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

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.,
Director-General,
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:

"clips;
"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?

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!

Think big, vote small

Cross-posted

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.

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.

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.

. Labour Conservatives Lib Dems UKIP . EU Referendum? On the Euro On further transfers of power to the EU On UK membership of EU and the euro On UK membership . Joining the euro? Mixed messages Never Yes No . Crime and policing? Status quo No new EU powers, opt out More integration No integration . European public prosecutor? Against Against Mixed messages Against . Immigration and asylum Partly in favour of more EU integration Against more integration and asylum burden-sharing More integration, n favour of asylum burden sharing 5-year immigration freeze . EU Defence Possibly more cooperation Against - no EU defence procurement EU defence procurement No EU involvement in defence . EU Foreign policy Keep EU diplomatic service separate from national issues Keep EU diplomatic service separate from national issues Keep EU diplomatic service separate from national issues Return to UK diplomatic service . Reform of the EU budget Vague CAP reform promise, maintain UK rebate Vague CAP reform promise, maintain UK rebate Vague reform promise, missed messages on CAP and UK rebate Reform (if we’re still in the EU) . EU financial supervisors In favour with reservations Against if transferring powers In favour with reservations Against . EU employment policy Status quo Opting out of parts “most damaging” to economy Status quo Opting out (if we’re still in the EU) . Common Fisheries Policy Fundamental reform Fundamental reform No mention in manifesto Withdraw . Environmental policy Support EU action, and current targets Support EU action, and current targets Support EU action, and current targets UK action

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

Cross-posted

The Lighter Side: Nigel as Never Before

Why Vote UKIP: Adam Explains

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

ALL AT 7.30pm UNLESS OTHERWISE STATED. 0121 333 7737 FOR ANY MORE INFORMATION.

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.