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
I have just finished reading a book written in 1928 written by a Catherine Mayo – an American.
She detailed life in India and particularly the relationship between the Hindus and the Untouchables.
She particularly drew the readers attention to the custome of Suttee (Death of the widow being immolated ritually by fire) and the custom of child brides sometimes betrothed at age 2, meant to be sent to the husband (of any age) at age 12, but often sent at the age of 8 to be faced with …well I don`t need to itemise the hideous result you`ve got it!!.
The British authorities tried in vain to put an end to these practices, but were met, with a wall of non-co-operation – the reason endemic religion, and what`s worse both offender and victim often were of one mind.
I don`t know how they go on in present day India, but it wouldn`t surprise me if these practices still exist today, certainly the “place” of women is often that of virtual serfdom.
Why am I relating this?
I am drawing attention to the effect of ancient religion in this particular instance, because I think we are witnessing similar reactions (religion based) among some ethnic communities in this country, who not only resist correction, but proselytise their evil practices to the detriment of cohesion with the native population.
Adhesion to ancient Religion should not be dressed up as “custom”
Suttee meant that the widow was expected to throw hersef on her husband’s funeral pyre, the reward being the hindu equivalent of pie in the sky. The real reason was that without a husband to justify her existence, the woman was a useless burden on her relatives. The British Raj was appalled by this cruelty and did attempt to end it under their jurisdiction with some success. Of course, anti-colonial criticism of ‘British ‘interference’ has been made in modern times by Leftards who have squashed banana for brains.
Unfortunately, that good old custom of bride-burning to get rid of girls whose dowry didn’t appear, or was under-paid is widespread in India, practised by followers of both major religions. They do like to roast and toast their women in that country, don’t they? It has happened to women in this country as well, owing to letting in misogynistic migrants who should never have been allowed within a thousand miles of our shores.
So the British Raj did its best to civilise India, but our governments allowed millions of uncivilised peasants to come here and drag us down to 3rd world level with repellent ‘religions’, rampant superstition, abhorrent cultural practices and raging misogyny.
I’ve heard of the fashion for ‘retro’, but this is ridiculous.
Creeping Islamification:
I signed a petition, from where I do not recall. I thought that it could have been worded better but it was still something I could support.
Here is the government response today:
“We rejected the petition you supported – “Declare sharia in the UK illegal”.
It’s not clear what the petition is asking the UK Government or Parliament to do.
In a response to a previous petition, the Government said: There are a number of Sharia councils in England and Wales which help Muslim communities resolve civil and family disputes, by making recommendations, which they hope the parties will abide by. They are not part of the court system in this country and have no means of enforcing their decisions. If any of the decisions or recommendations they make are contrary to national law (including the Equality Act 2010) then national law prevails. This is no different to any other council or tribunal – whether or not based on Sharia principles. You can read the full response here: https://petition.parliament.uk/archived/petitions/48352 It is therefore not clear what action you would like the Government to take, since Sharia councils already operate under British law in the UK and would not therefore be able to enforce decisions which were in conflict with that law – for example, they would not be able to impose the death penalty.
Click this link to see the rejected petition:
View the rejected petition
We only reject petitions that don’t meet the petition standards:
https://petition.parliament.uk/help#standards”
Although they claim an excuse for rejecting it, it does imply that they support the various Sharia setups which is worrying. Clearly we have a fight on our hands to rid ourselves of this evil. I look forward to a new UKIP Manifesto, hopefully soon.
David, I got the same. There is a rather depressing article in Gatestone today on,this subject.
I’ve just read it and am appalled. Our only salvation is in the removal of the whole damned lot of them.
A caveat, Les:
There’s one more group we mustn’t be frightened to alienate – the rich. Not only is reducing the wealth gap morally right, people on modest incomes want to SEE the rich being taxed more.
We mustn’t be put off bt the Arron Banks tendency – our only chance is to offer Labour voters policies which promote fairness, which will attrtact large numbers on middling incomes too. The People’s Army will not vote for Thatcherite economics.
Right on national cohesion and defence, left on state planning, protection and the dignity of labour.
Beware Quercus, the old ‘squeeze the rich’ plan is not new.
High taxes don’t work. They’ve been tried before and they ruin public services.
Under Labour, in the seventies, the standard rate of tax went up to 35% and the top rate of tax went up to 83%. As the well-known ‘Laffer Curve’ graph illustrates, tax revenues nose-dived.
The result was that in 1976 Labour’s Chancellor, Denis Healey, had to beg for a loan from the IMF because the country was broke.
Check it out.
Indeed, many of them are of the self-declared global elite who would see the general population enslaved for their own selfish benefit. However we must not kill aspiration to succeed in the process so I would not reject Thatcherite economics in favour of Labour ones.