or extremist views.

12. Repeal the Religious Hatred Act (???). The promotion of hatred or violence against individuals or groups is catered for under the normal criminal law. No religious belief system or ideology may be protected from criticism by law.

13. Ensure that the law on forced marriages and female genital mutilation is rigorously enforced.

14. Religious schools should only be allowed where they can sign and show actively to abide by a Code of Conduct (see Appendix I). 

15. Repeal the Act of Parliament that gives exception for ritual slaughter for religious reasons. These are outmoded and barbaric practices that have no place in the 21^st century or n the light of humane animal welfare policies.

16. Something on the funding of universities???

17. Enact a law of face coverings in public places. (see Appendix II)

END

Appendix I

Code of Conduct

To be added as per existing ‘Affirmation’

Appendix II

Face Coverings Policy

To be added later a per existing ‘burka and face coverings policy’.

For comments on this draft document: LINK