Latest from UKIP Daily

Sunday papers – 26 February 2017


It seems that the party’s biggest backer wants to lead UKIP, reports the Express.

UKIP was plunged into a new crisis last night as its biggest donor threatened to quit unless he is allowed to take over the party.
Millionaire businessman Arron Banks said the party was being run like a “jumble sale” as he issued a dramatic ultimatum to leader Paul Nuttall in the wake of last week’s Stoke-on-Trent by-election defeat.
Mr Banks said unless he is made chairman he will quit and invest his millions in a new, rival political movement that will “destroy” Ukip.
He also claimed that Nigel Farage shared his frustration and could consider “heading in a different direction” if things didn’t change.
If Mr Banks became chairman, he revealed that his first act would be to expel Ukip’s only MP, Douglas Carswell, whom he accused of “treachery” following a row over claims he blocked a knighthood for Mr Farage.
The claims that Mr Carswell had stood in the way of an honour were made on Question Time last week.

ITV News also carries the story.

One of Ukip’s major donors, Arron Banks, has threatened to pull his funding unless he is made chairman so he can stop the party being “run like a jumble sale”.
Following party leader Paul Nuttall’s defeat in the Stoke-on-Trent Central by-election, Mr Banks blamed “dullards” like Ukip’s only MP Douglas Carswell for not bringing in enough Tory votes.
He said the defeat was the “final straw” for Mr Carswell, accusing him of being preoccupied with “sabotaging” a knighthood for former leader Nigel Farage, an accusation the MP denies.
Mr Banks said Mr Farage would have a “more fulsome role” in the party under his stewardship.
Mr Banks told The Sunday Express: “I am giving Paul Nuttall an ultimatum that either I become chairman and sort out Ukip by bringing in business people and professionals to make the party electable, or I am out of there.
“The party cannot continue to be run like a jumble sale.
“If Nuttall doesn’t professionalise it and toss out the likes of Douglas Carswell, Suzanne Evans and the rest of the Tory cabal then the party is finished anyway.”

Terror threat

The Telegraph reports the prospect of terror attacks.

British citizens are facing a level of threat from terrorists not seen since the IRA bombings of the Seventies, the country’s new terrorism watchdog has warned.
In his first major interview since taking the role, Max Hill said Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (Isil) was planning “indiscriminate attacks on innocent civilians” on a scale similar to those perpetrated by the IRA 40 years ago.
He told 
The Sunday Telegraph that Islamists were targeting UK cities and said there was an “enormous ongoing risk which none of us can ignore”.
The warning comes just days after Mr Hill, one of Britain’s leading terrorism prosecutors, was unveiled as the new independent reviewer of terrorism legislation. 

BBC News also runs the story.

Britain faces a level of terror threat not seen since the IRA bombings of the 1970s, according to a new watchdog.
Max Hill, the independent reviewer of terrorism laws, told the Sunday Telegraph Islamists were targeting UK cities.
He credited the effectiveness of the intelligence services in limiting the level of threat to Britain.
Mr Hill pledged to review anti-terror measures over concerns about any infringements of freedom.
Mr Hill, who successfully prosecuted the failed 21/7 bombers and the killers of Damilola Taylor, said the so-called Islamic State was planning “indiscriminate attacks on innocent civilians of whatever race or colour” in UK cities, close to the scale of Provisional IRA attacks of the 1970s.

Brexit Bill

The progress of the Bill to divorce us from the EU is highlighted in the Telegraph.

Theresa May is facing a double defeat over the Brexit Bill as peers from across parties back extra protections for EU citizens and a veto on the final deal.
Labour, Liberal Democrats, cross-benchers and Tory rebels have all rallied around two amendments that would force changes on the legislation to start Brexit talks.
One change would ensure every EU citizen currently in Britain keeps the right to work and stay here, even if Britons living on the Continent lose protections.
The second would force ministers to get the approval of MPs and peers on the final Brexit deal before they withdraw from the EU – an effective veto.
Opposition sources have boasted they “have the numbers” to defeat the Government because the Tories have no majority in the Lords.
Tory rebels have also publicly expressed support for the moves.

ITV News claims the House of Lords will rebel.

Tory grandee Lord Heseltine has vowed to rebel against Theresa May over Brexit and back opposition efforts in the House of Lords to ensure a meaningful vote on the final outcome of negotiations.
The former cabinet minister insisted he was not engaging in a “confrontation” with the Government.
He said Labour, Liberal Democrat and rebellious Tory colleagues ready to back a change to the Brexit Bill simply want to uphold the Supreme Court’s ruling that MPs and peers have ultimate authority.
A Labour Lords source said the party “would be likely to win handsomely” and inflict defeat on the Government on the issue, as well as in a bid to guarantee rights of EU nationals already in the UK.
A vote on whether Parliament should have a meaningful say on the final deal is not expected during the European Union (Notification Of Withdrawal) Bill’s committee stage next week, but is more likely during report stage on March 7, the source said.
Writing in The Mail On Sunday, Lord Heseltine said: “In the end the outcome of Brexit will have to be confirmed by Parliament.
“It will also have to pass in 27 national European parliaments, several sub-national parliaments and the European Parliament.


Immigrants could receive visas lasting several years, says the Times.

The biggest shake-up of immigration policy in a generation is expected to see multi-year visas handed to migrants who get jobs in key sectors of the economy but limit access to benefits for new arrivals.
Under plans advocated by senior ministers the government would seek to take political heat out of immigration by getting an independent body to advise on how many visas should be issued.
At a meeting of the cabinet’s Brexit committee on Thursday, Theresa May ordered ministers to draw up a two-stage plan: first, to deal with EU nationals already in the UK; second, to set up a new visa regime for those who arrive later.

The Independent also has the story.

Ministers are reportedly considering plans to limit benefits for new immigrants and give multi-year visas to migrant workers in key sectors as part of efforts to stick to the pledge to bring net inward migration down to the tens of thousands.
The plans being discussed by senior ministers could also see the independent Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) advising the Government on how many visas should be issued to take the political sting out of the issue, according to 
The Sunday Times.
Under the proposals for a post-Brexit Britain with full control over immigration, new arrivals could be given five-year working visas if they have a job but be banned from claiming any benefits during that time.
The MAC would decide how many visas need to be issued for workers in key industries such as software engineering, health and social care, farming and hospitality, which are heavily reliant on immigrants.

As does ITV News.

Ministers are reportedly considering plans to limit benefits for new immigrants and give multi-year visas to migrant workers in key sectors.
Under the proposals for a post-Brexit Britain with full control over immigration, new arrivals could be given five-year working visas if they have a job but be banned from claiming any benefits during that time.
The proposals are said to form part of a drive to bring net inward migration down to the tens of thousands.
According to The Sunday Times, it could also see the independent Migration Advisory Committee (MAC) advising the Government on how many visas should be issued to take the political sting out of the issue.
The MAC would decide how many visas need to be issued for workers in key industries such as software engineering, health and social care, farming and hospitality, which are heavily reliant on immigrants.

Disabled benefits

But it seems that disabled people could lose some of their benefits, says the Independent.

The Liberal Democrats have tabled a motion in the House of Lords to kill a Government bill that will severely restrict disability benefits.
It follows a written statement to the House of Commons by Conservative disability minister Penny Mordaunt that the Government will introduce emergency legislation to tighten the criteria of Personal Independence Payments (PIP) to disabled people after they were told to cover a broader spectrum of claimants, including those with mental health problems.
The move could potentially deprive 160,000 people of state help which is “rightfully theirs”, disability charity Scope warned.
The Department of Work and Pensions (DWP) was advised to expand the reach of the PIP scheme by two separate tribunals to give claimants more points for “psychological stress”.
The PIP scheme assesses claims on a points based for two different categories – “daily living” and “mobility” – and claimants must score at least eight points to receive a basic payment and 12 points to receive an enhanced rate.
It is designed to cover the extra costs that come with being disabled, such as specially adapted aids, cars and appliances, and measure how a disability affects a person’s life rather than the disability itself, but critics say the criteria is too strict.
But the first tribunal ruled that claimants should receive more points for “mobility” if they suffer from “overwhelming psychological distress” when travelling alone.

French elections

One of the contenders for the French presidency has declared his wish for more and more immigration, reports Breitbart.

We have entered a world of great migrations and we will have more and more of it [migration]”, former investment banker Emmanuel Macron declared during a debate on climate change.
Speaking at a discussion staged for Science and Future magazine, the independent candidate announced that the world has entered an age of mass migration which will be inescapable for Europe.
“In the coming decades we will have migrations from geopolitical conflicts that will continue to play, and we will have climate migrations because the planet is in a state of deep imbalance,” he said.
France’s failure to tackle climate change will have contributed to these mass migrations, according to Macron, who argued that the country must “reconcile a principle of solidarity [with the ‘refugees’]”.
Voicing a stance diametrically opposite to that of his rival Marine Le Pen, who wants to close France’s borders, Macron said the country’s geographical location makes resisting the migrant tide impossible.
“France will not be able to stem it, and Europe will be affected immediately. We will see a migratory phenomenon far greater than what we have seen [with migrants from] Syria.”

Labour Party

Leaks have revealed the party’s propaganda following the Copeland by-election, says the Telegraph.

Labour MPs were ordered to claim that holding Copeland was always an “uphill task” just hours after their historic defeat, leaked briefing notes have revealed.
A “script” urged MP to claim that winning the seat – which Labour had held for the 80 years – was “always going to be difficult”.
The politicians were also told to praise Labour’s campaign there as “excellent” and blame “very specific local issues” for their loss.
The 600-word spinning notes were emailed to MPs around 8.10am on Friday morning as the party went into damage limitation mode after the by-election defeat.
“In Copeland we fought a good campaign, but it was always going to be an uphill task in a marginal seat with particular unique circumstances in play and the Tories threw everything at it,” MPs were urged to say.
The full document has been passed to The Sunday Telegraph amid fury that the party leadership is trying to shift blame from themselves.
One critic said: “This farcical array of excuses is just the latest weak defence in the downfall of a failing hard Left project.”
It comes as trade union leaders gave Jeremy Corbyn until Christmas to turn around the party’s dire poll ratings or face calls to quit. 


It seems the bank has had some problems with its card transactions, says ITV News.

Barclays customers were left unable to make payments using their cards after its digital services experienced “technical difficulties”.
ATM machines were affected, while people also reported problems using cards in shops.
Telephone banking and in-branch payments are also thought to have been hit.
The problem was not down to a cyber attack but because of issues with the bank’s own systems.
ITV News Consumer Editor Chris Choi said the situation was a “fiasco” for Barclays.
Barclays tweeted on Saturday: “Technical issues are affecting some digital services. We’re investigating this and apologise for any inconvenience.”
It later added: “We’re still experiencing issues affecting Barclays Debit Card and ATM transactions. Our teams are working to get this restored.”

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
About Debbie (686 Articles)
Debbie has been a journalist for longer than she cares to admit! She has been freelance for the last 15 years and is an associate editor on UKIP Daily, specialising in covering the morning press each day.

66 Comments on Sunday papers – 26 February 2017

  1. Thinnish Free-Thinker // February 26, 2017 at 11:52 pm // Reply

    UKIP has an excellent manifesto, created for the 2015 general election and still, presumably, in force. It includes: abolishing inheritance tax; removing VAT completely from repairs to listed buildings; reducing the deficit AND paying off our debts; replacing the Barnett formula and cutting the cost of Westminster, as well as key policies on immigration, housing and small business.
    Did I hear Paul Nuttall referring to his own party’s manifesto and bringing into the clear light of day, with lucid explanation and impassioned belief, any of these during his campaign for the Stoke Central seat? Must have missed that bit.

  2. Thinnish Free-Thinker // February 26, 2017 at 11:37 pm // Reply

    Nuttall looks like some comic character from a 1970s Peter Sellers film or those ghastly “Confessions of …” movies. No sincerity, no charisma, no authority apparent. Why should anyone vote for him?

  3. I have never seen so many comments on a News Review before and it is all about the future of UKIP.
    I recorded Nigel’s interview with Piers Morgan and watched it tonight after returning from a family occasion in London. Nigel was wonderful, the most important statesman since Churchill. and my admiration for him rose even higher than it has always been, because we saw some of his personal life and the sacrifices made for our beloved country. He is a pure patriot.

    If Nigel goes in a different direction I will follow him. If he trusts Aaron Banks, I will trust Banks. If Nigel forms a new party, I will support that party.

    • And they’ll immediately embark on a Trump-like policy of tax cuts for the rich. We are not America. They should be looking to Le Pen instead.
      Only a uniting of patriots of all classes can save us, but to achieve that we have to get the less well-off onside.

  4. I did a bit of googling on Suzanne Evans. Came up with this

    If the reporting is fair ( I have not seen any of it denied anywhere ) then Suzanne E would I am afraid be hopeless.
    The Reporter describes how she is fine at first when she seems to be reciting a prepared script, but once she departs into the uncharted territory of a proper interview / discussion she becomes semi coherent.

    And this is even without analyzing her position on immigration.
    Plus I get waves of another GATE on the horizon if ever she became Leader : apparently she tells the tale that the reason she failed the 11 Plus is because the school didn’t explain to her it was the real thing …….she thought it was a practise or something and for that reason didn’t try her hardest.

    As the Reporter says this is a bit on the difficult side of plausibility ( that a schoolteacher would leave children in any doubt about the importance of the test on the day ) but anyway the fact she is still banging on about it forty years later ??
    If ever she became Leader be assured the School and Teachers would be traced and this story challenged, just as Hillsborough has been.
    Do we really want a pensioner former Teacher / Headmistress on tv challenging our Leader’s recollection ??
    If someone doesn’t really believe in the necessity of a Complete ( or almost ) Moratorium on all new Immigration from whatever country then no amount of ‘taking aside’ is going to enable them to argue the point cogently and unapologetically.

    • VIV
      This was meant as a reply to DEE’s 5.45 pm paras down below.

    • I know, Rhys! I had a rush of blood, so wanting to keep it all together! Presumably we do not have supporters of Suzanne here, but they must be somewhere because I was astonished at the number of votes she had.
      But, on sober reflection, if we are going to change, so be it, we need to be,thorough, and if we lose people we will gain far more in the long run.

  5. Some on here seem to think that you have to be working class or a tory but not both. There are many working class who vote(d) tory. If you are after only working class votes go join the labour party. I want UKIP to be their own party with policies that everyone or at least, most people, can take to.

    It looks like Aaron Banks will either take a big role in UKIP or he will take many UKIP members with him. Big shake up either way.

    • We have necessarily to talk in generalities, William.
      The Labour Party are not going to stop immigration or other loony left policies,are they – so how can that be an option?
      Splitting the anti-immigration vote would be plain stupid.

  6. Arron Banks to the rescue!
    I agree with every word he says. Let’s sort UKIP out or start something new, which really will be the UK standard-bearer for the wave of patriotic anti-PC sentiment sweeping the Western world.
    If Banks, Farage & Kassam start a new party, I’ll join it tomorrow .. No! Right now. Where do I sign up? They’re not perfect, but they get it.
    This has so cheered me up and energised me after the frustrations of the last few days.

  7. Banks offer is the only available salvation for UKIP; it needs financial support and to be rid of the “usual suspects” i.e. the cronies who have taken over.

  8. Bring on Banks and JRE I say. Janet Daley in today’s Sunday telegraph. Made the point constantly repeated here but rejected by a few. It’s not about left and right anymore. I’m guessing Banks gets it too.

  9. I`ve asked this before and never got an answer.
    “Who are the men in Grey suits who actually run this party?”
    What I mean is there one (or bunch) with power (not overt) and authority who can step into a situation and with a quiet word and say to a leader ” your time is up” or can tell a leader “get rid of so and so – he`s not performing or even he/she is plainly just `not one of us`”
    Unless such a person or body exists there will be chaos. Perhaps I`ve just answered my own question, there is CHAOS
    The problem is that UKIP started out as a protest group, which was OK but depended on the finance of the original backer(Goldsmith?Sked?) and the few recruits who could throw something of their own money into the pot and proceeded like that.
    Came Lisbon and we were actually “locked in” to the EU and along with it the realisation that our role had changed and Federalisation of the EU was the end in view.
    Although UKIP had from the start advocated withdrawal from the EU (Common Market); until Maastrich/Lisbon it was just protest saying please don`t let the EU take us down that road, but not really having much impact on the general public who hadn`t recognised they were being hoodwinked.
    From then on things as they say changed, I know I joined UKIP at that stage because, as I said then UKIP was the “last hope”, I was not wrong, except to say it has until the magnificent referendum result been the “only hope”
    But that need to change from being a party of Protest to a National Politically Party of Effect i.e. to effectively be on the political circuit and increasingly the public and internet media, required shedloads of cash as well as competent bodies who at least had the `look` of politicians, unfortunately they all have personal agendas.
    The net result is you have to follow the money – pity about policies – the main one has been achieved (Referendum not full Brexit), the money isn`t going to stay around.
    UKIP has peaked too soon we are at a tipping point, it can mean `onwards and upwards` rather than `downwards and OUT.
    There is an offer on the table.
    Arid Aaron has put the solution to you “make me Chairman” or I`m off – the answer to him should be “only if you bring Nigel back as President with full executive powers, not hamstringed by a divisive NEC
    Go on call an EGM, change party rules and snatch his hand off!

  10. GEOFFREY CHARLES ELLIOTT. // February 26, 2017 at 12:39 pm // Reply

    As many of you may know,I like Rhys was a huge supporter of Paul Nutall,I took a lot
    of stick on here,in asking everyone to stand down,I was accused of wanting a coronation,I remember replying,that if it was good enough for Magpie May,then it was
    good enough for our man.Many did stand down,even the great Bill Etheridge gave way,I have the greatest respect for Bill.I especially urged our own branch member
    John Rees Evans to stand down,as you all know the M.S.M. were attacking John for an unfortunate remark he said in the heat of the moment.I was accused of disliking John,that is totally wrong.John has done more in his 39 years than the vast majority of our totally useless MP’s from either side of The House,perhaps now there will be a role for John,like me he is passionate about UKIP,and more importantly,John is 34
    years younger than me.For those of my fellow activists that are calling for the resignation of Paul,believe me that really would be the beginning of the end for my
    beloved Party.For a start,members would leave in droves,and the MSM would no doubt have a field day,in convincing the general public,that we really are finished.
    Today I share much of Arron’s concerns on our spectacular defeat at Stoke and the
    precarious state of our Party.To many who know me,from my friends like Neil and Gareth,in the Welsh Assembly,I have been outspoken in the past about Arron.
    However I must agree with most of his concerns.I too was very unhappy about the remarks that Douglas Carswell had made.So were do we go from here?,of course we need funding,but at what price.I still wholeheartedly belive in UKIP,we have a
    huge amount of work to do,surely we owe that,not only to the memory of our brave and courageous ancestors,who paid the ultimate sacrifice with their lives,fighting for our freedoms,but to our children,grandchildren,and the indigenous people of Britain,
    who have been betrayed by the useless career Politicians,whom they collectively have abandoned,in favour of the unelected EU,and more importantly the loss and control of our very own borders,which under May are still totally non-existent.
    Let us not forget that mass,unlimited,uncontroled,unneeded,unwanted and more
    importantly unchecked,unskilled,and illiterate mostly male,and mostly Muslim,who will never ever work,whom we are expected to house,clothe and feed till their dying day,was and still is the mainstay why people voted with us for Brexit.
    Thank you,Geoff.Elliott,UKIP.R.C.T. Branch,Pontypridd.

    • Geoff if you’re in contact with J R-E can you please ask him to re-surface. We need him.

    • Geoffrey, people have left in droves, I’m afraid. Not the loyal people who began UKIP, who stayed with UKIP through thick and thin and did all the work. They are still here, still loyal no matter what. But we cannot be a political force without expansion, and most of the young entheusiasts have been shut out by MrNuttall and the current Chairman, together with new ideas of policy and change. Mr Nuttall’s idea of uniting the party was to ‘circle the wagons’ – and its catastrophic. Where are all the energetic thinkers? John R-E, Raheem, Anne Marie – and why was Ray Finch moved from Fisheries when he was well known in that brief, to name just the obvious ones?
      What is working, presumably because it’s mainstream, is Hamilton and Reckless’s Welsh efforts – but they have to be prepared to take on the whole of UKIP’s agenda, even if it is less comfortably mainstream.
      I’m sorry to say that Mr Nuttall is in way above his head, a post BREXIT UKIP has to be a very different animal and he was ill prepared. Whether Arron can achieve that miracle, I wait to see. But at least he wants to do something, and something needs to be done.

  11. That we lost in Stoke is not a big deal, the evil tactics of Labour, a few quite small mistakes and the short time Nuttall has held office all helped to sink us but we STILL increased our vote share.
    The rush to replace Paul with a minority candidate from the last leadership election alarms me, it’s just what the establishment want. As for Mr Banks, I like him and admire his dedication. I even agree with some of his comments but I doubt I could remain in a party funded and micro managed exclusively by one rich man, it’s simply not right, If he takes over UKIP I’m out. Should he set up an alternative in order to damage us and feeded his ego he will set back the prospect of a people’s party obtaining significant Westminster representation by a generation. What use to our country is that ?

    • I think you’ll find the MSM and all our enemies would much prefer Paul to stay, Icini. The mistakes were elementary and unforgiveable.
      If Banks wants the right policies that would be very acceptable. Trouble is he’s a Thatcherite, like Nigel, which won’t get the working class votes we need. He does now want a national investment bank however, so there might be hope yet.
      Banks should be required to state his preferred programme before we agree to anything – and all members must be consulted.

  12. Arrow Banks isn’t asking to be leader, he’s volunteering to take on the role of Charman. He will then put more money into the party. He’s absolutely right about the total incompetence of the party organisation. As a successful businessman, he should be able to put that right. Of course, UKIP needs more than better organisation. I see no future for the party unless we accept his offer.

  13. Nuttall is clearly struggling. I voted for him, and I think he needs our support right now. He can see the discontent being caused by the current party direction. Let’s give him a chance to change it. We simply do not have a better leader available.

    I also support Aaron Bank’s position on the future of UKIP but I wish he hadn’t demanded the chairmanship in exchange for funding. It’s going to be impossible for the UKIP to accept that. I’m sure Banks knows that and is really looking to create a new movement.

    If forced to choose between a Carswell UKIP or a Banks-Farage Revolution I’d have go with Banks-Farage. I really hope it doesn’t come to that.

    • SK you can’t have half a revolution – you either have one or you don’t. Paul has fatally wounded UKIP, like it or not, and I don’t. Arron Banks needs to be Chairman if he is to achieve anything. Added to which it’s his money, presumably he wants to spend it wisely. It doesn’t matter what eventual policies we have, UKIP will never get the message out under the shambolic Leadership we now have, all the focus will be on that. And don’t tell me that we will be confident, next time, if things stay the same with a few tweaks, because I don’t believe it.
      I agree with Thomas below, there a lot more Tory in people than you think. What the Tories are lacking is the ability to get off the fence about immigration and Islamization – UKIP can do that.
      Arron is convinced that the Tories need a proper opposition, and if UKIP isn’t willing, he will try elsewhere because this country needs one.

    • Lets be brutally honest : Mr. Carswell is not now, and never has been ‘UKIP’.
      Why he joined I do not know. ? To get media attention for fifteen minutes ? It’s possible…..
      He LOVES immigration and despises those of us for whom it is a grave concern.
      He seems to get his pleasure mostly from taking every opportunity to pour contumely on Nigel and cave – dwelling Ukippers.

      And Paul soft peddles immigation concerns now. WHY ?
      Of course it should not be our only policy, but it should be the top one :
      A Complete ( or almost ) Moratorium on all New Immigration for whatever purpose from whatever country for Five Years.
      I wish I had a solution to the various GATES now attaching to Paul :
      UnfurnishedHOuseAsMainResidence- Gate; LosingCloseFriendsAtHillsborough-Gate; ( thus reviving Footballer-Gate and PhD-Gate, even tho’ the evidence for the latter two is weaker ) : they have all been raised on high in a glass jar marked ‘Trust’.
      Is there any reason to think these Gates are going to be firmly locked shut any time soon ?

      I think trying out Aaron Banks as Chairman is worth a go……….Desperate times, desperate measures. I assume the current Chair would be compensated financially appropriately for loss of office, and perhaps made Deputy Chair or some other post / title.
      Unaware of any by elections on the horizon so there is probably a good few months to try the new arrangement.
      Stoke will have encouraged Northern MPs who feared demolition by UKIP to hang on.
      A tragedy.
      But we are where we are so what do we do?
      I think Aaron Banks as Chair is worth trying ~and not at all because of the funding threat, but because Stoke didn’t need to end as it did, with a grotesque wearing a red rosette as MP. And we need to try something different.
      Mr Banks is offering : provided he compensates the current Chair appropriately he should be allowed his chance.

  14. “Mr Banks blamed “dullards” like Ukip’s only MP Douglas Carswell for not bringing in enough Tory votes.”
    “If Nuttall doesn’t professionalise it and toss out the likes of Douglas Carswell, Suzanne Evans and the rest of the Tory cabal then the party is finished anyway.”
    Looks like Armageddon is almost here, folks. This is the issue that will finish us very quickly if Banks gets his way.
    This is not Trump’s America. The working class here will not vote for Tory policies. Banks and Farage should be looking at the successful Le Pen and Wilders models, where liberal economics is being dumped.
    We want – and with the right tax policies – can get, Tory voters – but the winning factor can only come from the working class. Tories wanting Thatcteritre economics will stay with the Tories.
    So much irony here. Carswell is a Thatcherite! His real crime is weakness on immigration.
    And so much mis-analysis – we must have clarity.

    • Carswell opposes nationalism and supports mass immigration. He wants a “liberal Brexit”.

      In a recent interview he was very clear that he uses the word “nativism” as code for “racism” when talking about UKIP supporters, and he joined UKIP to sabotage “the wrong kind of euroskeptics”.

      • True SK, but Carswell represents virtually nobody in UKIP at all. The real choice isn’t between him and Banks/Farage, but between a more worker-friendly economic approach and Thatcherite economics (as espoused by Banks/Farage, and, ironically, Carswell too).

        • Q,

          You say the working class here will not vote for Tory policies.

          Well, they did in Copeland and in Stoke they came from complete outsiders at 33/1 and “not in the picture” (your words) to increase their share of the vote by nearly 2% finishing a whisker behind UKIP who were second favourites at about 2/1. Granted, in Stoke there was the “useless Nuttall” factor but what was the reason for the big turnaround in Copeland? Oh, I know, the “useless Corbyn” factor.

          Or maybe, just maybe, they liked Tory policies.

          • They like the CLAIMED Tory policies!

          • But not enough to WIN, Thomas, even in a favourable seat.
            May I remind you, we LOST.

          • Exactly, Mike.

            But that’s not the point. Whether the Tories stick to them, or not, is irrelevant. Why should we disregard policies that are liked?

          • Sorry, ignore my other answer – misread.
            Firstly we badly neglected Copeland. Six leaflets and all the rest in Stoke was overkill.
            Secondly much of the electorate now think, quite wrongly, that Brexit and immigration are more or less done.
            Thirdly we didn’t have bold radical policies to show we’re on the side of ordinary people and that there is a non-leftist alternative to Tory ‘austerity’. Policies are the key.

      • Making any people a minority in their own homeland is a crime against humanity. That is the deliberate policy of Lib Lab Con. Forget ‘racism’. It’s not about that. The argument needs re-presenting instead of fighting with the enemy on their own choice of ground.

    • Carswell is doing the party SERIOUS damage.

      Whilst he retains the label UKIP he is often paraded on TV as the voice of UKIP on whatever Panel, meaning someone who would actually speak up for genuine UKIP concerns is denied the opportunity to give them an airing.
      Wake up : this is serious !
      If people hear him jabbering on and think he is UKIP why on earth would they vote UKIP when they can vote Tory and have a better chance of seeing their choice elected ?
      It’s a pound to a penny he is returning to the Tories: he is just biding his time ~he should not be allowed to choose when he leaves UKIP as he will choose the very best time to do us the most serious damage.

      • The point is, too, that Carswell is a Tory like the current other Tories – liberal middle ground – not proper Tory.
        Labour put Thatcher into power, and returned her – it all went wrong for her when she rightly or wrongly took on the Unions.

        • Carswell is a libertarian like many in UKIP, Dee ….. which was why he joined in the first place …..

          Bad blood between Uncle Nige and Carswell is not over policy except perhaps on immigration but over presentation/ style rather than substance and of course the concomitant of personality clash …..

          As a libertarian Carswell believes in a small State, a role for the private sector in the NHS, the market as self-adjusting (to be fair in contrast to self-regulating for admittedly the two are not synonymous) ……

          • The Tory Party was originally One Nation, at least as far back as Disraeli …..

            The pre-Thatcherite Tory Party was Keynesian and not Monetarist (like Nigel Lawson former Chancellor)) as was the reprobate and quite possibly paedophile Heath ….. the ‘wets’ like Clarke, Hesseltine represented an anomaly from the by-gone years ….. I’m not so sure as of now of Lamont’s actual ideological persuasion but could well be a Monetarist too ….

            And there were MPs who were both Keynesian *and* a eurosceptic …. such as the inimitable Sir Peter Tapsell the former MP for Louth and Horncastle, a constituency in the eurosceptic Lincolnshire (who stood down at 2015 GE) …..

          • To be fair, though, the traditional ideology of Her Majesty’s Treasury is the ‘Treasury view’ – sound budget which pre-dates Keynes and precisely the current view in vogue today and of course made its comeback in the late 1970s and is known as Monetarism.

            The fundamental question underlying the issue is: What is the nature of money post-the Gold Standard?

            Is it purely legal tender or a commodity (convertible into gold)?

            – For the central bank, it has the infinite capacity to create money out of thin air due to its currency-issuing capacity. It does so without any liabilities to match. For example, on behalf of the Government, the BoE can credit the ‘reserves’ accounts of commercial banks (i.e. accounts held by the latter in the former) to purchase goods of the private sector. And in doing so, a *new* net financial asset has been created in exchange for *real* or physical goods.

            As for the commercial banks, they can issue credit out of thin air (under the auspices of the central bank) but there has to be an asset and liability at the same time. Loans create deposits and not the other way round as in the case of the Gold Standard.

    • Thinnish Free-Thinker // February 26, 2017 at 11:33 pm // Reply

      “The working class here will not vote for Tory policies.” How do you think Margaret Thatcher won three outstanding elections — and would have won a fourth had she not been stabbed in the back by pro-EU cretins in her own party — if it were not for loads of working-class voters voting for her?

  15. Islam Do we misrepresent it

    Coming up in Nicky Campbell 10am Channel 1 BBC

    Hope some of us see this
    Is UKIP represented in the discussion?

  16. I see, from yesterday’s Daily Mail, that Mr Nuttall has cancelled a planned appearance on today’s Marr Show (and has now been replaced by Peter Whittle). This is now becoming farcical as it follows on from his no-show at a Stoke hustings and the non-appearance of anybody from the party on Friday’s Daily Politics. And it’s hardly as if Marr is the most forensic of interviewers.

    Carry on like this and we may as well have Lord Lucan as our leader.

    • This is extraordinary news. Difficult to credit.

      If he felt he might need time to catch his breath after Stoke ( which would have been fair enough ) he should not have agreed to the engagement in the first place.
      Ditto the Stoke Hustings ~ pulling out must have looked just dreadful to the local electorate.
      I am starting ( sadly, and with huge regret ) to think that Paul knew what he was doing in June when he refused to put forward his candidature.
      He perhaps felt that the relentless pressure, and also the forensic interviewing, were not areas in which he could excel.
      It seems his command of English is not all it should be for a former lecturer ( calling Trump an ‘Anglophobe’; and a couple of days ago saying: ‘I’m not going anywhere – UKIP’s not going anywhere ‘ ).
      Compare Harold Wilson’s masterly quip when all the talk in Parliament 40 years ago was of his being forced to resign:
      ‘I know what’s going on…………..I’M going on ! ‘
      I don’t think I’ve ever seen evidence of a sense of humour in Paul’s utterances.
      I did about half a dozen Hustings in Bishop Auckland in 2015, incl one on local radio – they were the most enjoyable part of campaigning. I would have done double the number if enough vicars and farmers and what not had organized them.

      I think anyone who shies away from a well organized, fairly conducted Hustings ( or similar debate ) should really consider whether he is suited to front line politics ?

  17. Well done Arron Banks, but even you can’t make Mr Nuttall into something he isn’t.
    He’s a nice man, and all that, but he’s a catastrophic Leader who obviously has no judgement, no ability to think on the hoof, and he will always be seen in the eyes of the Public, wrongly or rightly, as a joke and a liar.
    If you’re going to have a clear out, do it now – we cannot be in a worse position than we currently are. You have people of talent, willing to serve. Please use them.

    • The most damning comment in the Mail said that it’s not a good idea to dress like Bertie Wooster. I think Jeeves would have said: “I’m not sure that your sartorial presentation is quite correct for the event sir”.

      Actually you can get away with murder if you seem to be successful or are a huge personality but this was a case of a contender not yet a winner. Boris Johnson has just done bizarre outlandish dress far beyond Paul Nuttall but he’s the Foreign Secretary and he’s – well – Boris.

      I was amused to read in Macmillan’s biography that the Cavendish family was known as the ‘Grub Club’ because they were so rich and aristocratic already that they did not bother much. Admirable!

      • Aristocrats are well known for wearing their clothes out , patching them up forever and so on……..but I think ( not being one ) that they do this IN THE COUNTRY.
        When in Town ( or on TV ) they would still wear a smart business suit. Maybe 3 piece even.

        A well established and liked local, backbench, MP could ( if he felt it necessary ) maybe get away with the dole queue / grouse shooting / cloth cap look, but not an aspirant, insurgent, candidate.
        Even the loathesome Labour candidate was pictured in a smart (ish ) suit, as was Jeremy C. with him.
        I’m not saying Savile Row would have done it, but it would have done no harm…. ( Jacob Rees~Mogg anyone ?? )

    • Dee,
      I sympathise with your frustration – but WHO specifically do you think could do it ?
      Could Nigel credibly come back after a further few months recharging his batteries in Washington ?? Mrs Thatcher always said she came back from the US re~energized !
      What’s yr take on Peter Whittle ?
      I have hardly caught him on TV to be honest, so don’t know where he stands on the unfashionable issue of immigration, or how good he is at thinking on his feet. Do you know ?

      • I like Peter Whittle, but he is not Leadership material. He has zero impact.
        If I were Arron Banks I would put pressure on Nuttall to step down, and I would make (you’re going to hate,this!) Suzanne Evans and John R-E joint leaders – there were few votes in it, and it would avoid another damaging election and save face. BUT I would take Suzanne Evans aside and say that she has to stay on message. I think if Carswell is removed, she will. She has made a good fist of it on TV, she is against Sharia Law so she’s half way there, and it just might mollify both sides of the party. He needs to identify all trouble makers and put them on notice. I personally would get rid of Oakden, because I think instead of leading, Paul listened to him, and he’s a plonker.
        Nigel should be honorably around but it will do no good to have him back as Leader. We HAVE to move on. J RE will enthuse many young people, he has expertise and can get over the gay donkey thing, I’ve seen him do it on Daily Politics. Last, I would put those MEP’s who were good at what they did, back to their original briefs.

        • Both Evans and J R-E are adroit thinkers and speakers, one ambitious for herself and one for UKIP. They both scrub up well, and,while some people dislike Suzanne, hopefully recognizing JR-E would overcome that. But no one will listen to me!

          • Was it Suzanne Evans at Bolton who said the NHS crisis was ‘nothing to do with immigration’ ?
            I could accept ‘Not ONLY about the pressures of immigration’ but ‘Nothing to do with’ ?
            I may be misremembering but I think someone said it.
            Whoever said it shows they are embarrassed at even mentioning the issue, let alone going at it with both barrels.
            And if we do not do that we are finished. ( Or pointless ).
            Just look at Sweden. ( Big big corres in The Spectator online at the moment. Horrors in store. )

          • There is no other way, unless you want either an election or the continuation of Mr Nuttall. I don’t support Evans except that she is at least coherent and presentable in interview, I don’t personally agree with her views but presumably a lot of UKIPpers, marginally more than supported JRE, do, and she had already said a few things I take issue with. She had a spat with JRE on LBC (?) about Direct Democracy, but I would hope he might talk her round.
            Nothing is going to be perfect, but nothing could be worse than the public perception of UKIP now – I just can’t see any other way without a Leadership election. Plus, give her a brief to stick to, bring in Raheem and Anne Marie and I reckon she’ll be outnumbered.
            Otherwise…an election, a new party, a dictatorship or more of the same. But Arron is wiser than I am, hopefully he’ll find a way.

          • Sorry Rhys I did reply but my iPad swallowed it and I have little battery left!
            Summary – either, an orderly transition to the other 2 almost equally voted for candidates, or a Leadership election, or a continuation of now, or a new party are the only options I can see. But perhaps Arron Banks, who is far more intelligent, has a different answer – though we will never please everyone.

        • Dee, yes, I do hate the idea of Suzanne Evans being leader or joint leader! The only person for me is John Rees-Evans on his own who, as you have regularly pointed out, has been shamefully sidelined by Nuttall

          But, anyway, this could not happen in the way you suggest as it would be against Party rules. There would have to be another election. As it says in Section 7.3.2 of the UKIP Constitution:

          Election of the post of the Party Leader shall be by way of a postal ballot of all paid up members of the Party “in good standing”.

          Hopefully, then, if Nuttall stands down we might, at long last, get the right leader (JRE) but it would be another disaster if we got the wrong one (Evans).

          • Wise words, Thomas.
            I think Dee’s posts regularly include a lot of common sense but I have to disagree regarding the Suzanne Evans idea.
            In the senior position she holds I think she already damages the party; as leader I think she’d be the kiss of death!

          • I know! I was beginning to think I was in the realms of fantasy! But the fact remains that we John R-E fans were marginally behind those who voted for Suzanne – which I find incredible but true.
            My dream team would be J R-E, Raheem, Anne Marie specific women brief, and after that I’m easy.
            But I’m guessing the Suzanne supporters would be very unimpressed – so what to do.
            I wonder if Arron will keep Paul as Leader and bring in the others. Can he?
            I know nothing about Party rules, sorry, have never had a rule book, and not having a local branch I am on my own.
            Raheem and J RE would bring in lots of younger people, but what about those who voted for Paul? Suzanne would stand again for sure, they may vote for her. We might go through it all over again and end up with Suzanne, as you say. That’s,why I thought of what I suggested. Truth is, it’s very difficult.

          • Yes, we’ve got a big problem.

            If there was another election, JRE probably wouldn’t stand as, I would imagine, most of his followers have left the Party. So, with all the support from the Nuttall camp, Evans would almost certainly win by a landslide.

            What a blinking mess!

            By the way, Dee, you don’t need to have a rule book. Just Google UKIP Constitution, that’s what I did.

        • Dee
          Small point : why do you say you do not have a Branch ? I believe you are entitled to join any Branch near you if you literally do not have one in your constituency. ( Tho’ who wd be better to start one than you if such be the case ? )

          That aside, I do recall seeing Suzanne E. on tv and frankly : she comes across as a female version of ‘TimNiceButDim’.
          She might be thought to come across as
          ‘Teresa May ~LITE ‘ only with less intelligence.
          Anyone we choose, but esp. any female, is going to be immediately compared with Teresa May……… and frankly, that lady is on a roll at the moment, leather trousers and all !
          Absolutely no way whatever could Suzanne. E. perform well under Newsnight ~ type forensic examination.
          She does well with the Luvvies but that’s not what we want – we have other Parties for Luvviedom.
          I’m sorry to be all negative: we do seem to have a paucity of people at the top who can actually cope with being interviewed…..
          ( The number of Q and A sessions Paul N has missed is starting to look like carelessness, rather than misfortune…..)

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.