While members have been working hard in today’s Parliamentary by-election in Sleaford, our letter writers look to the future, to next year’s Local Elections, under different aspects. The first letter is by our contributor Christopher Gill:

Sir,

How marvellous to see our new Leader hitting the ground running.

Paul Nuttall says that we will hold the Government’s feet to the fire regarding Brexit – and so we will.

He says that we will win a substantial number of seats at the next General Election – and so we will.

He says that we will put the ‘Great’ back in Britain – and so we will.

This year, on 23rd June in the UK and more recently in the USA, it has been unambiguously demonstrated that the people can win.

Let us prolong that winning streak by fielding candidates in every single electoral division at next May’s local elections so that when the votes are totted up nationally the world can see that the UKIP army most definitely hasn’t gone away!

Respectfully, Christopher Gill.

The next letter is from our contributor Jack Russell:

Sir,

May I draw the attention of your readers to this article by Paul Nuttall in the Independent Online: The British people don’t need a report to tell them integration isn’t working”

It is important because it gives hope that UKIP is finally going to address the one issue which so many of us members deem to be of utmost importance: the creeping islamification of our country. The MSM and government at all levels have been doing their worst to keep this burning issue out of the public debate. So many of us are now used to being labelled ‘islamophobic’, so many of us are being scared into not speaking out, given the new ‘hate speech’ legislation. There are many instances where members of the public are being investigated by the Police for ‘hate speech’, while at the same time no prosecutions – as far as I am aware – have been undertaken into the numerous death threats on the same social media against Nigel Farage. But I won’t judge: perhaps the MSM simply don’t report on those investigations!

That’s why I would like to urge your readers to read Paul Nuttall’s article, because it is not just a long overdue comment but because he points to the questions we, as UKIP members, can and should ask in our local communities, of our local councillors. Remember: next year are Local elections!

Respectfully, Jack Russell

Next, a letter by our contributor Paul Foyster, also looking towards next year and giving an example from his own council:

Sir,

My own Tory council has spent a huge amount of time and money, at the “invitation” of the Conservative Government, in submitting a devolution bid for a greater Lincolnshire Authority. Of the ten councils involved, two rejected the bid, which has thus failed. The reason cited for our County Council’s rejection was the issue of an elected Mayor, though I can’t help wondering if their degrading under the scheme to the same level as Districts did not have more to do with it. Clearly the Mayor was a matter of dogma, perhaps the plan was to eventually combine the new authority into something more embracing, it was one string too many attached to what was in fact a plan to save Whitehall cash and pass difficult decisions away from central government, so the could avoid the blame for “cuts”.

So far there is no indication of what this failure has cost ratepayers but I will be asking about this at the next council meeting. It must be a significant amount and I fail to see why the Tories should be able to avoid responsibility for the cost to ratepayers of this useless exercise. May I suggest that any other UKIP members of councils who have experienced the same outcome from devolution bids, make sure to ask their councils how much money they have spent on them. This is an interesting demonstration how how Conservatives, in local and County councils and Government have acted in a way that has managed to waste funds. A matter that demands more attention as we draw towards next May’s elections.

Respectfully, Cllr Paul Foyster.

And finally, a letter by our reader Les Arnott, taking a wider look:

Sir,

UKIP must strongly avoid labels such as left and right. All these achieve is to wilfully cast away votes from those generally sensible people who may well customarily identify with the opposite side. We must be known at all times as ‘The Sensible Party’.

To win, ‘when we no longer have a cause’ (or so we are told) we must:

a) Attack the liberal establishment – challenging them on every stoopid utterance they ever make and

b) Produce a multitude of sensible policies which neither waste public money nor trample on the wishes of the ‘the average Joe’.

We can never afford to fall into the LibLabCon/Green trap of telling the electorate what they must want!

Policies which alienate any segment of society (other than the liberal and hard left, of course) must be shunned. Where matters are moral and controversial – let referenda decide. We really must examine the Swiss model and learn from it.

UKIP’s only forward path is to truly become the People’s Party and to lovingly embrace the label of ‘populism’. Note this quotation from a well known black Pastor (Dr Joseph D’Souza) in the USA:

‘If any party in the U.S., as well as in other nations like Britain and in other major democracies, want the vote of the silent majority, they have to appeal to the things that matter to this group. After all, what I have always appreciated about America is that it’s democracy is “representative.” Politicians are to reflect the will of the people as opposed to inflicting the people with their own will, their own agenda.’

Respectfully, Les Arnott

Print Friendly, PDF & Email