Gerard Batten has sent out a missive. If you missed it, here it is:
Dear Fellow UKIP Members,
The English local election results are of course disappointing to say the least. We all knew it was going to be a difficult night but we worked and hoped for the best.
First of all let me commend and thank all our former councillors, candidates, and activists who put in so much hard work over the years for the Party and the cause we believe in. These unsung heroes and heroines sacrificed their own time, effort and money in the interests of democracy. Thanks also to all the loyal UKIP voters who stayed with us at this difficult time.
There is also some good news in this election.
A preliminary estimate of 16 councils shows UKIP achieved an average of 7.5% of the vote.
When all the results are known we hope to have achieved an average of between 5% to 7% of the vote (across the seats we contested).
If you recall, in the General Election of 2017 UKIP had sunk to just 1.8% of the vote overall or approximately 3% across the seats where we stood (378).
Recently an opinion poll for UKIP still put us on only 3% nationally (YouGov).
When all the numbers are finally crunched, if we are indeed on between 5% to 7% of the vote then this represents a definite uplift in our support.
This is significant because the percentage difference between the Conservative and Labour parties is currently running at about 5% (Cons 43% Labour 38% YouGov, April)
In a General Election, the ability to command 5% or more of the vote has a significant impact on the votes, and seats, of the Lib-Lab-Con.
That is why the political and media establishments are saying UKIP is dead. They want us dead – but UKIP is still very much alive.
Certain results deserve a special mention.
In Derby, we held a seat and won two new seats. UKIP Councillor Alan Graves held his seat on 58% of the vote, and new UKIP Councillor Paul Bettany displaced the sitting Labour leader of the council on 40% of the vote. They are obviously doing something right and the Party needs to learn from them. In the results for Redditch, Winyates ward saw UKIP with 23.2% of the vote. We are still awaiting confirmation of some results.
In Burnley, UKIP Councillor Tom Commis also won a seat – well done Tom!
Our candidates and activists in Rochdale held the Labour council to task on the Grooming Gang/Sex Slavery issue and achieved a very respectable 13.8% of the vote.
We all knew the result would be disappointing but UKIP is still in the fight. Now we have to regroup, reorganise and rethink – and come out fighting again next time.
Have a relaxing week-end and an enjoyable Bank Holiday on 7th May.
Yours sincerely,
Gerard Batten MEP
UKIP Leader
Our second offering is an open letter from regular contributor Jim Makin.
Sir,
Let nobody doubt the changes that Gerard has brought to our Party. The local election results were pretty poor but we were not completely wiped (work with me here…).
Gerard has done some impressive interviews recently – if only I could maintain such a relaxed and gentlemanly demeanour in the face of the media’s most cynical interviewers – and still get the replies out without hesitation deviation or repetition! He did us proud.
And yet . . .
Where are the simple concise messages that we should be declaiming to every visitor to our still woeful national web-site telling them exactly what differentiates us from the Lib-Lab-Cons?
If For Britain can do this with their eight ‘campaign priorities’ then why can we not do it even better? Surely someone can put together a similarly punchy summary within the next week or two? Our message cannot be left to go by default.
The silence of our leadership on the principles which drive us threatens to become deafening. We cannot take it for granted that everyone knows them!
I think that For Britain are on the right lines but their list is incomplete. I would add:
Restore the legal safeguards that defend our citizens from the state:
- No court cases whatever to be held in secret – this is the only real defence against the miscarriage of justice
- All cases that threaten life-changing outcomes eg: loss of liberty, taking children into care, seizure of assets (inc. Family Courts and Court of Protection) to be tried by a jury (another well established safeguard against the unreasonable application of our laws)
- An end to all extraditions in the absence of the hearing of a prima facie case by a UK court
end government by the back door
- Stop the funding of ‘charities’ which have no significant funding from public donations (eg: The Franco British Council)
- Stop the funding of ‘independent’ NGOs which cannot be independent if in receipt of Government funding
- Parliament must approve all new international treaties and all changes to existing treaties
End the delivery of services by public-private monopoly providers (an arrangement which is open to abuse)
- Services should be funded by government-issued voucher to the recipient of the service (or their representative) who should be able to choose the best provider for their own circumstances wherever viable
Reform the House of Lords to restore its function as an apolitical revising chamber
- Members to be selected at random from each region (in proportion to population) from citizens reaching retirement age who are willing to serve for a period of 5 to 10 years (on receipt only of a small stipend plus reasonable expenses)
I note that momentum seems to be gathering for the abolition of the House of Lords (and indeed in their zeal to defy the electorate their lordships do seem intent on courting this fate) but it is abundantly clear that the House of Commons is sorely in need of a firm restraining influence, which the House of Lords is well-positioned to supply. It is the composition of the House that needs reform, the function that it should serve is still very much required and currently sorely missed.
Some of these might be quick wins and some would be wars of attrition, but if we never start then we will certainly never finish.
Respectfully,
Jim Makin
The House of Lords has been corrupted to its original intent and design.
It has been broken beyond repair for 50 years or more.
It has failed to protect the United Kingdom from laws and treaties which undermine the sovereignty of the state.
PR to the House of Lords would just be a patch over an institution which has also seen fit to allow the undermining of essential freedoms and rights for UK citizens. So it is not a useful watch dog and PR will not make it into a useful watch dog. There is no need for the expensive multiple hundreds of people involved in the House of Lords.
I would say that the UK needs a written constitution similar to the USA, however if current politicians were to write one it would not be satisfactory. I recognise that the House of Lords is part and parcel of the UK’s particular political-legal make-up, hence the suggestion is simply to indefinitely suspended on the basis of its failings.
In the meantime perhaps no more than fifty to a hundred people (restricted in position for no more than ten years ) representing the affected areas of legislation, such as Farming, Fishing, Armed Forces, Medicine and so on, could perform its legislative advisory role as a skeleton crew as well as carrying out its ceremonial functions. There would be no bishops or similar amongst the skeleton crew.
I say all this, as I believe that the PR solution is but a mirage to replace the system of hereditary peers who in times now gone had a vested interest in the nation state.
” our still woeful national web-site ” I just couldn’t agree more.
I commented saying this recently, and i’m not sure my comment wasn’t removed? What is going on here? Why can’t we do a better website?
I think this is one very major reason reason why we don’t do so well.
Important stuff should stay on main home page for all to see, not get swallowed up the next day into a black hole with yesterdays news.
I also agree with the writer on our core values. But anyone visiting the site who doesn’t know much about UKIP would come away without a clue.
Indeed; it contains no information of any real value. As you say I came away without a clue. Surely the PTB realise that it is probably the first port of call for prospective members so a high priority?
I wonder if UKIP is still paying the various carpetbaggers more that they are worth instead of spending money on the website?
At least GB has acknowledged the threat from Islam; hopefully he will not be shouted down by the naysayers / appeasers who will blame the lack of a good showing at the local elections on it. I believe that the real reason behind that was the fear of Labour which led many to vote Conservative as the only certain opposition to them.
” blame the lack of a good showing at the local elections on it”
Seriously?
UKIP was on 15% or higher in the polls prior to the Stoke by election. At which Nuttall pandered to Islam, unbeknown to the members and supporters who went to help with the campaign.
https://i0.wp.com/skwawkbox.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/nuttall-mosque.png?resize=470%2C409&ssl=1
Then Nuttall and Bolton caused UKIP poll rating to fall to around 2%. The poll rating is improving now that Gerard Batten is leader. He is doing a good job, having inherited a mess. Do his critics not understand that there is a time lag?
I just do not understand why we are negotiating anything. The EU has nothing we want. If trade with the EU stopped we would be better off. Everything the EU claims to have, we gave them in thefirst place, all its institutions, from yuman rites, interpol renamed europol, now called 5 i’s orsomething,the council of europe, etc. The ridiculous Fair trading laws, VAT, etc. They have nothing we want. Even the border in ireland, they need, it not us. And as for fishing, words fail me. A blatant hitleresque ploy, Invade, then ask, falsely reasonably, to keep half.
UKIP has turned the corner with Gerard at the helm. He knows his facts well, and has the great courage to speak the truth.
It is a shame that a sequence of events have resulted in us splitting into separate parties, when the reality is that on the key issues we are very much in agreement. My own opinion is that we should co-ordinate, so that different parties with very similar aims do not put up candidates against each other and thereby split the vote. This is just my own opinion, I do not have any inside info regarding this.
Of course; it makes absolute sense to work together in fighting the enemy.
It may be advantageous to continue as separate parties however. The smaller party can be more agile and also more provocative, whereas the larger one has the large number of boots on the ground and the voter recognition. Also it acts as an insurance, in case one party has a serious setback (such as another Bolton character), then the other party can continue the battle unimpeded.
Having separate organisations during the referendum campaign was a good thing overall, despite some disagreements at the top. At the grassroots level we were happily delivering leaflets for Vote Leave, Grassroots Out, Labour Leave, etc. to make the best impact in particular areas/streets.
Yes! To both.
Jim – this is sole area where I think I could be sold on proportional representation.
Why not have a proportional House of Lords, not exceeding the number of MPs? This can be achieved by natural wastage – leaving the House, popping clogs, thrown out in cases of proven pilfering public funds and similar.
Only then, new Lords could be proposed by parties out of kilter. The French have a queer sort of criterion for this proportionality sort of thing. Agreed and understood that this ‘proportionality’ will always lag and may never get to where it should be – properly proportional. But it would stop Blair style stuffing the Lords full of cronies.
Yes it could take a long time waiting for many to pass off of this mortal coil, but worth the wait.
Another plus is the reduction in public money to fund these buffers.