Latest from UKIP Daily

An Open Letter to Diane James

Politics is a messy business and that applies to every party. UKIP has suffered from considerable tumult since the Referendum, but which party hasn’t?

Whether someone else should have been leader, and whether they would have proved a better outcome, will now never be known. Water. Bridge.

It seems that would-be heroes and villains have suffered and I am not going to suggest who falls into which category here, as I am not close enough to it.

But there is one thing I can point out. There are only two political parties I have ever voted for in my lifetime – it being the twenty something anniversary of my thirty fifth birthday (plus VAT at the standard rate).

Now both those parties have had female leaders elected by their members. That gives me great pleasure as, confidentially, I have liked females for a very long time. It is in the nature of la différence, actually I think it should be les différences, but assume the French know these things better in their language. But ‘vive’ it, or even them, whatever…

The two UK-wide political parties most associated with fiscal responsibility, accountability, pragmatism and propriety, have been the ones which produced female leaders. You know which parties they are. Unfortunately the older established party was charmed by the artificiality of Blair, precisely at the very point when his own party had lost faith in him. Extraordinarily unfortunate timing by ‘the great and good’, most of whom can rarely be relied upon to think clearly.

In consequence, a lightweight who saw himself as ‘Son of Blair’ came to lead this older party. Precisely in response, the newer of these two parties took off like a rocket – as those wise heads, who were able to learn from the past, groaned in unison: ‘You must be joking! No more!’ Four million of us! We know who we are…

This faux-Blairite chimera still remained ingrained in a lot of folk who tacitly came to the conclusion that it was more important to win, and then manage badly, than it was to demonstrate to the electorate that it was better to run things well and be patient for slightly longer – until the less adaptable types were won round – or died. A better approach would then be appreciated by the electorate at large for as long as a generation. The ‘head-in-the-sand’ types were the ones who wanted a quick fix. A quick fix is not always a good one. This may be illustrated thusly:


Now we can examine the other parties. But first, a safety warning: Please place any glasses, from which you might be drinking, safely on a level surface. OK? Now, these parties? One, the so-called Liberals and the other, the so-called Labour. We can take a break here for a few moments, if you want to laugh uncontrollably…

All back again with nothing spilled? Good, I will resume.

By all means use your wife’s stockings to effect a temporarily repair for a broken fan belt on your car, so that you can drive to the nearest garage for help. But don’t then think the matter is solved and leave that solution in place for the next ten years. That would be typical Labour strategy!

In contrast, the Liberals would simply have given all her stockings away in the first place, so there would be nothing left to implement the above remedy – only a few pairs of smelly broken sandals.

These political parties are designer-built for life’s losers. They both actually used positive discrimination techniques to redress what they saw as an imbalance, but what did they get? A ghastly bunch of self-seeking, mostly ugly, brainless, clueless harridans, the like of which we had not seen before. Hopefully, now, after all their abject failures, this will never be witnessed again, especially by our impressionable children and grandchildren.

It is laughable, isn’t it? Those feckless poseurs, the politically correct, the virtue signallers, the bed wetters, couldn’t even run a whelk stall.

They would happily label us as the ‘far right’, ‘bigots’, ‘racists’, ‘xenophobic’, ‘fascists’, ‘of lower cognitively ability’, ‘vile’, ‘ignorant’, ‘unrefined’, ‘uneducated’, ‘tribalist’, ‘homophobic’, ‘binary thinking’, ‘abhorrent’, the list goes on.

By simply using any one of these words, they think they have won their argument by default, and expect us to respond with instant capitulation: Did you say ‘Islamophobic’? OK, you win!

They have more trigger words than a Smith and Wesson catalogue (oops, gun reference, Trump!) We have not even got to ‘Zionist’ yet and I am sure that ‘untermensch’ will creep in soon, despite its etymological roots.

But there is a very good reason why they use all these trigger words. They have no genuine arguments to employ. All they require is a ‘buzzword’ card.

Why don’t we label them all as ‘far-left’ and have done. ‘Far-left’ starts just before you get to Kenneth Clark. Never trust a man with blue suits and brown shoes. My mother told me this when I was young and she is now 98 – so don’t even think of arguing!

Is it not ironic that the parties, which claim to stand up for women, instead repress them? It is called hypocrisy. Meanwhile, we, their implacable adversaries, actually appoint women who just get on with the job.

Our new battle cry could well be: ‘We have a leader. What do you have?’

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

38 Comments on An Open Letter to Diane James

  1. Nice words as usual mr Cat, but sadly I won’t be voting for UKIP again, I was hoping that with the sad retirement of Nigel, UKIP would have moved as they say heaven and earth to keep up the momentum and would have sorted out it’s leadership problem within weeks and not the 3 month holiday it decided was better,the momentum and PR has now been lost and UKIP has just become another UK ten a penny political party with the same don’t care attitude and loss of drive, the next elections are the local and as I will never vote conservative again I won’t be voting at all,

    • Schrödinger's cat // September 28, 2016 at 3:25 pm // Reply

      Thank you, Mr Bulwinkle.

      I respect your opinion but would offer you one thought.

      My dear old business partner used to have a saying that put the issue into a useful perspective: When I fire someone, I always give them a good pay rise first. That way, it hurts more.

      In a similar vein, it is my view that none of the traditional parties is worth the candle. So the vote goes to UKIP. When they get elected, that is the time to hold their feet to the fire! No party should feel they have one’s vote as of right, it must be earned.

      Not to vote at all denies the opportunity to demonstrate to the government that they are not well regarded.

      You might well say: There is no perfect answer! You would be right. But that is not the same as saying: There is no good response…

      Kind regards, as always.

  2. SC. Agreed! But don’t you think that poor little mouse must be stressed out, which is why we may not have seen him for years. Probably receiving intense therapy for severe PTSD and on benefits now, while Tom is curled up in front of the fire receiving fresh tit-bits from the lady housekeeper.

    Just my interpretation of events. But there again I was hoping that someone else would win the leadership job, but never mind we are were we are as they keep saying.

  3. Enjoyed your piece SC, good to get the little grey cells working as I settle down to enjoy another sh*t weekend for our Far Left Labour Party ‘friends’.

    ‘They both actually used positive discrimination techniques to redress what they saw as an imbalance, but what did they get?…..’ I do believe in equality but positive discrimination, as we now know, favouring the minority tends to create negative discrimination for the majority and is never likely to end well.

  4. Cat has achieved a long term objective, not seen since GF days.
    Sensible and pertinent responses.
    Thanks to all, keep it up ( as he would say )

    • Schrödinger's cat // September 24, 2016 at 12:55 pm // Reply

      Your kind words and moral support are a source of strength to me. I am attempting to travel in that direction but there is so much more to do. Which is great.

      The important thing, as with life, is to enjoy the journey.

  5. SC. I am not so sure that Tom is a big softy, because his ultimate aim is to catch Jerry and eat him.

    Do you not think you may be more like Top Cat, he is a much more likeable cat although he is a bit of a ‘rogue’. Also, he is very good at recycling.

    • Schrödinger's cat // September 24, 2016 at 1:38 pm // Reply

      Tom has no intention of eating Jerry. ‘American way’ would be foiled as they could not come back next week! This is money at work…

  6. Schrödinger's cat // September 24, 2016 at 7:25 am // Reply

    The Ten Cannots of the Rev William Boetcker:

    * You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
    * You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong.
    * You cannot help little men by tearing down big men.
    * You cannot lift the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer.
    * You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
    * You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.
    * You cannot further the brotherhood of man by inciting class hatred.
    * You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.
    * You cannot build character and courage by destroying men’s initiative and independence.
    * And you cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they can and should do for themselves.

    Boetcker also proposed that the Seven National Crimes were:

    * I don’t think.
    * I don’t know.
    * I don’t care.
    * I am too busy.
    * I leave well enough alone.
    * I have no time to read and find out.
    * I am not interested.

    Most thinking people from any side of the traditional debate will realise and accept that these propositions are universally true, if they care to consider them carefully for any length of time. Only those totally lost to dogma will dismiss them.

    • Who was the Rev. Boetcker and when did he live? I agree with his ‘Cannots’.
      Re ‘The Seven National Crimes’: by these standards, I met many criminals during the Referendum campaign, mainly ‘I don’t knows’ and ‘I don’t cares’. They seem to turn out in force before every election along with a good sprinkling of ‘I am not interesteds’.
      What makes these people, many of whom also fall into the ‘I’m too busy’ category’, think that they have busier lives than everyone else and are therefore exempt from the duties of all citizens lucky enough to live in a democratic country and have a vote?
      When people say or indicate any of the above Crimes during campaigns, I feel nothing but scorn for their laziness, ignorance and indifference. I have to keep a poker face and say nothing, of course.

  7. Every day I look here to see some decisive action from the new leader reported. That action is the removal of certain individuals who are pursuing their own agendas against the wishes of the members and/or supporting the Lyoness scheme.

    Maybe she should have a conversation with Dr. Slivnik who seems to have resigned for a number of very good reasons.

    If she either cannot or will not take the necessary action then the members and other supporters need to be told why.

  8. As ever, a most enjoyable and thought-provoking piece, Friend Cat.

    I am increasingly of the view that the distinction between the “moderate” and “extreme” Left is largely artificial. Here are just a few examples of where they broadly agree:

    Both “moderate” and “extreme” Leftists hang on to the belief in “equality” – one of the most fatuous delusions of all the many delusions that they are deluded by; and which is belied by everything that we know about human beings.

    They all believe that more Government borrowing, spending, taxation and regulation are the answer to our problems, when in fact these things are a very large part of the cause of our problems.

    They all believe that mass immigration is beneficial to society, despite all the evidence that it isn’t. (After all, if it really was such a good thing, then surely it would be popular?)

    They all believe in criminalising people who do not share their beliefs (“hate speech” etc.) – the hallmark of totalitarians throughout history.

    They are all opposed to grammar schools, even though educational standards are far lower than they were 50 years or so ago, before the attack on grammar schools took place.

    They are (practically all – with certain honourable exceptions) in favour of the EU, despite – or perhaps because of – its fundamentally bureaucratic, undemocratic structure.

    They all believe in the fairy tale that is known as “Man-Made Climate Change”, and in all the idiotic policies (e.g. the useless E. Miliband’s Climate Change Act of 2008) that accompany such a belief.

    They all believe in “Our NHS” and “Our BBC” – two institutions that were set up in an era utterly different from today and which are obsolete in the age of choice that we now (generally) live in, and which need at the very least to be fundamentally reformed.

    As I’m sure everyone reading this knows, this is far from an exhaustive list …

    So, really, folks, what is the point of the Left now? All their policies have been tested to the point of destruction – in many cases, literally. If Socialism were a scientific theory – and, no, this does not include “Man-made Climate Change”, which is the nearest thing that certain Scientists have to their own religion – it would have been discredited many, many years ago.

    If Diane James can address these issues and avoid the easier (because the media would be less hostile to her) but ultimately futile path of trying to pander to a non-existent “Progressive Majority”, she will deserve the support of us.

    • Schrödinger's cat // September 24, 2016 at 7:12 am // Reply

      Comrade SupportOurLefty, Fraternal Greetings to you!

      What a magnificent response! I am reminded of the words of William Boetcker, which I may post separately in a while.

      May I add the following in respect of every point you have raised. When these leftists, of whatever artificial hue they may be, are faced with incontrovertible evidence that their precious policies have failed dismally, their recognition faculties desert them completely and instead of admitting honestly that they were completely mistaken, they call for a doubling, or trebling, of their failed efforts, as if to do more of a wrong thing eventually makes it right.

      ‘Captain, we are heading towards a rocky promontory, which is now becoming visible to the naked eye!’

      ‘Very good! Full speed ahead!’

      • Now what made me think of the penultimate voyage of the “Costa Concordia”?

        Show boating!
        Full speed ahead and as close as you can get, must give everybody a demonstration of how clever I am with my big boy`s toy..
        Given the chance, I`d bet the Captain would do it again!

  9. Yeah, but remember Tom always comes off worse!

  10. SC, I may be a naughty mouse but you will never catch me!

  11. sorry meant Farron, I seem to have a dyslexic keyboard (always have trouble spelling that word)!

  12. Thanks Alan, I recognise him now especially that ‘rump’ as Fallon talks through it the majority of the time.

  13. Thank you Schrody for making me start the day with a smile.
    Your letter was full the stoic blend of wisdom and humour that has served UKIP so well in the past and, I hope, will continue to guide the new leader as she enters the fray of the current trials and tribulations.

    • Schrödinger's cat // September 23, 2016 at 11:27 am // Reply

      Thanks Howard. I was jolted into writing, after my summer travails, by dining with a friend who shook his head gravely and told me that we had made the wrong decision as a country.

      Surprised by this, I asked him what reasons he had – I was genuinely interested. He could not produce one!

      But he did say that it had all been written about in the Grauniad…

  14. Who is the guy with his head in the sand, it is not Carswell by any chance is it? Sorry, only joking Douglas.

  15. The Tory-lite jibe has been a bit of a recurring theme lately. Here at least the active kippers are about half and half – old labour and ex Tory. Can I suggest a bit more focus on what brought us together? Farage’s brand of outspoken common sense. Emphasis on common, as in shared opinions in all sorts of areas. There’s differences too but there’s mutual respect – so we listen to each other. That’s why we’re kippers. Old enough to know better and acting on it. For now at least – pending what the new leadership mix produces….

    And PS. it’s Farron. Lib dem. Saintly Tim of this parish. Purveyor of Equality at all costs.

  16. Thank you, SC. I am deplorable.

  17. “Nothing positive to save the party” . Nonsense. We have a new leader, there is no longer a reason for office politics at HQ and I expect her to dump anyone who continues to indulge in such destructive actions as briefing against colleagues. Give them a chance to come into line and if they don’t quickly behave….Get it over with as soon as possible and move on.

    Whilst we must continue to tell the public the truth there is no longer any need to use the sort of language that was perhaps necessary before the referendum and which frightened some people and allowed the smears and mud to take hold. There are in truth very few “isits or phobes” or even particularly right wingers in UKIP, we stopped being a home for the Tory disgruntled right ages ago. As I constantly have to remind my Tory council colleagues, I’m not a Conservative, I’m a Ukiper. ( and you can’t deselect me if I don’t agree with you).
    All parties have made major changes since the referendum, including us. Once the dust settles we can move forward, the public now see the Remain lies for what they were, Labour is about to split and there is still time for us to take advantage of that, though we cut it rather fine.
    There is everything to play for and if we get it right and don’t forget our social conscience, we can hover up votes from both old main parties because the one thing we have in spades is common sense. Provided we get the presentation right, UKIP is at the start of a new incarnation, a fit and proper party to lead a new independent UK.

    • Schrödinger's cat // September 23, 2016 at 11:19 am // Reply

      @Paul Icini

      Spot on. Thanks! ‘Remain lies’ were all the other side could produce.

      I wrote 33 weekly articles in another place. Some 40,000 words of solid facts, proofs and arguments therefrom. If some say that is not positive, I just do not know what is.

      There is no problem with anyone taking issue with the arguments. That is only right. But they had better have their facts prepared!

      You are right, we shed our former alleigances some time ago. Ich bin ein Ukiper!

  18. THE LAW OF UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES – The coming collapse of the Labour party ( in terms of non member voters) will leave a large gap in the electorate’s choices which limp dem Fallon will fail to take advantage of. Both the Greens and the nationalist parties of Wales and Scotland will feast well but and it is a big but..there is a real chance now for an English Nationalist party to appear and sweep all before it ( after a couple of years of building up momentum). The reality is that the present voices within UKIP that dominate are all tory-lite as exemplified by the above article. Perhaps as many as 50% of UKIP voters can best be categorised as white working class from traditional families who would vote perhaps conservative or perhaps labour/liberal. Witness the massive Vote Leave percentages in Dudley, Sunderland, Barnsley, Wakefield, Stoke on Trent etc none of which are tory strongholds in the last 80 years.
    If UKIP is not careful it will wither to a half of its current size and become a mere adjunct of the eurosceptic wing of the conservative party. Indeed the small figures of those who actually voted in the leadership election indicates the active membership is already no more than 20,000. UKIP’s great failure ( hidden by its enormous success under the charismatic Nigel Farage)is its lack of mass membership in part engendered by the stuffy pompous types that Nigel Farage identified as a reason for teeth gnashing.
    There is no reason to suppose that anything positive will change/happen to save the party from a lingering irrelevance.

    • Things do look dodgy, certainly, and the events of the last week have not been encouraging. But I detect two or three glimpses of light at the end of the tunnel. One is to be glimpsed in the West Midlands; a rather brighter one in Cardiff Bay.

      We have made a bad start but I predict that the false start will not last very long. After that, probably, a long slow haul.

    • Schrödinger's cat // September 23, 2016 at 9:17 am // Reply

      Dear Mr Kain

      May I draw your attention to clause 2.5 of the UKIP Constitution:

      To favour the ability of individuals to make decisions in respect of themselves.
      To seek to diminish the role of the State.

      The old demarcation of left-right is redundant – unless one is totally in hock to the so-called BBC or Channel 4, who would continue to foist the myth upon you – you can resist – please try! It is true that UKIP’s members come from both the Tories and the Labour party in the main – probably many also who had ceased to vote altogether!

      Both groups of voters had been taken for a complete ride by their parties who were as one and indivisible in serving their elected members with security and sinecures on bank boards.

      We the voters, even from different backgrounds, have more in common that we have differences. We all hate traditional politicians! It is almost visceral.

      You quote the law of unintended consequences but, despite having read your piece five times, I have been unable to identify one reason to support any argument from that opening to your depressing and mistaken conclusion.

      Look also at Glasgow in the Referendum; 50% voted Leave. Seriously, forget ‘left-right’!

      Just for information, I ran three successful companies out of Rotherham in the late 1980s and had great relations with staff and the customers. Of course they mocked my background and my staff even called me ‘t’bloody sootherner’, but it was from mutual respect, not dislike. We still communicate all these years later.

      My main influence in writing style was Bertrand Russell. You may care to examine his political background. It was not Conservative. He may even have been the third Earl but no one accused him of being ‘pompous’.

    • Citizen Kain, you are correct that the original UKIPPERS were disgruntled Tories but later we also took onboard disgruntled Labour supporters. This is good for forming a wide political base reaching both left and right with the overriding concept of sensible politics.
      The Tories and Labour both lost membership because they moved away from their roots and both only offered policies created in head office and not brought forward from the grassroots. Both also favoured the gradual move towards a global government via the membership of the EU.
      What they failed to realise is the conflicting desires of all people to maintain their identity at the same time as being part of a bigger and stronger grouping.
      Margaret Thatcher was vehemently against any form of federalism but that is probably the political model that best serves the peoples desires, as it does in the United States.
      It should be the model for the EU for nation states of the continent to be self governing but to also play a part in a federal government smaller than the existing EU monster.
      Britain and indeed Ireland should never be part of this grouping because we are island nations and not continental ones. We have already gone down the road of sub-dividing the UK with regional governments with the exception of the English, and the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man each have their own governments. What I feel we need is to be bold as a party and to suggest forming an English Parliament and then a Federal body to combine the interests of the Islands of Britain & Ireland.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.