As so many readers here on UKIP Daily and as so many members across the country, I’ve been following the campaign(s) of the candidates, mostly by reading reports of hustings and by watching the speeches the candidates put up as videos on their facebook pages and websites.
Yesterday, the editors kindly published a letter I wrote, calling for more hustings reports so that those of us who cannot visit these events can learn more about the candidates. After all, I think that personal impressions are important, and I also think that the more we hear of what members, not the candidates’ campaign managers, think of the leadership contestants, the more it helps to form an opinion.
However, I am concerned to observe more and more what can be described as a rise in biliousness and – sorry, but it’s true! – pigheadedness coming to the fore amongst members and, yes, also amongst those who comment on here. It seems that ever since Anne Marie Waters announced her intent to contest for the leadership an attitude has appeared amongst members and indeed the Party ‘elite’ which I’d like to call ‘un-kipperish’.
It started with that article by Bill Etheridge in the Daily Telegraph – that was on June 22nd, and Bill was a candidate himself at that time. It went on with a declaration by UKIP MEPs that they would leave the Party should AMW become leader, and many members, including branch secretaries and UKIP councillors, followed suit. Unsurprisingly, that hardened the attitude of members supporting AMW.
We then had the attack on David Kurten just before the NEC was to decide on the official nomination of candidates for this contest. By that time, Bill Etheridge had already stepped down.
I seem to remember – do correct me if I’m wrong – that candidates were not to attack other candidates in their campaign statements or during hustings. It seems the candidates now still in the running are observing that stricture – at least as far as I can make out from the reports I’ve read on UKIP Daily.
However, what I’ve read in the comments on UKIP Daily shows another picture. More and more, partisanship is coming to the fore, with personal denigration of those comment posters not supporting either the ‘candidate of choice’, AMW, or supporting a different candidate. The comments I read on yesterday’s article by David Allen (himself a leadership contestant who stepped down and now supports Henry Bolton) are a case in point. Yes, they are polite (I assume the moderators are weeding out the posts with more intemperate if not incendiary language), but they read as if everyone who hasn’t yet decided to support AMW needs to be taught that this is the only way to go. Anyone raising their heads above that particular parapet gets knocked down.
What is worse, IMHO, is that the whole debate seems to have boiled down to one single issue: islam. Yes, it is a major issue – but such partisanship not only obfuscates all other issues, it means that other important questions are not even asked – not of the candidates, not amongst members.
What about Brexit? How is it possible that this vital issue has vanished from the agenda? Government Position papers have been published in the last weeks – all reported on UKIP Daily – but that has not informed the leadership debate, or so it would seem to me.
What about the continuing upset regarding the NEC? I cannot find that this has become an issue when I look at the reports up to today of the hustings. Are members, is the prospective new leader, ok with the restructuring of the whole party as announced by Party Management in their last communications? Are these issues, so vital for our Party, now unimportant?
What about the vision of JRE for UKIP should he become leader? He’s not written anything for UKIP Daily that I’m aware of, but surely those who voted for him in last year’s leadership election have not abandoned him now – so where is their input on here?
I appreciate that the candidates are run off their feet, trying to visit as many hustings as they possibly can, but shouldn’t their campaign managers write about their standpoints to the questions I raised? Instead we get press releases about which Party aristocrat supports whom!
One contributor for UKIP Daily sent a questionnaire to all candidates, with questions on islam (see here). I found it illuminating, not just because of the answers but because of who of the candidates didn’t reply. But what did an ordinary member really learn from it? Not a lot, I’d say! And that’s my point: yes, we know all candidates are ‘against’ islam, more or less forcefully. Yes, that’s all the questionnaire asked about. But is that now the one and only criterion for electing the new leader?
It isn’t good enough! And it doesn’t bode well for the future of UKIP if, as is my impression from the last couple of weeks is anything to go by, being anti-islam is seen as the single most important standard for deciding whom to vote for, with the exclusion of all others.
Let’s please hear candidates and members on Brexit and the future of UKIP! Or have candidates and members now had enough of UKIP and are hoping for a new Party?
We should be told!
There is perhaps a deeper question at this leadership election and that is can the party that campaigned for leaving the European Union forge a common direction and one that the voting public will support ?
All political parties are coalitions of people who forgo their difference in exchange for striving towards common goals.
It seems to me that AMW will break the current coalition and break the party ( yes I know many argue that new people will join ), but a left wing socialist agenda with nationalism and targeting a specific group of people’s religion cannot coexist with the libertarian or old school patriotic right of centre part of the party.
I can’t think of any other candidate that would have that impact.
Those who vote for the nationalism of AMW need to firstly ask themselves where the other parties that wore those clothes are now, and secondly how much spare time they have got for politics to make up for all those party branch officers and canddiates who will leave.
By contrast the other candidates would hold the party together.
Its not like we haven’t been warned.
RE Religious slaughter of food animals:
In the 2017 snap election there was no time for the usual hustings/meetings/etc so my main interaction with voters was via email. The big topic was animal welfare, badgers, fox hunting, slaughter, export. Religious slaughter came up several times, but the thing that lost the Cons most votes was fox hunting.
On halal I had this as a reply, a response I’d worked out in 2016 after a round-robin email tried to lure innocents into either being against certain religions or pro animal cruelty:
“Look at this round robin from the point of view of our enemies. Does it press the red button of ‘one rule for them, one for us’? Yes it does. Is it right to do so? That depends on your point of view — if you hate UKIP and want to get it labelled racist then it provides ammunition as it supports your case that UKIP will use any excuse to stir up problems between the Muslim community and the rest of the population. If you are a reasonable and patriotic Englishman you cannot see what it contentious about asking for equal treatment, but you must remember that the Press are after you and will leap on it with glad cries.
Is there a solution? Personally I think that the non-humane slaughter of animals should be banned. It is cruel and should be deprecated by every civilised human being. Does your religion prescribe that the animal should not be stunned? Put it in an inert atmosphere — nitrogen for choice — and cut its throat while it is anoxic, a condition unknown when the religious laws were formulated. And if that’s not good enough, import your meat from somewhere where animal welfare is not considered important.
That solution treats everyone equally.” Anyone who feels that unkosher/non-halal meat is unclean could always go vegetarian.
I’ve been hypoxic — you go out like a light.
JF
An excellent suggestion Julian. The gas should be something inert but not CO2.
My understanding is that pigs are slaughtered using CO2, which surely cannot be the most humane method. The brain of mammals detects CO2 level, and if it goes too high it causes distress, even if there is still sufficient oxygen.
Nitrogen or argon would be preferable, however it is not used, I think because CO2 is cheaper and I think density is an issue too, with the way pigs are loaded into the aspyxiation chamber.
There needs to be some better procedures developed. With current procedures, we should be promoting “stun to kill”.
We had a Hustings here in Norfolk last night. All the candidates but one were there, theoretically.
In theory, because two were represented by effectively useless stand-ins. Henry was represented by Dave Allen, who spent the evening checking his tablet “to see what Henry would have said”. Jane Collins, a nice lady, was put in the unenviable position of having to read the previously unseen script of a rival candidate. It was so ridiculous I can’t even recall the name of the rival candidate. All I recall is watching Jane trying to fit it into the two minutes allotted.
I don’t know whether you all feel this is a normal situation at hustings. I’m old enough to remember when this setup would have been competitive with Monty Python sketches.
I wanted to ask the panel whether anybody knew the story behind the now famous Stoke pro-halal leaflet, but the Chair studiously avoided my gaze. It may have been that a chap in the seat directly in front of me stated early on that the candidates should just get on with Brexit and then wind the party up.
Aiden Poundland spent the evening slagging off his rivals, clearly rattling Peter Whittle and not for the first time according to Youtube.
There was one active NEC member on the panel. Sadly she had little time to talk to me after the show, too busy handing out paper slips with her email address. I wanted to ask her about Tomaz Slivnik’s resignation letter and whether she felt it was an accurate reflection of sentiment on the committee, and about the apparent contraditions between UKIP’s status as both a limited company AND a national political party. But I only had seconds for this conversation before she had to dash off. Outside I found a UKIPD editor, who similarly seemed ready to depart quickly, and I just had time to ask her who on earth runs the party. She shrugged and said, ‘Who knows?’, and had to dash off. I left, feeling like I was acting like an MSM weasel chasing after people, when in fact I’m a party member of long standing. I also really wanted to have a chat with AMW and Stuart A, but they had to leave early unfortunately.
A bit of a frustrating evening all in all. So much for the opportunity to meet important people in the party.
I’m sorry I had to dash off following the hustings on Wednesday Rob. I had an hour’s drive and was not feeling well. As far as knowing who runs the party, we at UKIPD are as much in the dark as any other members.
Will comment posters kindly observe the 400-word length restrictions in their comments!
Or else!!
STOP PRESS. Nigel Farage has just announced he’s making an important personal announcement on LBC at 5.30 pm today
I may be wrong but I think the announcement may have been that he has a Sunday slot on LBC. Perhaps we need to understand that Nigel has decided to pursue a different career path?
Viv,
I have concientiously tried to watch my word count in good faith, but as long as a posting is about right lengthwise will you cut us all some slack, say up to 10-15 words or so? Thanks.
I’ve been cutting slack right left and centre – I’ve never quibbled over the odd 15 or 25 words ors so – but lately things have severely got out of hand, with comment posts longer than articles.
Fair enough.
I speak from the position of being a relatively new poster on UKIPD.
Until UKIP (and the British) can put aside their differences, the common enemies will continue to prosper. UKIP needs a sensible, unifying leader to address a range of issues. If people vote, without really thinking through the consequences, UKIP will be split forever and, alas, it will die. Think on.
@David Allen
Goodness me – it’s a good job you’ve already withdrawn from the leadership, because I suspect your tone (let alone content of these comments) would have seen your vote share plummeting.
You think AMW is an extremist. Most of us do not.
You think AMW has no solutions to the islam issue and yet she and her friends are raising awareness far more than anybody else in the country right now. I hear impotent people from Theresa May downwards declaring “enough is enough”, yet the response is only one of appeasement and tolerance of the spread of Sharia. It won’t work.
AMW’s most controversial policy is to consider internment, in the knowledge that it did not work in Northern Ireland. But perhaps there is a set of circumstances whereby it makes sense. At least have the courage to consider it in exceptional circumstances, which is all she is saying, I believe.
Did you hear Nick Ferrari try to demolish her on LBC? She held up well, and probably won more friends in the process. And he is by no means the “worst” of the MSM that she will face.
It’s worth reading her open letter response http://forbritain.uk/open-letter-nick-ferrari-lbc
AMW will garner wide support in the country if she is elected leader, of that I am almost certain. And with support comes influence, then action. If people like you leave the party along the way, I’ll take that as a price worth paying to see our country change for the better.
Internment is an extreme option, never successful, extremely unfair, and no solution to anything. Considering it is political suicide for a political party. But, As I’ve indicated, I suspect she is playing a longer game. Fortunatly, ‘people like me’ that you seem to despise so much are the majority by some way in UKIP. Fortunately, I do not intimidate easily, so, will continue to point out the blindingly obvious to all but the faithful.
Whoa!
“Despise so much”? Where did that come from?
I merely suggested that I personally would have no problem if UKIP attracts new members who would buy-in to AMW’s leadership and lose some who find that prospect unattractive. The party will move on, with a new fresh agenda that is likely to have wide appeal.
I don’t know who you think is trying to intimidate you, or for what purpose.
Genuinely puzzled.
@ Grummy
David Allen seems severely rattled and, like John Bickley, can’t stop digging the hole deeper for some reason.
He’s made ‘a Very Personal Comment’ but doesn’t like it when he gets some back. The fact that he’s still supporting Henry Bolton – standing in for him at a hustings, no less – indicates he’s in a lock that he can’t see a way out of. Never mind, it’ll all be over soon.
Internment needs to be considered an option for those who cannot be deported.
What would you do with the 35,000 fanatics? Would you lock them up or just allow them to continue bombing, running people over using vehicles, and slitting throats?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4840604/Britain-home-35-000-Islamic-fanatics.html
Enough is enough. We are at war. Internment of enemy combatants is a legitimate precaution during times of war.
Why does internment “never work”?
Seemed to have worked well during ww2 when Germans were interned
“One contributor for UKIP Daily sent a questionnaire to all candidates, with questions on Islam (see here). I found it illuminating, not just because of the answers but because of who of the candidates didn’t reply.”
The inference in this article is that I didn’t reply to the questions. This is not quite the truth it appears to be. In fact, I replied at length. What I didn’t do is systematically give Yes/No responses to loaded questions and, what’s more, I never answer them in the manner presented, because these questionnaires often have quite a different agenda.
Yes/no responses to complex issues add little to the debate, but can certainly polarise opinion, both for and against the answers. They are, in my view, unhelpful. In my comprehensive response to the questionnaire I pointed the author to the many articles I’ve written, and the videos I’ve produced that encompass the subject matter of the questionnaire. I also provided links to the content I’ve created and which is already in the public domain, but these aspects of my reply weren’t included in the ‘Daily’ article.
The reason for this is explained by the motivations that usually lie behind such questionnaires. In my experience the objective is not to answer questions, or to illuminate the issues, a point observed in this article, ‘But what did an ordinary member really learn from it? Not a lot, I’d say!’. They are designed to polarise opinion and to present a picture that is highly partisan. For example, ‘such and such thinks Islam is not a problem’ or is ‘soft on crime’ when their response may simply to have been that they do not support internment. The weapon used against me is also part of the overall strategy ‘David Allen and David Coburn replied, declining to answer.’ Suggesting that my response was a refusal to engage. I cannot speak for DC. In that sense, such questionnaires are simply propaganda tools, serving a partisan agenda and attempting to polarise opinion in the most destructive fashion.
People with extreme agendas always want to avoid the detail, preferring instead to whip up emotional responses. They feel this plays well and exploits genuine fears. We see it all the time and it eventually leads to extreme behaviour as well.
I abhor such tactics and will oppose extremism wherever I meet it. My approach is to employ reason, rational, and seek solutions, and whilst that might not get as many ovations it is a better way to resolve issues than to whip up discontent.
@ D Allen
Such a long, involved ‘explanation’ smacks of self-justification from a weak position.
“Employ reason, rational [sic] (perhaps you mean ‘rationale’?) and seek solutions”
That’s a great strategy when enemies and wreckers of what you believe in also want to employ reason and rational solutions, but they hardly ever do, do they? Ever tried to reason with Remainers about freedom and autonomy? Ever tried to reason with an islamic theocrat about freedom and autonomy?
How can anyone ‘exploit genuine fears’? Either the cause of the fear actually exists and is well-grounded in observation, history and fact and is therefore genuine; or it is a make-believe fear. No one can exploit a make-believe fear for long without it being rumbled. If we warn others of a real threat, a real cause for fear, we do nothing more than our duty to fellow human beings: we don’t exploit them.
You have stepped down from the leadership election, yet are still backing a silly man who tried and failed to get rid of a bona fide candidate by citing ‘Rules’ which he did not bother to explain. He should step down too if he has any integrity and a realistic idea of his chances of winning.
My response to this questionnaire was in defence of a deliberate misrepresentation. That’s not an unreasonable thing to do, though, unfortunately, more and more necessary, as your comments show. Thank you for pointing out the typo, however, methinks that does you little credit. Exaggerating and exploiting fear is the hallmark of the dictator, but I’m sure you know that. Fortunately, most of the AMW rottweilers will vanish when she loses badly, as sensible and pertenent opinions are clearly not welcome in this sect. How you know Henry Bolton is ‘silly’ I’m not certain, but, then again, it’s really just personal abuse, which is, unfortunatly prevalent. When Anne Marie loses, perhaps it would be for the best if she left the party with her angry brigade in tow. We can then get on with becoming truly relevant again.
@ D Allen
‘Silliness’ is revealed by a person’s unthought-through and futile actions which redound on oneself instead of the intended target. As such, H Bolton’s attempt to remove a well-supported and eligible candidate from the list was silly. If it was prompted by the PTB in the hierarchy who are desperate to stop her winning, it was also corrupt.
No one is ‘exaggerating and exploiting fear’ and neither AMW, nor any of her supporters are dictators, just people who think it is common sense to fear what dictatorial islam can do, based on past and present evidence in this country and around the world.
Keep your blindfold on if you want to; you have plenty of sightless company, including our three-monkeys government.
David, you could have answered as many of the questions that you wanted to, and declined the rest.
You know that there is a 1000 word limit for articles. There was no remaining space in my article to include your loquacious verbiage. Nobody has the time or energy to trawl through your articles to find out your policy positions on the key issues.
Some of the answers of the candidates who did answer had to be trimmed.
What is your policy on Halal and Kosher? You had the opportunity to answer.
I see no point in re-writing material already published to suite a ‘loaded’ format. As for making fuller arguments I’m afraid that does require more than yes or no.
@ Gary Conway
Absolutely true, Gary. When Anne Marie came to talk to our branch back in April, she was very clear and very insistent that islam is the problem, not all muslims. She knows that many muslims, especially women, children and gays are victims of islam, not perpetrators, not terrorists.
islam is a dreadful meme that has spread and enslaved millions of people for 14 centuries. Our aim should be to defend ourselves from an inhuman ideology and free others from its grip. islam has to be challenged and controlled.
The place to start is here in the UK where successive governments have foolishly kowtowed to the hard men of islam and cravenly failed to apply British law equally to all citizens. Anne Marie’s mission is to redress that disastrous imbalance and save our country from a nightmare future. That’s a hell of a goal, but someone has to have the guts to do it and she’s the one.
To those worried about UKIP being labeled as “BNP Mk2”, we’ve been called that, and worse, these past 20 years. We get called these things not because anything we say, believe or advocate is in any way remotely racist, but because the media and political establishment, horrified by these terrible truth-telling oiks, have to find some way to shut us up.
Sadly these smear tactics seem to work. Some within UKIP still seem to believe, despite years of evidence to the contrary, that if we say the right things, get the right policies, put forward the right people then we will win favour with the media. This is based on the false assumption that there is something wrong with the policies and messages we have put out to date. Perhaps these people really think that UKIP is racist, extremist, and should become just like the other parties and only say safe things about safe subjects.
There is no point in a UKIP that will not say the unsayable. There is no point in trying to win over a hostile media and establishment. Fortunately, as we saw with Brexit, if we keep saying the unsayable then eventually we will bypass the hostile media and our message will get through.
I have been a supporter of AMW since the election was called, I went to the Norfolk hustings last night. I have listened to the criticism and concerns of those who threaten to leave the party if AMW is elected. I am still firmly behind AMW for the simple reason that I am yet to hear anyone make a cogent case against her. Every criticism of her is based on a misrepresentation of what she has said or a misunderstanding of what Islam is. Reminds me of friends who would attack Nigel Farage, based on a misrepresentation of what he said or a misunderstanding of what the EU is…
AMW speaks the truth, tells it like it is, and knows her subject. This has outraged and offended all the right people. What’s not to like?
By the way, 2 hour hustings in Norfolk last night, Islam wasn’t mentioned once.
Gary. That’s interesting that you say Islam wasn’t mentioned once in those hustings.
Apparently, it wasn’t mentioned at all in the Eastern Region hustings on 21st August and, consequently, the writer of the report on that event decided to grill Anne Marie after the hustings had finished BECAUSE she hadn’t talked about it.
So, it seems she’s damned if she talks about Islam and damned if she doesn’t. Or at least, by a section in UKIP who have been against her from the outset no matter what she does, or doesn’t, say.
A bizarre development of the AMW camp is the promotion of the pretence that nobody else understands the issues cause by Islam and that she is the only one who has solutions. That couldn’t be further from the truth. In fact, and whilst AMW is a good campaigner, I have yet to hear any solutions or any strategy to address the problems. That’s no accident, because defining the problem is also studiously avoided. This is essential to whip up emotional responses, which is her single, but quite effective, card. She certainly knows which audience to play to and in Norfolk she was a different orator to the one we see in Dagenham. Hence, not much about Islam.
I say this as a supporter if her ideals, but an opponent of her methodology and the effect it would have on the party. I am castigated and abused for these opinions, but that is the whole point of her campaign.
I will oppose extremism wherever I see it and AMW is extreme. Her whole raison d’être relies upon her extremism, it polarises opinion, even those who understand and support her aims are castigated for not being sufficiently idolising of every word she utters. Internment is the most extreme act possible, she supports internment, AMW wants to lock up Muslims without trial. In our society that is political suicide and the party would be crushed.
However, UKIP’s survival probably isn’t on her agenda. It’s unimportant, as it will have done its job in getting AMW on yet another TV show and yet another national article. Well, if that’s the way she wants to go then so be it, but not with my party, not if I can help it.
Read my article on ‘The Enemy Within’ in these pages, watch my videos on the threat of Islam and then tell me I don’t understand the problem. I do, but I want a solution and to do that we need to become relevant once again. Pandering to one person’s ambition for infamy and the celebrity that comes with that is a price too heavy for a party that is already struggling.
Well David the obvious and most visual steps when dealing with Islam are to ban Sharia Courts, Halal slaughter, the wearing of Hijabs in secular schools. The list could go on. These measures are really just scratching the surface however if we really want to do the job right we have to aim to have Islam defined as a proscribed political movement that promotes terror. The following is a government document which outlines the definition of ‘proscribed organisations’. Verses from the Quran and other Islamic texts have absolutely no problem fitting within the governments definitions.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/612076/20170503_Proscription.pdf
I’m not sugegsting there isn’t a real problem, I’m well aware of it and versed, better than the average person, on Islamic history and dogma. We’ve had Shechita for many years without issue so actions must be properly thought through. My principle concern is in creating the changes we need, actually getting things done, an that is best achieved through a political process. And certainly a part of AMW’s project is concerned with her own profile and her own celebrity. I think that UKIP, as a casualty of that ambition, would be acceptable to her, but it isn’t to me. I’ will listen to any strategy she comes up with ,but I’ve heard her a lot recently and there is none. It is a void. Her mantra is a constant repetition and exaggeration of the problems, assertions that we must stop it, or do something about it, a wild prediction that millions will vote for UKIP is only she is outrageous enough, but no actual substance. I don’t oppose dealing with the problems, but through the rule of law and not arbitrarily locking people up.
Jack. If I may attempt to summarise your excellent article, you sense the need for change, dislike some reactions to AMW but find her too single issue, too extreme, too anti-Islam and all that goes with it, Too rasist, too narrow, etc.
There are plenty of people who will tell you the same but question their motives? Fear? Good of the Party? Or another agenda?
I am very much in the “blow the bloody doors off” camp, for 2 reasons.
1. Ukip needs a clear direction and to the clear the decks. Our organisation is rotten, and far too many “establishment” figures have been queuing up to stab her in the back. Frankly we would be better off without them.
And 2, what AMW actually wants is a far broader agenda, incl clean Brexit and substantial NHS reform, but the one that hits the headlights is equality before the law, described , As pejoratively as possible, in terms of islam.
If those two objectives of clearing the decks and adopting a broad reform agenda command wide support, we can make far more progress than with any Luke-warm candidate leading, because selecting AMW WILL blow the bloody doors off and have the media running round like headless chickens ….
…..until people start to grasp that she does want an inclusive team around her with a far broader agenda, is brutally honest about her specialist subject, and that if criticising a political creed that wishes to destroy our culture is regarded as racist, the treachery of such critics will be increasingly exposed.
Because the actions of so much of the uk establishment has been and is DELIBERATE, over a lot of years, and will remain so unless stopped.
I don’t think it’s about right or left at the moment, or even in or out. I think the real agenda here is exposing what has been happening to for years, the stuff that Enoch warned us about 50 years ago, and the many rotten motives of those who have grown rich, died as traitors or simply lived as deluded fools and useful idiots.
Please don’t let fear be your guide.
I see no credible alternative to AMW.
Do you?
It’s a classic case of angels fearing to tread, complicated by darker motives of people within the Party trying to stop her.
UKIP has an existential problem which other parties do not have.
With Labour, we see the Blairites and the Momentum factions. With the Tories, its broadly one-nationers versus Thatcherites. The Liberals and SNP are pretty much united, as are the Greens and DUP. Of course, there are mavericks in all these organisations but, on the whole, Joe Public knows what is what.
The Tories even manage to pretend they all love each other, which is the only reason Theresa May is still in power, well at least until later this year. Because Joe voted for her.
Now look at UKIP through the eyes of Joe Public. What does Joe see?
Joe sees a mess. Let’s face it, UKIP needs modernisation. Forget the guff about an unstructured libertarian party where everyone says what they like and invents crazy policy that scares off Joe. Forget about ideas like mass repatriation of aliens, internment, the death penalty and three aircraft carriers. Forget it, because Joe will think you are a nutcase and the media will cut you to pieces.
We need a central policy based around seven, just seven core issues.
The economy. Standard of living. Law and order, Health/welfare. Foreign policy. Education. Housing
That’s it. Brexit, Islam, migration and the rest are relevant, but only if it affects how the Big Seven policies are delivered. Single issue politics is dead. Dead.
Joe wants to know how UKIP will keep his job and home secure, improve his standard of living and keep his family safe and healthy. That’s all. Until and unless the disparate entities within UKIP learn to compromise with each other and develop this central policy and stick to it, it doesn’t matter how many changes of leadership there are, as Joe will never vote for them.
But vote Joe will. And he will vote UKIP if the arguments, arithmetic and attitude of the party give him hope that there is a better way.
Excellent post. It’s that simple. And we have too many placemen/women who have risen to posts of importance while others snoozed or argued.
As I said I have no dog in the election fight, however the successful candidate should modernise and very fast. The lumpen NEC, with its largely perennial officers, needs dis- establishing and replaced by specialists in the ‘Big Seven’ policy areas I refer to.
There will need to be changes to the Articles and Memoranda of the UKIP company.
Seven officers (with direct professional experience in their fields) need electing to take up as Policy Directors. Each Director should chair a committee of no more than 4 similarly qualified people to define UKIP’s policy on that subject. These committees must constantly review UKIP’s policy and every two months provide the membership with a summary of their recommendations. Let’s call this a ‘rolling manifesto’.
Donors and lenders may NOT be any part of these committees to guarantee transparency and independence.
A simple majority vote of the members ‘we agree’ ‘we disagree’ (using simple internet voting) on the each individual policy ensures broad consensus. Note ‘broad consensus’. The Policy Committees must be allowed to do their jobs without diversion on petty minutiae.
I personally think JRE’s ‘Direct Democracy’ idea has value, but at this stage, may be too complicated or expensive right now, so this is the next best thing
All minutes must be available to members.
Each Policy Director and the Leader will meet once a month to decide what priorities UKIP will promote through media channels in line with the political climate of the time. The Leader or the Policy Director will be the spokesperson. It will be necessary for these 7 posts and the leadership post to be salaried, again to ensure that the candidates cannot be excluded by dint of not having private means.
A democratic modernisation of this style will enthuse members who know that they now have to be consulted, and will ensure dynamic policy-making considering any prevailing political climate. This is a major incentive to encourage new members.
It will also quash the fears, be they real or imagined, that UKIP is run by a ‘secret cabal’ and concentrate the entire memberships’ minds on winning elections with coherent and workable policies that engage with the British public.
Where do you live Bav? I used to live in London but now in Hertfordshire. Recently I had a friend from Spain come over so I took him to Hype Park Corner to see Speaker’s Corner on a Sunday to witness the religious debate. There was a group of about 40 young Muslims praying on mass in the park warming up so to speak before engaging in ‘Street Dawah’. My friend was a little shocked as the whole spectacle since it had an aggressive vibe about it. Anyway after a while we headed back to Hertfordshire. That means I would go the whole length of the A5 before I hit the M1 at Brent Cross. During those whole 10 miles or so from the very centre of London to the North Circular (outskirts of London) I couldn’t go 50 yards without seeing a Hijabi on the pavement. Islam is THE issue of our times. Forget the rest.
I live in Central London. I was born in Hackney, lived in Walthamstow and Camberwell, now in Islington.
In my article, I opined that ‘Joe Public’ just wants to get on with his life and family in a peaceful and law abiding society, with a few extra bob in his pocket. I really think that’s all most people want. They don’t want perpetual war.
Law and order, English law and order, are essential for those ambitions. I’m not declaring which candidate I would support but I strongly object to any attempt by minority groups to defy, subvert or cause unwarranted change to our way of life, laws or culture or to interfere with British religious tolerance. That’s worth fighting for. Our enemies have many resources and are cunning.
We need to be cunning and united to beat them.
Religious tolerance cannot be one-sided. We are dealing with a politico-religion which ostensibly brooks no tolerance towards ANY other belief system.
Horrible, but true.
That’s true, in part, but Islam is full of contradictions. You can do an entire self study course on Islam and never engage with the ideology that drives the political agenda and get’s, it’s authority from Mohhamad’s, time in Medina. It’s hard for us to understand that many Muslims simply don’t know, or acknowledge this part of it. They are taught with an interpretation that nullifies the dogma of eh language used. We do, however, need a proactive and zero-tolerance approach to hate preach and those with substantive intent. The worrying aspect is that AMW, in Dorking, and other venues where she feels she can get away with it her rhetoric is not too far away from that we wish to prevent, only the other way round.
So what magical solution do you suggest David?
I’m afraid you sound like yet another politician afraid to touch the dreaded subject of Islam.
If we just sit back, and set an example by turning the other cheek, all Christian-like, we will NOT get the desired effect from the jihadist community, or anyone on the Moslem side. Why? Because THEY DO NOT SUBSCRIBE TO THE SAME MORAL PRINCIPLES we were raised under. They will just use the opportunity, as we will have shown ourselves to be weak in their eyes. Allah wants them to proceed on that basis, such is the way they have been brainwashed from birth.
I met you on Wednesday at the Hustings in Norfolk and you seemed like a reasonable man, you didn’t slag off any of the other candidates. But to now say AMW is trying to ‘get away with’ something is to say she has a personal agenda which I know she hasn’t.
To impune that her wanting one law for all to include prosecuting rape crimes and similar, is near to hate speech, is not worthy of you sir.
To anyone from OUR culture, the most natural thing in the world is to try and reason with people doing bad things, find out why they do it, persuade them to stop, under the law. And this has proved to work with most cultures beside our own. Trouble is, it doesn’t work with Islam. The other day I was walking down the street and a moslem woman pushing a pram was coming in the opposite direction. I looked at her, and stepped aside so she didn’t have to push her pram through the deep puddle that was between us. Instead of smiling and thanking me, she turned away and scuttled off as if I had commited some social travesty. To MY cultural beliefs, that’s simply rude. Am I being intolerant, if so, do I have the rest of my life to put up with this? Or am I just a middle class snob??
So how are you going to integrate these surly, insular people David? Magic? By the time they have been, Britain will be under Sharia law anyway!
When I wrote about the lady with the pram, I was onto integration – not saying she was committing any crime!
I’ve looked at what I can find on AMW and JRE, yes they do have other policy goals but time and again they seem to come back to the issue of Islam. Look at BNP and EDl. The media has been trying for years to paint UKIP as very similar to them, many people actually believe it. Now study the electoral record of those and other extreme parties. Not exactly good is it ? If we elect someone who has connections to EDL however tenuous they are claimed to be, or who uses the same language, we’ll promptly be tarred with the same brush. It will destroy us and thus damage Brexit even further. There will be no sudden rush to support UKIP on the back of heavy criticism of one religion. Some of the electorate may be very exercised about it, the vast majority are not. They see a big difference between the terrorists and ordinary Muslims. So do I. Much more can be done to help new residents integrate and to evolve their religion to fit a modern western society, attacking them will simply harden their attitude, it’s a big mistake.
Prosecute the criminal element, not every Muslim. We have freedom of worship in this country, we don’t persecute people with different beliefs any more. We have evolved our own religion to fit modern society, some of the changes being quite recent, gay rights, women priests, and end to sectarian violence in N. I. and so on. other groups can do the same if given support
I live in an area with a very large migrant population and I’m well aware of the problems that brings but there are very few Muslims amongst them and those that are cause no problem. A great many other people have the same experience, we don’t all live in cities. Tighten security by all means, control the borders too but don’t destroy my party by knee jerk reactions and claims of a planned takeover by foreign hoards. Rather get the statutory authorities and law enforcement people to apply the existing laws equally in areas where there are genuine problems, like Bradford.
Icini, I suggest you have another look at what AMW is actually saying. At no point does she say “every Muslim”, at no point does she conflate terrorists with ordinary Muslims, at no point does she advocate the persecution of Muslims or any of the other assumptions you seem to be making on her behalf.
Yes, she is, rightly, critical of many of the practices and beliefs within Islam. There is a huge difference between attacking a set of ideas and attacking a group of people.
You say “prosecute the criminal element, not every Muslim”, ” get the statutory authorities and law enforcement people to apply the existing laws equally in areas where there are genuine problems, like Bradford”… this is almost word for word what AMW is actually calling for. Her policies are targeted at the authorities who have created this mess.
The media will smear us whatever we say, It’s what we mean that matters and how the county reacts to our official policies. AMW appears to me to seethe within and her main concern is Islam, that’s why she was/is involved with Sharia watch, Pegida, that nice Mr. Robinson and Paul Weston. It’s reported that AMW says “she is not concerned about giving offence”, she should be. It’s far better to persuade people to change than to force them. As for the constant references to the Koran, they are mostly correct, but have you ever looked at the old testament ? Some people still take that as literal truth.
Gummy, not so very long ago Catholics and Protestants were happily killing each other too, in the name of religion.
I’m a ‘media’ person. UKIP traps itself by not following basic rules when engaging with the so-called MSM. I’ve submitted an article regarding this very subject to our editor. If she doesn’t spike it it may be available soon!
Locking up people without trial who happen belong to a targeted group is the very essence of persecution. By advocating interment she is advocating the persecution of Muslims. Best choose your words more carefully.
Internment is not possible unless its a near-universal targeting of a group. Or there will be an insurrection. In the USA they interned the Japanese as a group after Pearl Harbor, but soon released many. Britain did the same with Germans in WWII. Its largely counterproductive.
There are perhaps 3 million Muslims in the UK. To lock up 23000 (double the size of the infantry battalion totals in the British Army) is not logistically possible.
There CAN however be a more robust arrest /detain/ interrogate policy, but that would mean – for sure- many more Police and Security Service (MI5) personnel.
We MUST put this into perspective. Islamic fundamentalism is very irritating and it hacks us all off. So does the assault on our own cultural values. But they are not all that deadly. I know a few hundred people have died or been injured but we can’t turn into a police state in response.
This is completely separate to the issue of Muslim rape gangs. Again, more police= more arrests, but this is already a crime. Give the police the resources and unshackle them politically and the normal course of the law will have these people incarcerated.
This needs a firm but balanced UKIP policy related to the more general policy of law and order. Its NOT a specialist issue. I can’t see any coherent law and order policy from any of the candidates at this moment.
I agree that none of the candidates address this problem, but the greater problem is that our legal system has been corrupted in a way that ‘law and order’ may be impossible.
The ‘hate speech’ laws now prosecutes persons based on the proclaimed feelings of members of ‘protected groups’.
Reporting an actual crime could get you arrested if someone becomes offended by what you say.
Officials are reluctant to act in a way that could get them charged with offending a member of a ‘protected group’.
Our very legal system makes law and order difficult or even impossible.
This is why I advocate for the fight against Marxist-Postmodernism to be a major issue for UKIP.
I absolutely cannot believe I have just read this:
‘Islamic fundamentalism is very “irritating”?
and
‘I know a few hundred have died or been injured but we can’t turn into a police state in response.’
I really wish that people who profess themselves outraged by AMW supporters including AMW proposals themselves would find some spare outrage for all the affected lives you, Mr Bav, have just effectively dismissed as trivial inconvenience. Oh yes, that is what you have done.
We are ‘hacked off’?
Many have had limbs and lives hacked and how many of your family or friends or even yourself are you willing to sacrifice to avoid upsetting villainous politicians MSM and others as ignorant as you are.
Anyone reading comments on here over the months in favour of AMW and still posting negatively about us has not bothered to follow up on the links that will tell you what you need to know for Western cultural and physical survival.
Read ‘The Strange Death of Europe’ by Douglas Murray, respectable, respected, cultured and correct!
Mr Bav…the assault on our cultural values are not all that deadly?? Only, so far, deadly if you are a young girl who likes dancing – or people who like going out for a drink – or gay people in a nightclub – or dressed ‘inappropriately’ – I’d say that’s quite a lot of our culture under attack, and,this is only the advanced guard. The main event is yet to come. It won’t be too long now – Dawa is already being practiced, and that is far more deadly than Jihad. If you don’t know about Dawa, I suggest you look at Ayan Hirsi’s excellent recent interview on utube – she is someone,who actually comes from, and understands Islam.
Perhaps read my article ‘The Enemy Within’ on the Daily for a practical solution to identifying those we do need to prosecute or deport.
Are you saying that Churchill ‘persecuted’ the people who were interned in WW2? He directed that ‘aliens’, ie those who were not proven loyal to Britain and might even be enemies, should be detained until it was shown that they were no threat. Whom did he put first – the British people, or foreigners/refugees/travellers/fifth columnists/spies/Germans/German sympathisers? Churchill was a true Brit and a hero of the first order.
23,000 terrorists/would-be terrorists free to wander about with hate, violent thoughts and bad intentions toward British people is far too much of a risk to take. If UKIP doesn’t put our own people first – always – what use is it? Might as well join the lip-service Tories.
Nick Ferrari of LBC even tried to pretend he had never heard of the 23,000 when he interviewed AMW, just so that he could argue with her, not INTERVIEW her. Disgusting man.
The internment program of WW2 caused incredible hardship and was eventually abandoned. Germans and Austrians were taken including German Jews, which was bizarre. It was a wartime decision, quite early on and I can see why it was done, but I’m not sure that it would or even could ever happen again. AS for interning Muslims, simply because they are Muslims is, not only extreme, but foolish and destructive for our party. There are other ways to deal with this and I’ve outlined one in a recent article ‘The Enemy Within’. Even that would require significant political bottle.
I have consistently said that I support the aims but not the approach. In fact, she has no approach, no strategy and her rhetoric, whilst loud and repetetive never ever gets to what she could or would actually do if she were leader. One can only influence things one is in control of, our first task as a party is to gain support, not of a few extremists but middle England. That’s the best way to influence the agenda.
When you say much more can be done to help new residents integrate and evolve their religion, do you have muslims in mind?
We have 1,400 years of history in which to review the success of that policy. It doesn’t work, because Islam is a political ideology as well as a religion, and islamists DO NOT WANT to integrate. Instead they wish to establish Sharia law and to either convert or kill the kuffar. It’s all there, very plainly, in the Koran.
This isn’t my worldview, it’s theirs. Look at how well integration is working right now in Germany, Sweden, Italy and others.
Please, please read Douglas Murray’s “The Strange Death of Europe”. It’s a fact-based and objective assessment of where we are right now, and the inevitable consequences of remaining on our current path. I believe it might well change your stance.
It’s a toss up as to which is least likely to reform, Islam or the EU. Both are anti-democratic, authoritarian political projects intent on the destruction of nation state democracies.
Amusing how so many of the so-called arguments used against those who criticise the EU are also used against those who criticise Islam (up to and including the utterly moronic “well, if you criticise the EU/Islam you’re a big raaaaycissst”).
I guess it’s all part of the same problem (as Douglas Murray’s chillingly accurate book explains).
It’s hardly surprising that many people Actually believe UKIP is BNP / EDL, Icini, when those inside UKIP keep harping on about UKIP becoming, what was it, neo-Nazi if AMW wins – for shame! They care not one jot for the good name of the Party, and all about their personal agendas. What was that? Oh yes! They only said it ‘for the good of the Party’. Yeah! Right. Personally I’m sick of it.
I Confess – when Nigel Farage resigned I understood the enormous pressures he had been under for years and sadly accepted his need to resign.
I voted tactically for Bill Etheridge as the best bet to keep Diane James out. The massive vote for James was a real eye opener as to the naive membership of UKIP, admittedly there was not a great choice Duffy; Jones; Broughton ( not bad);Arnott.
When the inevitable carcrash happened I voted and campaigned for JRE but thought nuttall with some faults would surely hold things together. It was then I fully realised that a) the quality of most MEPs was dire and b) we had a clear ruling clique with a contempt (actions not words) for the thousands of ordinary members.
Outwith the party either AMW or DK would have the biggest impact; both attracting and repelling voters/supporters. The difference is the media would go softer on DK who just might be lulled into joining the middle of the road club (steam roller bearing down).
AMW would BLOW THE BLOODY DOORS OFF – and that is what we need. A UK version of the trump effect.Also please bear in mind that AMW could/would bring the party together by having a kitchen cabinet of the talents.
We are not lap dogs and our country is in a major crisis of many types. There are no easy answers. The james-nuttall-s/evans – whittle formula has not worked.
The past stupidities and incompetences has left us with a dangerous vote whereby of ten candidates there will be no big winner which will give rise to tensions. That is another problem to be solved.
When you blow the door off it tends to let in the cold and the rain. In the case of UKIP is would reduce a small party to a very small one.
Rest assured iceni I do not want to blow the doors off any dwelling house, certainly not yours. It is a metaphor – I want to break open the corrupt dealings done behind closed doors a) by the ruling clique in ukip b) by the media and their turgid lies c) by the political class and their betrayal of the United Kingdom to the criminal EU.
The time for pussyfooting is over.
Jack, I think you are being slightly unfair, although, because, I imagine, I am one of the main suspects you may think I am indeed ‘partisan’. If Mr. Allen wants to write in an article that Anne Marie is ‘rabidly anti-Islamic’ then imo he deserves to be roundly criticized and AMW needs to be defended. This is how it has been in this Leadership election, a drip drip drip of poisonous implications to do with one candidate only. This has come from the great and the good (so called) inside UKIP, people seem to think that because they have done so, then it’s ‘open season’ on Anne Marie. Surely this is unprecedented! Indeed those smearers have done so seemingly uncaring of the fact that they damage the good name of UKIP every time – and apparently that’s fine because they are doing so ‘for the good of the Party’.
I imagine this has been done with the intention of firmly lodging the impression in the minds of the MSM that should AMW win, which I think is unlikely because of the above, it will be perfectly right and proper to call UKIP BNP Mark 2 – after all, those elected MEP’s have said this will be the case.
All we, or I personally can do is defend Anne – I would love to talk about her excellent manifesto and the fact that she puts Brexit first – but no-one wants to talk about that.
I supported John R-E last time because there was little choice – but frankly I think his Direct Democracy won’t appeal to the public, and he seems to have gone all out in that direction.
Peter Whittle and David Kurten are part of the old guard, and I think we need new faces leading UKIP, as for Ben and Henry, I don’t see what they have got to offer except bashing the NEC, which may appeal within UKIP, isn’t the most pressing issue facing the country imo – Islam is – I suppose that’s why it gets a lot of attention.
Dee, I agree largely with what you’ve said.
But this thing about being labelled BNP Mk2 – let the MSM try that if they will, but there’s no evidence for it and AMW has the calm presence and logical argument to refute the charges.
No doubt her association and friendship with Jack Buckby and Tommy Robinson, both of whom flirted with the BNP in the past but turned their back on them when they became more informed about their agenda, will be trotted out as evidence of right-wing extremism. But let’s challenge that evidence. It won’t stand up to scrutiny.
We seem more than willing to embrace “reformed” muslims who speak out against the extremism they once espoused. We give them jobs and help them to spread the message that they were once wrong and they’ve now seen the light. Why can we not see this enlightenment as a massive positive in the cases of Buckby and Robinson, neither of whom are expressing views that could be considered by reasonable people to be racist.
Indeed, Tommy Robinson is doing more than most (not least with his Amazon #1 best-selling book) to raise awareness of Islam, and he risks his life daily to help those who are oppressed by the “Religion of Peace”. He deserves our respect.
Let’s defeat the MSM smears with rational, calm arguments. Let’s win widespread support from the increasing number of people who are concerned at the islamisation of Europe. It is by doing so that we will obtain a platform upon which to launch the other related policies that AMW has outlined in her manifesto.
Under the leadership of anyone other than AMW, UKIP can be ignored by the MSM and the public. Under her leadership I am confident that we can indeed blow the bloody doors off and stand for something important once again.
Jack,
In many ways I do agree with you about this I am also getting a bit tired about hearing about Islam all the time, but to be honest I also got fed up about hearing about Brexit. Regarding David Allen’s article and his previous ones, he has been very dismissive if not down right rude about AMW’s along with others I might add, and that has made me feel defensive for her.
But after attending the hustings and seeing them all in action apart from JRE (Bill Etheridge stood in for him) but I have seen him several times in the past, we have to be realistic in that we are choosing a future leader who must stand the course whilst appealing to the wider public.
My personal opinion is that although I strongly support AMW’s on her anti- Islam stance I find her a bit weak on other issues, so am not sure how she would practically deal with them. So, if I feel that what about the general public?
In contrast David Kurten also talks about certain factions of Islam but has a much broader approach to other areas and policies, he is also very engaging and seems to have a certain warmth about him. I feel this will attract more supporters and hopefully some younger ones which we desperately need, please will people correct me if they think I am completely deluded.
After what has happened with Paul Nuttall who I had so many high hopes for I really do not want to get it wrong again, this is such an crucial time for UKIP. I just want to add that my one concern about David is that he is backed by Arron Banks and I would not be sure of his motives, but there again is that a good or bad thing? there are so many unknowns and likely outcomes.
Nobody in power listens to UKIP about Brexit. We have no role to play as the “guard dogs” because we don’t have any teeth.
Nobody in the major parties has the courage to address Islam.
UKIP is uniquely positioned to give a voice to those in the electorate who presently, or will shortly, see this as the biggest issue of our time.
So we need to chose the leader who is best placed to raise awareness of the threat to our way of life, and to garner many thousands of new members to give us real influence and the chance – at last – to win some representation in Parliament.
AMW has well-thought through policies on other matters but, as you rightly suggest, very few are talking about them. Simply because their significance is dwarfed by the main event.
How important is Melania’s choice of footwear when thousands of lives are imperiled by floods?
There is nothing ‘thought through’ in AMW’s campaign, not even her anti-Islamic agenda. It is all hateful rhetoric and turned quite a few off at Dorking, last evening.