Today there are two Open Letters, addressed to Anne Marie Waters and Paul Nuttall respectively, and one letter with an interesting proposal. The first is from our contributor James Dalton:

Dear Anne,

Your article, is an excellent plea to those who hope to bequeath a civil society to their offspring, to speak out. The article spoke for many a silenced tongue who understand that the presence of significant Islamic populations is incompatible with such a hope. The comments below the article, I hope, have strengthened your resolve. This is not an easy political issue with which to grapple, but nevertheless, one which I believe must be grappled with in precedence over all others, such is the nature of the problem we are incubating here in the UK.

In addition to the issues raised in your article, may I suggest that the creation of positive policies relating to apostates, the encouragement of apostasy and the protection of apostates should be developed. These brave abandoned people can not continue to be ignored nor can those who understand the consequences of apostasy, continue to be trapped in their ‘religion’ by fear of death.

I will support your endeavours as I can. I will discuss the contents of your article with local UKIP members and court their opinions and hopefully their support. And I will continue raising the issue of upholding our traditions and law in the face of current threats on UKIP Daily, should Viv Evans and her colleagues continue to choose to publish my offerings.

Please use this letter, if you so wish, in support of your submission to the NEC on 27th March 2017.

Best Wishes,

James Dalton, UKIP Member, On behalf of myself, no other

UKIP Colne Valley Branch, Membership Secretary, Approved Parliamentary Candidate.

The second letter comes from our contributor Jack Thomas:

Dear Mr. Nuttall,

I am eternally grateful for the work carried out by Nigel Farage and UKIP in getting us the referendum. I am concerned that UKIP failed in Stoke when it should have been a walkover but that failure was inevitable once you facilitated the negative publicity about yourself.

I am still not confident that Ms May will respect the referendum result and give us the clean exit from the EU that we need. Your failure to win in Stoke has deprived us of a second voice in Parliament to try and ensure that she does the necessary.

I have been a prospective member for a long time now, but could not be active whilst out of the UK so have remained so. During that time I have followed events relating to the emergence of party policy and criticism of the party from various sources. I concluded that the party has failed the membership in its lack of proper governance but was hopeful that the new leader would implement the necessary changes; you have not done so.

However there was worse to come in your failure to accept the threat that we all face from the growth of Islam and the sworn intent of its leaders to take over our country and impose their own law. Of course you were not alone in this as the almost all the other parties are supportive of Islam. Your leaflet published for the Stoke election was indicative of your support for the Muslim invader too.

Recently you will have seen the comments of Anne Marie Waters regarding the threat we face from the growth of Islam and the need to deal with it. Unless you accept that need and openly state your opposition to Islam I will not join UKIP. I suspect that a large number of prospective members are of the same mind and know that existing members are going to leave.

If UKIP is to survive then you need to:

  • Change your policies to deal with the threat of Islam
  • Implement proper governance of the party
  • Remove those officials who are failing UKIP and its supporters.

I you are unable to do all of the above then you must resign and make way for someone who will. I will return home soon and do not want my country given up to Islam.

Yours sincerely,

Jack Thomas, Bangkok

Finally, here’s a letter from a reader and supporter of UKIP who is known to us but asks to remain anonymous for professional reasons. This is his intriguing proposal:


I trust all readers will agree that the UK needs a credible opposition in the House of Commons, if the UK is not to become, in effect, a one-party state.  From 1918 to 2010, the Labour Party was a very effective alternative to the Conservatives.

The Labour Party is now like a badger that has been seriously injured by a motor vehicle, but not killed, and now lies twitching at the roadside.  It needs to be put out of its misery in England and Wales, just as it has already been in Scotland in 2015, and where the Conservatives look set to become the second largest party.

The LibDems are a one-policy non-entity. That policy (a second referendum) will shortly become impossible (when Article 50 Notification is given), and the party will become completely irrelevant.  However, in February 2013 they won a significant by-election in Eastleigh, and the key figures are of immense importance:

  • LibDem 13,342
  • UKIP 11,571
  • Con 10,599

In other words, if UKIP and the Tories had been one party, that Party would have won with a 8,828 vote majority over the LibDems.

More recently, of course, we have had the infamous Stoke Central by-election, and again the figures are telling, though admittedly on a meagre turnout of 37%:

  • Lab 7,853
  • UKIP 5,233
  • Con 5,154

Here, our hypothetical UKIP/Con party would have won, with a majority of 2,534 votes over Labour.

The Labour Party claims Stoke as a victory. It got 37% of the vote on a 37% turnout. That means that just 13.69% of the electorate voted for it. More significantly, of course, it lost Copeland. The badger twitches still.

Meanwhile, rats are leaving a sinking ship, which we shall call “HMS Twitching Badger”. I doubt whether the Labour Party will ever again have an MP called “Tristram”….

What all this data proves is that UKIP can replace the Labour Party as HM Loyal Opposition, and it is actually quite an easy thing to do, subject to the political will being there on both sides. All it would take would be a pact between UKIP and the Conservatives not to stand against each other in any of the 600 constituencies up for grabs in 2020. Oversimplifying the position, UKIP would stay out of all the historical Lab/Con “marginals” (such as Copeland) and the Tories would be absent from seats which they could not win, like Stoke.

It is actually in the symbiotic interests of both UKIP and the Conservatives to enter into such a pact. It would mean the end of the Labour Party, possibly as soon as 2020, which would be a good thing from all possible points of view. It would effectively guarantee a Conservative government for a long time; but sooner or later all governments become so unpopular that the Opposition gets a look-in, and that would mean a UKIP government one day!

The implementation of the pact would of course need 600 separate agreements, so any such process would have to start fairly soon, and someone has to make the first move. The time has come for someone at the UKIP office to make a phone call which could change the face of UK politics for a generation.


Septimus Octavius



Print Friendly, PDF & Email