Wednesday 28 April 2010

Who is the Real Bigot Gordon?

Gordon Brown scored a massive own goal today, by demonstrating his “other side” yet again. After meeting Gillian Duffy in Rochdale, who challenged him over the number of eastern European immigrants in the town, he was clearly heard to refer to her as a “bigoted woman” once back in his car. This from the man whose party has said it is important to talk about immigration.

The thing is, New Labour have made it really difficult for anyone to bring up the subject of immigration for fear of being labelled a racist. They have in fact, suppressed any really open and honest debate about contentious issues in general, such as immigration, EU membership, religion, sexuality the list goes on. This is all done in the name of so-called equality and political correctness.

Well Mr Brown, Lets see how you fair with political correctness shall we?

From the Oxford English Dictionary the term political correctness:

“the avoidance of terms or behaviour considered to be discriminatory or offensive to certain groups of people”

While we are at it:
Here is the term bigot from the same dictionary:

“a person who is prejudiced in their views and intolerant of the opinions of others”

So Gordon scored well here didn’t he? Calling Gillian Duffy a bigot is offensive to the very group of people she represents, the older, white, traditionally Labour supporting group. Own goal number one, that's political correctness gone.

Then there is the question of who the real bigot is? Gillian Duffy for simply expressing her views, or Gordon Brown for being intolerant of other peoples views? That’s the second own goal. Worse for Gordon Brown though, is that this is clear evidence that he has a prejudice against people who don’t agree with him. Which means he is going to be really pissed off on May 7th isn’t he?

UKIP Election Broadcast 2010

Tuesday 27 April 2010

UKIP to seek injunction against BBC

Lord Pearson has written to the BBC warning them that UKIP will be seeking an injunction requiring them to give equal billing to Lord Pearson in the Leaders' Debate on Thursday. The text of his letter is as follows:
Leader's Office
United Kingdom Independence Party
Room 230
10 Greycoat Place
London SW1P 1SB
Mark Thompson, Esq.,
British Broadcasting Corporation,
White City,
201 Wood Lane,
London W12 7TS.
27 April 2010
Dear Mark,

Proposed claim for judicial review

I wrote to Sir Michael Lyons at the BBC Trust on 22 December, asking that UKIP should be allowed to participate in the televised debates between party leaders. Sir Michael wrote explaining that you rather than the Trust were the appropriate point of contact, and you wrote to me on 15 January 2010, conveying to me your decision and that of the BBC to reject my request on the following grounds:

"The basis on which judgements are made about relative levels of coverage rests on past and current electoral support. For the election to the House of Commons in 2010, the starting point is the last General Election, in 2005. Similarly, the starting point for coverage of the 2009 European election was the previous European election of 2004. This means that UKIP - on the basis of its strong performance in 2004 - was given the same level of coverage in the 2009 election as the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties. In 2005, however, at the last General Election (notwithstanding its performance at the European election less than a year before), UKIP attracted just over 2% of the vote and won no representation at Westminster.

"It is, therefore, appropriate and consistent for the BBC - and other broadcasters - to offer the opportunity to take part in the Prime Ministerial debates only to those parties which have substantial electoral support in the context of Westminster. There will be additional opportunities across the BBC for other parties to receive appropriate coverage responding to the Prime Ministerial debate."

We have been given no adequate opportunity to respond to the first two debates. What arrangements is the BBC making to address this? How can the coverage be "appropriate" if we cannot reach the leaders' audience?

The first two of the party leaders' debates have been held and, as I feared, have given spectacular prominence to the three parties whom you, ITV and Sky TV allowed to take part. The unfairness in our being excluded from the party leaders' debates is now all too evident.

Most recently, I wrote to you on 23 April, sending you my recent correspondence with Sky TV, and inviting you to rectify the lack of impartiality which broadcasters have demonstrated in refusing to allow UKIP to participate in the televised leaders' debates. I have not had a reply to my letter to you. The final leaders' debate is in just two days' time. The matter is now urgent, and I have done my best to pursue it timeously.

Since time is now short, I have taken advice, in the light of which I should like to draw your attention to the following provisions in the BBC's own election guidelines:

"3. Due Impartiality in coverage of parties and issues

"3.1 Coverage of the Parties

"To achieve due impartiality, each bulletin, programme or programme strand, as well as online and interactive services, for each election, must ensure that the parties are covered proportionately over an appropriate period, normally across a week. This means taking into account levels of past and current electoral support.

"Due impartiality must be achieved within these categories:

"interviews/discussions of up to 10 minutes;
"longer-form programmes.

"Previous electoral support in equivalent elections is the starting-point for making judgments about the proportionate level of coverage between parties.

"However, other factors can be taken into account where appropriate, including evidence of variation in levels of support in more recent elections, changed political circumstances (e.g. new parties or party splits) as well as other evidence of current support. The number of candidates a party is standing may also be a factor." [my emphasis]

These election guidelines - as you may know - were approved by Jenny Watson, the chairman of the Electoral Commission, in a letter dated 11 January 2010 to Ric Bailey, the BBC's Chief Adviser for Politics (Editorial Policy), as follows:

"In addition we are satisfied with the draft Election Guidelines, and the approach taken regarding the participation of candidates in constituency items during the election period."

In the last "equivalent" election, the 2005 General Election, UKIP won 2.2% of the national vote, as you have pointed out. However, in the more recent European Election of last year, UKIP came second in the UK, with 16.5% of the national vote, compared with 15.7% for Labour and 13.7% for the Liberal Democrats. This surely constitutes compelling "evidence of variation in levels of support in more recent elections". In the circumstances, I should have expected your correspondence to have referred to this provision within your election guidelines. You have allowed Labour and the Liberal Democrats to participate in the leaders' debates, though they received smaller shares of the vote than UKIP in the most recent test of national opinion, which was the European Election of last year. Yet you have denied UKIP the chance to participate.

Furthermore, UKIP - as of today - is fielding 560 candidates, a number not far short of those fielded by the three parties whom you are allowing to participate in the leaders' debate. As your own guidelines say, "The number of candidates a party is standing may also be a factor." I should have expected your correspondence to have referred to this provision of your electoral guidelines too. Certainly, UKIP - in the number of candidates we are fielding in this General Election - is close to parity with those parties whom you are allowing to participate.

Both these circumstances are directly relevant to any decision whether to allow UKIP to participate in the leaders' debates. Yet you do not seem to have taken account of them in your decision as conveyed to me, or in any of our subsequent discussions.

There is also the question of the BBC's obligations under its charter, which has been the subject of correspondence between us on many previous occasions. In the leaders' debate so far, the question of our EU membership, its lack of democratic accountability and its heavy financial and constitutional cost has not been debated at all. Mr. Brown has been allowed to get away with saying, unchallenged, that three million jobs depend on our membership of the European Union. Nor has there been any discussion of our proposal to introduce binding initiative referenda at local as well as national level, which is the only effective way to allow us, the people, to rule once more, as well as to address the issue of corruption in Parliament, to say nothing of the increasing gulf between government and the governed.

It is reasonable and proportionate, having regard to the election guidelines as cited above, and having regard to the absence of UKIP from the first two leaders' debates, that UKIP should be allowed to participate fairly and fully in the final leaders' debate.

Since you did not adopt my original suggestion that UKIP should at least be allowed to participate in some part of each debate, and since all other avenues available to me have been exhausted, and since UKIP has been denied the opportunity to participate at all in either of the first two debates, and since time is running out, I must now ask you to reconsider your refusal to allow UKIP to participate in the third and final leaders' debate, to be aired on Thursday evening, 29 April 2010.

Should you and the BBC fail to accede to this request by noon tomorrow, Wednesday, 28 April, 2010, please take this letter as notice, in terms of the pre-action protocol in judicial review proceedings under the Civil Procedure Rules, that the United Kingdom Independence Party, of PO Box 480, Newton Abbot, Devon, TQ12 9BG, and I as UKIP's leader, as claimants, will apply to the Administrative Court at or as soon as practicable after 2 pm tomorrow afternoon for judicial review of your decision and that of the BBC, as defendants, expressed in your letter to me of 15 January 2010, to refuse to allow UKIP to participate in the third and final leaders' debate, and for an injunction requiring you and the BBC to permit me, as UKIP's leader, to participate in that debate on an equal footing with all others whom you and the BBC shall have permitted to participate.

I regret that the notice is very short, but time is pressing and I have not had an answer to my letter to you of 23 April.

Details of our legal advisers will be notified to you in due course. In the meantime, any reply and any court documents should be sent to me at the address below:

The Lord Pearson of Rannoch,
Leader's Office,
United Kingdom Independence Party,
Room 230,
10 Greycoat Place,
London SW1P 1SB.

Yours sincerely,

[signed] Malcolm

Lord Pearson of Rannoch
Of course the BBC will argue that the EU elections aren't equivalent to a general election and to a certain extent they are correct.  However, their own guidelines specifically say that past election results are a starting point.  UKIP's support has risen significantly since the last general election and the EU election results last year back that up - they may not be equivalent elections but electoral success on the scale that UKIP achieved wouldn't be possible without a general increase in support for UKIP.

UKIP has representation in all four home nations which is something only the Tory wing of the LibLabCon can claim.  UKIP is also standing 560 candidates in the general election. The BNP are standing 339 and the Greens about the same amount.  UKIP is head and shoulders above any of the small parties and set to make the biggest gains from the three failed parties.

The BBC have been inconsistent with their election coverage.  In some areas, all candidates have had equal billing and in others - Shropshire, for instance - the non-LibLabCon candidates have been virtually ignored.  I made two complaints to BBC Shropshire about the LibLabCon candidates being described as "the candidates" when their election programmes were being introduced or promoted when they are actually only half of the candidates.  The producer conceded the point on the second occasion and said he would issue revised guidance to staff but the BBC still present it as a three-horse race, they just slightly change the way they say it.

It's ironic that the BBC, which is left wing to the core, should actively seek to give an unfair advantage to the privileged and powerful LibLabCon who already have all the publicity, politicians and state funding at the expense of the non-LibLabCon parties such as UKIP who are deprived of publicity and no state funding and suffer as a result.  But then perhaps in the eyes of the BBC all political parties are equal but some are more equal than others?

Monday 26 April 2010

Belgian government collapses again

The latest Belgian prime minister has resigned after only 5 months.  This one was pretty much forced into the job by King Albert so that the Lisbon Treaty could be ratified and surprise, surprise, it's all fallen apart again.

My medium to long term prediction for Belgium is that it will break up, Flanders will become independent, the Walloons will run off to France and Brussels will become EU sovereign territory.  Remember, you read it here first!

Sunday 25 April 2010

Think big, vote small


Brown gets his sums Wrong (Again)

Gordon Brown reckons he isn’t the “smiles and PR man” in this election campaign, and it turns out that he isn’t the numbers man either. On Friday (23rd April 2010), he managed to somehow make savings of £1bn from an expenditure of £74 million.

The Prime Minister got his numbers wrong on immigration a few weeks back too. So much so, that the Office of National Statistics had a moan at him for quoting from 2 sets of statistics. That is, 2 disconnected sets of statistics which, when pieced together made it look…. well, how he wanted it to look.

When he gave his evidence to the Chilcot Enquiry, he got his sums wrong on defence spending. There was a statement like “defence spending has increased year on year…” which wasn’t true either.

The latest one is even better(worse if you are a Labour Party supporter) though. He claimed that you can save £1bn from a budget of £74 million. Bloody hell, this bloke was chancellor for how long? If he can’t do numbers, has little or no charisma as a politician, is deluded over how to fix the economy and wants to tax jobs, this general election is surely the time for him to removed by the electorate - since he wasn’t democratically elected as Prime Minster anyway.

The background to this latest gaffe is as follows:

Mr Brown had been asked how the public spending cuts would affect ordinary people. He used the example that child benefits will be processed via the Internet which would result in a saving of £1bn in child benefit administration. how much does the administration of the child benefit system cost? Well according to this official data from Revenue and Customs it only costs £74 million – do you feel a “oops moment” coming here for Gordon Brown?

All this goes to show that the Labour government can’t be trusted. They massage numerical data to suit their purpose, and their leader then gets that data wrong - it is more of the breathtaking incompetence we have had to endure for the last 13 years. It is time we had real change, it is time for straight talking.

Friday 23 April 2010

The Lib Dems are Wrong on Trident

Trident came up up again in the Leaders Debate last night, with Nick Clegg (and Menzies Campbell later on Question Time) starting to sound like the new Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND) - but without any substance.

Some people are calling for Britain to be a "shining example" in the world by becoming the first to disarm completely. Whilst, that is a lovely sentiment, its also completely bonkers. There is still a viable threat from the likes of Iran and North Korea - and while that is the case, then we must have a way to defend ourselves.

There simply isn't a cheaper,effective alternative either. For example, using cruise missiles instead isn't an option, because they have a much shorter range and are much easier to shoot down. Trident is a ballistic missile, with a range of 7,500 miles and therefore offers a real deterrent. Launching missiles from long range aircraft is not really a good idea either - aircraft can be shot down. If we chose a cruise missile system, we would have to develop the missile programme and therefore pay all of the associated costs of research and development. That would create a bill at least as expensive as Trident. Oh, and there isn't a hypersonic long-range cruise on the market - meaning we would have to develop one at massive expense too.

No one is denying Trident is expensive. It is estimated that it will cost around £2bn a year over its expected life time of 40 years. That amounts to 5% of the annual defence budget on today's figures.

What all this means is, the Lib Dems are right, there are alternatives to Trident. But crucially, they are not necessarily cheaper and they are not as effective as Trident. The defence experts are telling us that Trident is the most viable option if we are to remain a nuclear power. We might not want to be a nuclear power ideally, but as Winston Churchill once said:
"sometimes it is not enough to do your best, sometimes you have to do what is required"

Alas, Poor Ramsay!

Ramsay Urquhart, UKIP's candidate for Glasgow Central, has been injured in the course of duty.

As he was leaving the offices of a local newspaper, he fell and broke his leg!  If you can help with leafleting or canvassing while he's laid up, please get in touch with him.

UKIP candidate standing against Nikki Sinclaire

The Birmingham Post is reporting on the fact that UKIP is standing a candidate in the general election against their "own MEP", Nikki Sinclaire.

It's a bit of an unusual situation this, not something that happens very often for any party.  Nikki Sinclaire is, as far as I'm aware, still a member of UKIP but she's no longer a UKIP MEP.  She isn't allowed to stand as a UKIP candidate or use the UKIP name or logo and is standing for election in Meriden for the Solihull and Meriden Residents Association.

While it's true that Nikki is a committed eurosceptic, it would be inconsistent to stand aside for her as the party has for a handful of others, such as Bob Spink and Stuart Wheeler.  There are BNP and English Democrat candidates in most of the seats UKIP is contesting and both parties are eurosceptic but there is no suggestion of standing aside for their candidates.

Nikki's not a UKIP MEP, she's not a UKIP PPC and she's no more likely to win an election than the BNP or English Democrats so is there a reason why UKIP shouldn't field a candidate against her?  It will no doubt cause ripples in her local UKIP branch and put a few noses out of joint amongst her dwindling band of supporters but is that a good enough reason not to stand a candidate against her?

My initial thoughts were "what the hell are we doing?".  Now I'm thinking "why not?".

Incidentally, the Libertarian Party (former UKIPper, Chris Mounsey, is their leader) is endorsing Nikki.  I wonder whose idea that was and at what price.

7 out of 10 want an English Parliament - who will they vote for?

Via the Campaign for an English Parliament, the Power 2010 campaign has commissioned an opinion poll on devolution which reinforces previous opinion poll results over the last few years that have shown that 7 out of 10 people want an English Parliament.  The results of the poll and Power 2010's press release can be found on the English Parliament Online website.

Cameron's general election campaign is tanking and the Tories have failed to attack Labour and the Lib Dems on their favoured policy of balkanising England into euroregions.  The 'nuclear option' of supporting an English parliament may be the Tories only chance to avoid a fourth term in the wilderness.  UKIP should stop flogging the dead horse that is abolishing devolution in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and come out in support of an English parliament.

Paul Nuttall says that UKIP is calling for a public holiday for St Georges Day in England, why not go a step further and do what the majority of the electorate wants and commit to a referendum on an English Parliament?  It's not too much to ask is it?

Any fellow UKIPpers who want an English Parliament or who just want the party to stop ignoring public opinion and losing votes because of its daft anti-devolution policy can put their name to the UKIP 1997 Group.

Thursday 22 April 2010

EU policy cheat sheet: UKIP -v- Lib/Lab/Con

With Saint Clegg's rise in the polls, many people might have forgotten just how wedded the three 'mainstream' parties are to the EU.

Be in no doubt - a vote for the LibDems is a vote for further EU integration, and then some.

LabourConservativesLib DemsUKIP
EU Referendum?On the EuroOn further transfers of power to the EUOn UK membership of EU and the euroOn UK membership
Joining the euro?Mixed messagesNeverYesNo
Crime and policing?Status quoNo new EU powers, opt outMore integrationNo integration
European public prosecutor?AgainstAgainstMixed messagesAgainst
Immigration and asylumPartly in favour of more EU integrationAgainst more integration and asylum burden-sharingMore integration, n favour of asylum burden sharing5-year immigration freeze
EU DefencePossibly more cooperationAgainst - no EU defence procurementEU defence procurementNo EU involvement in defence
EU Foreign policyKeep EU diplomatic service separate from national issuesKeep EU diplomatic service separate from national issuesKeep EU diplomatic service separate from national issuesReturn to UK diplomatic service
Reform of the EU budgetVague CAP reform promise, maintain UK rebateVague CAP reform promise, maintain UK rebateVague reform promise, missed messages on CAP and UK rebateReform (if we’re still in the EU)
EU financial supervisorsIn favour with reservationsAgainst if transferring powersIn favour with reservationsAgainst
EU employment policyStatus quoOpting out of parts “most damaging” to economyStatus quoOpting out (if we’re still in the EU)
Common Fisheries PolicyFundamental reformFundamental reformNo mention in manifestoWithdraw
Environmental policySupport EU action, and current targetsSupport EU action, and current targetsSupport EU action, and current targetsUK action

Source of Lib/Lab/Con info: Open Europe (PDF)


Wednesday 21 April 2010

The Lighter Side: Nigel as Never Before

Tuesday 20 April 2010

Why Vote UKIP: Adam Explains

Sunday 18 April 2010

Mike Nattrass MEP public meetings

PUBLIC MEETINGS all at 7.30 pm unless otherwise stated.

Please pass to anyone who may wish to attend.

MIKE NATTRASS MEP speaking with local candidates.

21st April. RUGBY with Barry Milford, BLACK HORSE, BILTON, RUGBY.

22nd STONE with Andrew Illsley. STONE HOUSE HOTEL, STONE ST15 0BQ

23rd COVENTRY with Mark Taylor.2pm school meeting, not public. BABELAKE SCHOOL, COVENTRY.

23rd BIRMINGHAM. with Richardsons Developments. Ticket only. "St. Georges Day Leaders Dinner."

24th HALESOWEN. 1.30pm St. Geoges Day Parade (By invitation of the Council..... not speaking?)

26th CODSALL. Village Hall.

27th CANNOCK. 12noon (not public meeting) CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. Ramada Hotel.

27th PERTON. Civic Hall.

28th DUDLEY. with Malcolm Davis. The Old Park Public House, Russell Hall Estate.DY1 2LJ

29th KIDDERMINSTER. with Michael Wrench. Franche Primary School. DY11 5QB

30th RADIO WM 12.30.

30th STOKE with Carol Lovatt. The White Star.

1st May NETHERTON with Phil Rowe The Crown Public House.

3rd STOURBRIDGE with Maddy. The Fox Public House.

4th BIRMINGHAM. 10am (not public but school) Q3 Acadamy B43 7SD

4th CHESLYN HAY. Colliers Arms Public House.

5th WALSALL with Derek Bennett and Liz Hazell. and ALL NEARBY GENERAL AND LOCAL COUNCIL ELECTION CANDIDATES. Beechdale Lifelong Learning Centre. WS2 7DY


Saturday 17 April 2010

UKIP Telford & Wrekin: Telford & Wrekin are voting UKIP!

Telford & Wrekin are voting UKIP!

The Shropshire Star has a very interesting story on six floating voters that took Unlock Democracy VoteMatch survey.

It has already been noted that the VoteMatch website puts too much weight on immigration for the BNP and so it doesn't surprise me that half of the voters were matched with the BNP.

What was interesting was the voting intentions of half of the floating voters ...
Mrs Sharp said: “I would never vote BNP because I think they’re a bunch of thugs. I wouldn’t even consider them. I am concerned about immigration and our relationship with Europe and I’m quite interested in UKIP, so, yes, I think that’s quite helpful.”
Mr Sharp said: “I would never ever vote BNP, ever, because I don’t think they are a party. I am more right wing than left, so I’m pleased that UKIP is up there. But I am also debating the Lib Dems, I think they have a lot to offer.”
Hair salon boss Debbie Thompson, 27, of Rizzo, in Wellington, was matched to UKIP, with Conservatives and Lib Dems next. She said: “I’m not surprised because that’s how I was thinking. I would consider UKIP, even though they won’t form a Government. The survey is pretty accurate.”
If only half the voters in Telford and Wrekin vote UKIP then we'll be happy. If only two out of six people vote UKIP will be happy. Pretty ecstatic actually because that is more than enough to see off the two incumbent MPs that have failed our town and our country for the last few years and give us two UKIP MPs that will fight for our withdrawal from the EU, for the economy, for jobs and prosperity, to fight the downgrading of our hospital and get our third world roads fixed.

Televised election debate another shining example of Britain’s commitment to democracy > Global > Redress Information

Televised election debate another shining example of Britain’s commitment to democracy > Global > Redress Information & Analysis

Posted using ShareThis

Friday 16 April 2010

Wells PPC refuses to stand aside for Tory eurosceptic

Lord Pearson's decision to ask UKIP candidates standing against a handful of genuinely eurosceptic sitting MPs is an interesting one and one that has ruffled a few feathers.

I'm not sure if all the MPs that Lord Pearson has asked candidates to stand aside for have signed the Better Off Out pledge or not.  There is a long-standing promise from UKIP not to stand against BOO signatories and unlike "Cast Iron" Dave, UKIP doesn't break its promises.

The UKIP PPC for Wells, Jake Baynes, is refusing to stand down to allow committed eurosceptic, David Heathcoat-Amory, a free run at the election.  This is, of course, entirely Jake's choice.  If he pays his £500 deposit, his branch selects him as a candidate and the party's deputy nominating officer accepts him as a candidate - which is clearly the case - then he has every right to stand.  Whether it is tactically the best decision when it splits the vote between two eurosceptic candidates is debatable but I don't agree with tactical voting because it invariably ends up with you getting someone you don't want.

But what I find interesting - and it reaffirms to me that I am in the right party - is Lord Pearson's response:
There's a debate going on, there has been a disagreement yes, to some extent.

"I don't mind that, I'm not going to crack the whip and say 'OK then, don't stand and go away'.
UKIP is different to the failed LibLabCon parties.  For a start, we have a leader that isn't standing for election and can concentrate on the whole party during the election.  But more important than that for me is that there is no whip.  No LibLabCon candidate would have been able to say no to their party in the way Jake Baynes has.  A LibLabCon candidate wouldn't be asked not to stand, they'd have been told not to and if they didn't comply they would have been banned from standing for their party.

All UKIP candidates, councillors and MEPs are bound by the party's core principles that are in the constitution but other than that, they are free to stand for whatever issues are important to them and that is one of the things that makes UKIP fundamentally different to the failed political parties.

Wednesday 14 April 2010

Join the government of Britain?

The Conservatives have launched their manifesto for the general election with an "invitation to join the government of Britain".

The manifesto contains lots of promises from "Cast Iron" Dave, many of which are watered-down version of UKIP policy and most of which relate to England only (I'll discuss that somewhere else later).

Dave promises to:

  • Reverse Labour's increase in National Insurance for anyone earning under £35k
    UKIP will abolish it
  • Freeze council tax
    In England, it's already frozen in Wales and Scotland
  • Re-introduce tax benefits for married couples
    £150 per year? That's a few weeks of our personal contribution to the EU budget.
  • Increase the retirement age early
    UKIP will use money propping up EU pensions to pay our own pensions
  • Reduce cost of the civil service by cutting quangos
    Many of which were invented by the EU
  • Freeze public sector spending on IT
    Which saves the taxpayer money
  • Freeze public sector recruitment
    More work, less money and less people means worse service
  • Pay companies to employ apprentices
    UKIP will abolish NI and make this unnecessary
  • Put the Bank of England back in charge of banks
    Under an EU regulator
  • Cut corporation tax
    A UKIP policy
  • Allow parents to run schools
    In England only. UKIP will reintroduce grammar schools so bright children get an education that will make the most of their potential.
  • Let patients choose which hospital they want to be treated at
    In England only. UKIP will allow people to opt out of the NHS if they want to.
  • Ban off-licences and shops from selling cheap alcohol as loss leaders
    Labour killed the pub, the Tories want to kill the rest of the alcohol industry
  • Limit non-EU immigration
    UKIP will limit all immigration
  • Reduce the number of MPs by 10%
    England only. UKIP will abolish regional quangos which cost much more than 65 MPs. We will need all our MPs when the EU isn't making 75% of our laws.
  • Stop government paying lobbyists to lobby government
    A sensible idea (there are one or two!)
  • Any public sector spending over £25k to go on a website
    How much will it cost to administer and who will actually look at it other than journalists?
  • Stop tax credits for anyone earning over £50k
    UKIP will take low paid workers out of income tax completely, reducing the need for tax credits
  • New tax on financial services for "social responsibility"
    UKIP will make it easier and cheaper to do business, not harder and more expensive
  • Ban companies from repossessing houses to pay debts under £25k
    This will encourage defaulting on debts and damage businesses who lend money
  • National voluntary service for teenagers
    England only. There will be less unemployed youngsters when business is thriving.
Dave's promises are worthless as we've already seen with his promises on the West Lothian Question and the Lisbon Treaty.  For once I'm glad that he does break his promises, there's very little in the Conservative manifesto that will benefit the economy or society.

Monday 12 April 2010

Sod the lot, vote UKIP

UKIP shows, once again, that they are the only party in touch with what the public are thinking ...

Wednesday 7 April 2010

Nigel Farage Public Meeting in Buckingham

Reinstate Rob Ager

The Torygraph is reporting that a "UKIP politician" has been sacked for writing scripts for porn movies.

As far as I can tell, Rob Ager isn't a councillor and he's not an MEP so he's not a politician.  Being a branch chairman doesn't make you a politician - I was once a branch chairman and I'm certainly not a politician!

But that's by the by.  I really don't understand why the party feels it necessary to suspend Ager because he makes mucky films.  We're supposed to be a party built on libertarian ideals, defending personal rights and responsibilities from an overbearing state.

Unless there is more to this story that the Torygraph are reporting, there is no reason for Ager to be suspended and he should be reinstated as soon as possible.

The election cometh

So, the election has been called at last and the country will be going to the polls on May 6th.

Experts are predicting a hung parliament after this election which means that smaller parties like UKIP will potentially have a bigger part to play in Westminster than if one of the LibLabCon has an outright majority.

Many people will be tempted to vote "tactically" in this election to either to keep out Brown or Cameron.  This only plays into the hands of the LibLabCon because when you vote for someone you don't want just to prevent someone else you don't want from winning, all you end up with is 5 years of a whole lot someones you don't want.

UKIP is fielding over 500 candidates in the general election and they are listed on the UKIP candidates website.  Your local UKIP branch probably has its own website as well and most of them will be listed on the UKIP Local website.  UKIP's policies and the manifesto can be found on the UKIP website.

Take the time to find out more about your UKIP candidate, get in touch with them and ask them their opinions on things that are a priority for you.  Forget about party loyalty - the LibLabCon have stolen from us, they have lied to us, they have treated us with contempt.  Vote for the person who believes in the same things as you and who will best represent you.

Marta Andreasen launches newsletter

UKIP MEP, Marta Andreasen, has recently launched her own newsletter to make it easier to keep in touch with her "constituents" ...

Newsletter #1

Newsletter #2

Monday 5 April 2010

UKIP Swindon Cancel Election Launch

Dear All,

It is with deep regret that following the disruptive actions of both Steve Halden and Robin Tingey, ( UKIP PPC's and Election Agents) neither of whom now speak for the branch, we have been regrettably forced to cancel the meeting at the South Marsdon Hotel on 12th April and there will no longer be a formal branch launch of either the local nor General Election campaign in Swindon. Any such launch is not sanctioned by Swindon UKIP.

Again, I apologise for the cancellation of the meeting which has been brought about by very disruptive elements within the branch.

Yours faithfully,
Greg Heathcliffe,
Chairman Swindon UKIP.

Sunday 4 April 2010

Sunday Times "sting"

It's worth letting the righteous spout their indignation before commenting on accusations of sleaze from newspapers ...

Statement from the UK Independence Party

Following the article in The Sunday Times (dated April 4th 2010) the UK Independence Party would like to make the following statement to clarify any misunderstandings.

As with all political parties, UKIP receives many offers of donations (both financial and voluntary help) everyday, so it was not unwise for Stuart Agnew MEP to follow up the offer made to him. Perhaps, however, it was naive of Mr Agnew not to realise it was a Sunday Times reporter in disguise. We would like to make it clear that no transaction between Mr Agnew and The Sunday Times journalist took place.

The UK Independence Party did receive donations via Global Britain, in 2009 for the European Election Campaign. All these donations were, at the time, perfectly legal and within the guidelines set down by the Electoral Commission. These donations were fully disclosed by UKIP in the second quarter of 2009.

When asked by The Sunday Times reporter if her anonymity could be guaranteed, Lord Pearson, Leader of the UK Independence Party, clearly stated (as reported in the Sunday Times article) that he would check with the Electoral Commission and "if there was any doubt I would honestly rather go without.'"

Lord Pearson also added that he was regularly in touch with the Electoral Commission over Global Britain and all donations.

Mark Wadsworth, UKIP Treasurer, said today: "All donations or loans to the UK Independence Party have been reported to the Electoral Commission."
The reporting of this "sting" by one of Rupert Murdoch's Tory-supporting newspapers was timed perfectly to try and cause maximum damage to the party that is going to cause maximum damage to Devious Dave's Conservatives in the election.  This has been in the pipeline since last month but has only been published after Nigel's appearance on Have I Got News For You and other positive media appearances.

Whilst some voters will undoubtedly be disappointed at the implication that UKIP is fiddling expenses, most will realise that this is the Sunday Times making a mountain out of a molehill.  There is nothing illegal about using intermediaries to donate money to political parties.  Millions of people don't opt out of the so-called political fighting fund (another name for what most of us would call a slush fund) when they join a union and contribute to the tens of millions of pounds that's funnelled straight into Labour Party funds.

We could really do without sleaze, real or imagined, but the important thing is, the law has not been broken.  All Stuart Agnew and Lord Pearson did was explain to what they thought was a potential donor how they could make an anonymous donation without breaking any rules.  It's unfortunate that Stuart Agnew told the undercover reporter that Peter Reeve doesn't do any work for him or David Campbell-Bannerman because it's not true.  Peter Reeve only works part time for the two MEPs and David Campbell-Bannerman does make use of his services.  The inevitable inquiry from the EU's anti-fraud unit, OLAF, will be an unnecessary distraction just as his services are most needed.

Saturday 3 April 2010

Nigel Farage, UKIP: On form!

Nigel Farage on form!

Thursday 1 April 2010

Nigel Farage on Have I Got News For You

Nigel Farage will be on Have I Got News For You tonight.

The programme will be broadcast at 9:30pm on BBC1 and is being guest hosted by the very funny comedian, Lee Mack.

Will Nigel top Boris Johnson's many hilarious, bumbling appearances?  Possibly not but Nigel is a funny guy and I can't wait to see what Ian Hislop does to him!