Latest from UKIP Daily

Letters to the editor – Friday 10th March 2017

Today there are two Open Letters, addressed to Anne Marie Waters and Paul Nuttall respectively, and one letter with an interesting proposal. The first is from our contributor James Dalton:

Dear Anne,

Your article, is an excellent plea to those who hope to bequeath a civil society to their offspring, to speak out. The article spoke for many a silenced tongue who understand that the presence of significant Islamic populations is incompatible with such a hope. The comments below the article, I hope, have strengthened your resolve. This is not an easy political issue with which to grapple, but nevertheless, one which I believe must be grappled with in precedence over all others, such is the nature of the problem we are incubating here in the UK.

In addition to the issues raised in your article, may I suggest that the creation of positive policies relating to apostates, the encouragement of apostasy and the protection of apostates should be developed. These brave abandoned people can not continue to be ignored nor can those who understand the consequences of apostasy, continue to be trapped in their ‘religion’ by fear of death.

I will support your endeavours as I can. I will discuss the contents of your article with local UKIP members and court their opinions and hopefully their support. And I will continue raising the issue of upholding our traditions and law in the face of current threats on UKIP Daily, should Viv Evans and her colleagues continue to choose to publish my offerings.

Please use this letter, if you so wish, in support of your submission to the NEC on 27th March 2017.

Best Wishes,

James Dalton, UKIP Member, On behalf of myself, no other

UKIP Colne Valley Branch, Membership Secretary, Approved Parliamentary Candidate.

The second letter comes from our contributor Jack Thomas:

Dear Mr. Nuttall,

I am eternally grateful for the work carried out by Nigel Farage and UKIP in getting us the referendum. I am concerned that UKIP failed in Stoke when it should have been a walkover but that failure was inevitable once you facilitated the negative publicity about yourself.

I am still not confident that Ms May will respect the referendum result and give us the clean exit from the EU that we need. Your failure to win in Stoke has deprived us of a second voice in Parliament to try and ensure that she does the necessary.

I have been a prospective member for a long time now, but could not be active whilst out of the UK so have remained so. During that time I have followed events relating to the emergence of party policy and criticism of the party from various sources. I concluded that the party has failed the membership in its lack of proper governance but was hopeful that the new leader would implement the necessary changes; you have not done so.

However there was worse to come in your failure to accept the threat that we all face from the growth of Islam and the sworn intent of its leaders to take over our country and impose their own law. Of course you were not alone in this as the almost all the other parties are supportive of Islam. Your leaflet published for the Stoke election was indicative of your support for the Muslim invader too.

Recently you will have seen the comments of Anne Marie Waters regarding the threat we face from the growth of Islam and the need to deal with it. Unless you accept that need and openly state your opposition to Islam I will not join UKIP. I suspect that a large number of prospective members are of the same mind and know that existing members are going to leave.

If UKIP is to survive then you need to:

  • Change your policies to deal with the threat of Islam
  • Implement proper governance of the party
  • Remove those officials who are failing UKIP and its supporters.

I you are unable to do all of the above then you must resign and make way for someone who will. I will return home soon and do not want my country given up to Islam.

Yours sincerely,

Jack Thomas, Bangkok

Finally, here’s a letter from a reader and supporter of UKIP who is known to us but asks to remain anonymous for professional reasons. This is his intriguing proposal:


I trust all readers will agree that the UK needs a credible opposition in the House of Commons, if the UK is not to become, in effect, a one-party state.  From 1918 to 2010, the Labour Party was a very effective alternative to the Conservatives.

The Labour Party is now like a badger that has been seriously injured by a motor vehicle, but not killed, and now lies twitching at the roadside.  It needs to be put out of its misery in England and Wales, just as it has already been in Scotland in 2015, and where the Conservatives look set to become the second largest party.

The LibDems are a one-policy non-entity. That policy (a second referendum) will shortly become impossible (when Article 50 Notification is given), and the party will become completely irrelevant.  However, in February 2013 they won a significant by-election in Eastleigh, and the key figures are of immense importance:

  • LibDem 13,342
  • UKIP 11,571
  • Con 10,599

In other words, if UKIP and the Tories had been one party, that Party would have won with a 8,828 vote majority over the LibDems.

More recently, of course, we have had the infamous Stoke Central by-election, and again the figures are telling, though admittedly on a meagre turnout of 37%:

  • Lab 7,853
  • UKIP 5,233
  • Con 5,154

Here, our hypothetical UKIP/Con party would have won, with a majority of 2,534 votes over Labour.

The Labour Party claims Stoke as a victory. It got 37% of the vote on a 37% turnout. That means that just 13.69% of the electorate voted for it. More significantly, of course, it lost Copeland. The badger twitches still.

Meanwhile, rats are leaving a sinking ship, which we shall call “HMS Twitching Badger”. I doubt whether the Labour Party will ever again have an MP called “Tristram”….

What all this data proves is that UKIP can replace the Labour Party as HM Loyal Opposition, and it is actually quite an easy thing to do, subject to the political will being there on both sides. All it would take would be a pact between UKIP and the Conservatives not to stand against each other in any of the 600 constituencies up for grabs in 2020. Oversimplifying the position, UKIP would stay out of all the historical Lab/Con “marginals” (such as Copeland) and the Tories would be absent from seats which they could not win, like Stoke.

It is actually in the symbiotic interests of both UKIP and the Conservatives to enter into such a pact. It would mean the end of the Labour Party, possibly as soon as 2020, which would be a good thing from all possible points of view. It would effectively guarantee a Conservative government for a long time; but sooner or later all governments become so unpopular that the Opposition gets a look-in, and that would mean a UKIP government one day!

The implementation of the pact would of course need 600 separate agreements, so any such process would have to start fairly soon, and someone has to make the first move. The time has come for someone at the UKIP office to make a phone call which could change the face of UK politics for a generation.


Septimus Octavius



Print Friendly, PDF & Email

11 Comments on Letters to the editor – Friday 10th March 2017

  1. If there is one think UKIP needs to understand and apparently does not now it’s that being a copy of Labour or the Tories with tweaks is not going to work however much it creates a comfort zone. Only striking out as a totally distinct and radical entity does it have a future. That’s what Farage did.

    Huge temptation to just add a few token radical words here and there snd think we’ve tossed the voters their red meat job done.

    Frankly this is so important that if the current leadership carries on the same it’s betrayed the country since there is no other substantial group to fall back on. Farage wanted to create that situation but what if the only man left standing is not up to it?

  2. Septimus Octavius raises an important question here. In my opinion his letter deserves careful consideration by UKIP.

    For me the immediate problem is not the 2020 general election. By 2020 it should have become much clearer whether the UK either is or is not leaving the EU. By then, with luck, we may even be completely out of both the EU and its ugly twin the Single Market. Please may it be so.

    But I am concerned about what UKIP should do if Theresa May decides it is necessary to call a “snap election” before 2020 to strengthen her mandate to force through Brexit against either a Brexit-blocking House of Lords, or House of Commons, or both. (I say “snap election” in quotation marks because of course some time may be needed to find a way round the Fixed-term Parliaments Act 2011.)

    If before 2020 Theresa May called such a “Brexit back-me-or-sack-me” general election it would be a disaster if the Leave vote was split between the Conservatives and UKIP but the Remainers were united in swinging behind either Labour or the Lib Dems according to whichever of the two was most likely to win in the constituency in question.

    The Lib Dems having been enjoying a revival since their drubbing in the 2015 general election partly because they have been seen by Remainers as much more reliably pro-Remain than Labour. Labour have inevitably been torn between their mainly Leave-supporting traditional working-class supporters in areas like the North and their solidly pro-Remain metropolitan, middle-class supporters located in London and other large cities. The 2016 Richmond by-election result, in which apparently Labour polled fewer votes than it had members in the constituency, shows that the metropolitan Corbynista Labour Party supporters are perfectly capable of voting tactically for the Lib Dems if they consider this to be the best way to defend the Remain cause.

    I agree with everything that Quercus says about the Conservatives. But country comes before party. Political parties are a means to an end not an end in themselves. The end political parties seek to achieve is implementation of their polices: UKIP’s main policy is to get the UK out of the EU. If tactical support for the Conservatives in the context of a “Brexit back-me-or-sack-me” general election is the best way to achieve that policy then, of course, serious thought should be given to it.

  3. James, Jack and Septimus, I am really sorry I failed to get the Letters to the Editor today out onto Twitter, because for some reason a different set of letters came up – I didn’t realize this had happened until this afternoon. Strenuous Googling ‘how to delete Tweet’ meant I finally removed the letters which were from last October, though why those came up is still a mystery to me – and then I kept trying to get the right ones out, in the end the only way it worked was without any comment from me, saying what the letters were about. Mr Nuttall is not the only techno virgin, but at least I did check, if later in the day!
    I have tweeted Anne Marie, James, and hopefully she will pick it up – though she has many to deal with. However I have ducked out of alerting Mr. Nuttall (yet!)
    At least my debacle has educated me, ALWAYS click the link immediately, don’t just believe what is up there! Apologies to all.

  4. I received an email recently about a BBC Radio 4 programme from 2000. It was about the gerrymandering of the Referendum of 1979 by Conservatives, led by Heath, and the media, particularly the BBC. It includes verbal contributions from some of those involved.

    This is a link to a youtube recording of the programme for anyone interested:

  5. It is against tory culture and practice to enter into election pacts as outlined by Septimus Octavius. Quercus is right in part. The Con party want to be seen as a Union party in Great Britain and will always attempt to stand in every constituency. That they do not in Ulster/Northern Ireland is an exception that is in no way indicative of their established plans.
    The present leadership of the Con party believes that psephologically Labour can never again ( next 15 years)gain a majority at Westminster. However they are more comfortable with Labour MPs than might at first be considered reasonable. This is because the majority of all LibLabCon MPs are middle of the roadies and are emotionally afraid of the Shining Truth that UKIP genuinely represents.
    There are just two possibilities. First events in the EU brings it crashing down (victory for Wilders, Le Pen, and ditto in Germany Italy ets)whilst at the same time Sweden continues on its path to white genocide which even the evil bbc will have to report sooner or later.
    Second and the most likely we are in for a ten year slog to build up a party that can win seats at both byelections and General Elections. This will require a great deal of sacrifice by the ordinary forgotten people. The only reward being attending the punishments on the guilty outside the Tower of London ….hundreds of traitors who have contributed to the destruction of Dear Olde England. I hope I am wrong but things are going to get sticky as the Metro and Global elites are collectively in the grip of mass psychosis which in part renders them all moral imbeciles. How else do we explain the mild reaction to Rotherham, Rochdale and dozens of other towns/cities and the probable figure of 100,000 children groomed, drugged,gang raped, and treated as sex slaves. Over a period of 25+ years.

    • Of your “two possibiities”, CK,the first is hardly relevant. If the EU collapsed tomorrow, people still aren’t going to vote for us, and the long term option will just see more damage – and much of our existing membership expired in more ways than one. And in either case, without some major policy changes and a new leader, nothing will happen anyway.
      Please tell me in what sense my post wasn’t wholly right?!

      • When the EU collapses through the implosion of the €uro UKIP can stand tall and say “We told you so”. There will be an election dividend.
        Do not dismiss the resolve of most UKIP members and supporters. Age is not withering the majority of them.

        • Yes you told us, but so what? You have nothing much to offer, we’ll carry on as usual thank you.
          But where are the new members, CK? – let alone the new voters!

          • Is that the royal “we” Quercus?
            Do not forget that despite everything 4 million people voted for UKIP in 2016. There is potential for that to be doubled.

  6. Septimus.
    Two points which need to be addressed in this letter to UKIP Daily:

    1) It would be nothing less than folly to assume that you can simply add Ukip votes to Conservative ones – and this figure will still hold when one of the parties withdraws.

    On what is this absurdly simplistic logic based?

    2) I joined Ukip to fight the Liberal Left and not just to dispose of the Labour Party – irrespective of how mouthwatering that prospect might be.

    The Lib Dems, Labour and Greens are all despicable in their philosophies. BUT, the Tories are riddled with the likes of Cameron, Soubry, Clarke, Hammond et al. Any of these MPs would slip, all too comfortably, into the aforementioned parties.

    A plague on ALL their houses!

  7. Septimus
    You make a fundamental misappreciation. The Tories are our worst enemies, and the ‘better Tory’ they are the more dangerous they are – it is they who will keep us out of power far more effectively than any stripe of Labour.
    And you understimate the Tories’ ruthlessness and visceral determination to keep power at any costs. In their perception the Left are like the poor – they’ll always be around, and just have to be managed. It’s us, UKIP, that have to be marginalised, because we have the potential to undermine them – or at least we did.
    The Tories will always defend wealth and privilege and will continue to rule as long as their lower income supporters stay conned into supporting the rich. In trying to out-Tory them, UKIP plays into this trap very nicely.
    And of course the Tories will continue to competely fail on immigration and Islamisation. By far the biggest slice of the electorate which has potential to support us and make the difference is Old Labour, but at Copeland and Stoke we offered them nothing – so what do we expect?
    We must be radical, populist – and clever.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.