Latest from UKIP Daily

Anne Marie Waters, people’s voice, John Rees-Evans, provide the platform!

John Rees-Evans, Anne-Marie Waters

Principles are a rare thing in politics. Not a rare thing in ordinary people but rare in an environment where power corrupts. When people have principles and act in accordance with them, it matters. The burden of maintaining civil society rests upon their shoulders. How politics in the UK suffers from too few hod carriers! The principle that sovereignty resides with the people has been betrayed by generations of the political and media classes. It is opposition to this Establishment and support of that principle of sovereignty that is a commonality among UKIP members – a principle that unites them.

The Party is described as a democratic libertarian party. Principles of liberty, democracy, law and all equal under it, low tax, small government, people empowerment. These principles must be espoused. 

There are problems though. Perceptions and a clash of principles. A clash between a desire for justice and a desire to exhibit compassion. During the US Presidential election Donald Trump alluded to this clash by reciting an Al Wilson lyric ‘The Snake’, a parable of a kind host being destroyed by the object of her kindness. Trump’s reference was to radical Islamic terrorism and the dangers posed by it to our lives. Justice and compassion. What if, by giving compassion you are denying justice?

Anne Marie Waters understands both justice and compassion. She has compassion for and speaks about the lack of justice for victims of crime. She speaks of the institutional failures of the Government, politicians, the Police Service, the media, council services and Crown Prosecution Service. And as Trump did, she speaks about radical Islamic terrorism and the root thereof, Islam. I applaud her honesty. I applaud her courage for seeing the real threat posed to the foundations of our civil society and speaking up. I understand that my perceptions are shared by many, for there are many who will vote for Anne Marie to be the next leader of UKIP.

What of the perceptions of others to Anne Marie? Within and without the party I would describe them as ‘polarised’. Threats of resignations from MEPs, patrons and members can not be ignored. Neither can threats to call in loans by the major party funders. The belief that Anne Marie Waters’ election victory would result in the Party’s rapid regression into a single issue pressure group rather than an effective political machine to challenge the LibLabCon Establishment, is common.

I have heard John Rees-Evans speak. He speaks well. He is also a man of principles, ones which, like Anne Marie Waters, he is unafraid to espouse and defend. John’s plans are detailed, structured and focused. To truly give voice to the people to return sovereignty to them, we must engage with them, listen to them and represent their interests. We must empower members to develop the best policy platform and continuously improve it, to empower the members to scrutinise and decide who speaks well for the party and who should represent it. Patronage and mates in the right positions will no longer determine policy or candidate lists. We must provide voters with what they are crying out for politics and politicians that will represent them. John Rees-Evans’ plan for the party’s development can be found in his manifesto at bethegovernment.uk/manifesto . A simple article such as this can not do justice to John’s ‘Direct Democracy’ approach to developing the Party and engaging with the voters. 

After a recent event in Sheffield where John Rees-Evans presented his vision in detail, a member I spoke with remarked: “He’s a man with a plan. I like that.” I like that too. 

Anne Marie Waters is one of Britain’s most relevant speakers on the political, cultural and religious problems that exist, problems that are growing throughout the Western world. She faces the hostility of a powerful, corrupt media and political class, a candle in the wind. She is undoubtedly brave enough to expose herself to that power, confront it and speak to it, but without a stable and extensive platform the electoral effectiveness of her efforts may see her and the Party blown out, extinguished. The smears, labels thrown at Anne Marie – racist, islamophobe, far-right, neo-fascist – to the rational fair minded person are obvious bunkum and repeated for political expediency, alas even UKIP members who really should know better, adopt such perception as a reality.  

I will be voting for John Rees-Evans in the forthcoming election. I will do so with conviction that his libertarian and patriotic principles align with mine, that his intelligence, diligence, youthfulness, compassion and desire to empower the people can energise the Party as a popular electoral force. I will do so in the knowledge that, if implemented correctly, professionally and fully John’s plans will provide a platform for the people to be represented by those who they truly see fit to represent them. A platform for Anne Marie Waters to prove her mandate, for Godfrey Bloom to prove his, for Aiden Powlesland to help develop tax policy, for Roger Tattersall to help develop Energy Policy, – whichever member, whatever their expertise – an improving interconnected Party to attract a broad church of members and efficiently extract the human value that they are willing to give. 

Our country is suffering because power corrupts. Power needs to be wrestled, then kept from an elite. John Rees-Evans is the man with the plan. Learn more about it, help develop it and help give voice to the British people, to enable us to determine our own future in an Independent United Kingdom.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
James Dalton
About James Dalton (25 Articles)
James Dalton is Acting Chairman, UKIP Huddersfield and Colne Valley Branch, and former PPC for Barnsley East

10 Comments on Anne Marie Waters, people’s voice, John Rees-Evans, provide the platform!

  1. I’m intrigued by this Finance and technology sub committee. It doesn’t seem to have much money and I don’t think they’ve invented anything, and what’s the connection?
    What is it that they ctually pronounce on, and why havent I heard?

  2. JRE
    YouGov recently conducted a poll which probed where voters obtained their political news and views.

    60 % from BBC
    23 % from social media
    29 % from Newspapers
    This totals 112 % ( my kind of maths, but obvious really )

    This tallies with my assessment of the population

    20 % young stupid and connected.
    40 % accept and use their computers etc. as tools
    but not for gossip or diversion.
    20 % old & ga ga and unconnected.
    20 % mature and cynical of the benefits of connection and the temporary.

    You won’t change the country by Direct Democracy.
    You’ll probably get the wrong people.
    The MSM is four times as important, just on numbers.
    Don’t dismiss them.

    Please listen and think.

  3. I have said that my membership depends on whether Anne Marie wins or not. She seems to me to be the only politician who is addressing the most serious threat to Britain since 1940.

    However, should JRE win I shall not cancel immediately and will wait to see how he treats Anne Marie and whether he fully supports her position on islamisation.

    I shall of course be voting for her nevertheless.

  4. If you want to see the JRE and AMW and DK speaking in Belfast:
    https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCJj7MfWbPecskaMGzQ69_Aw/videos

    I find all 3 of them impressive and if I had a vote I would have some difficulty choosing.

    What will happen to these three if none of them is elected? Will they stay or form a new group?

  5. Rob McW (Sponplague),

    You write below:
    “Thanks, James, but I can’t support any leadership candidate who has already demonstrated a clear and unambiguous inability to liaise with the NEC, through its technology and finance sub-committees.”

    I wonder Rob, whether you saw my reply to you when you wrote something similar elsewhere.

    I asked whether you had seen information (relevant to your criticism), including a Paul Oakden letter, that had been on JRE’s website for weeks now:
    http://johnreesevans.uk/direct-democracy-in-ukip/

    I’d particularly refer you to the passage that reads:

    ‘In spite of John having designed and overseen the implementation of the system without cost to the party, and John’s then being willing to sign over the intellectual property rights for the programme to the party, John was subsequently informed by the party treasurer that, in effect, the former leader had been functioning ultra vires in placing this request with John, and that the project did not actually have the backing of the NEC and could therefore not be funded.’

    I think you may agree Rob, that it sheds rather a different light on the events mentioned in your post.

  6. James, thank you – I think you are a really great ambassador for UKIP and always has been.

    But! I’m sorry but John, in spite of my messaging him a long time ago, well before these elections, never sent an article to UKIP Daily explaining the essence of his Direct Democracy idea. I explained that some people don’t use Twitter or Facebook, so it would be a good idea to explain it on UKIP Daily. I had supported him last time round, and personally liked the concept of some kind of Direct Democracy for UKIP members – and said so – but he didn’t interact here. Not at all, except once to answer YI before the last Leadership Election.

    The only people who have really interacted have been Anne Marie, Jane Collins and to a lesser extent David Kurten.

    I know on-line social media is one way forward, but we have all, editors especially but article writers and commenters too worked hard to make UKIP Daily part of the UKIP ideas forum – yet, John has ignored us. So, sorry, I hope he gets to put some his incredibly hard work and social media into practice whoever wins – he doesn’t get my vote.

  7. Thanks, James, but I can’t support any leadership candidate who has already demonstrated a clear and unambiguous inability to liaise with the NEC, through its technology and finance sub-committees.

    • Thanks Rob.

      I’m an (Acting) branch chairman. I was unaware that the NEC had ‘technology and finance’ sub-committees (my responsibility). However, my experiences of the functionality of the NEC since joining have demonstrated to me that the NEC/membership relationship is disfunctional. For example, locally we have had members ‘blacklisted’ or put in a category ‘Not in good standing’ at the whim of Regional/County chairs. These members have been held in a state of ‘limbo’ until they giveup and leave, because the NEC fails to deal with ‘disciplinary matters’ in a timely manner – very convenient for cabals who have their own little internal UKIP ’empires’. Currently, my branch still awaits clarification on a matter of a member who should have had his membership terminated on his conviction for child pornography offences (the case was in excess of 9 months ago). Despite requesting clarification, the NEC appears to have done nadda, and I still have this individual recorded on my membership lists.

      I’m sure there are, and have been, many diligent members who serve in good faith on the NEC. However, the Party structure is amateurish and disfunctional. As a branch chair, if I had a ‘technology’ or ‘finance’ issue to consider, unfortunately I would not see the NEC currently as capable of providing a positive contribution.

      Perhaps those in Head Office misjudge the utter contempt and frustration that members remote from London have (rightly or wrongly) for the NEC and those that have ‘led’ the Party.

      The weak response by the Leader and the NEC to the closing down of the YI Conference is the latest example of this perceived ‘uselessness’.

  8. Dear Mr Dalton,

    I love your contributions to Ukip Daily.
    Please keep them comming.

    Ref your second to last paragraph, would it be possible to invite JRE to post here the names of those that he will invite to be his UKIP “Cabinet”

    • Thank you RobC.

      If the editor will publish, I’ll keep ’em coming!

      I can attempt to clarify your second point. It is clear that there will be a new Chairman from JREs response in Hustings regarding the Chairman’s pay. I will ask, but if I were a candidate,I would not be naming individuals to positions until 28th September, even if I had decided who they were.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*