Latest from UKIP Daily

The Illusion of Democracy

After my last article Trumped? I felt there were still some points that I wanted to make, so here it is. Firstly I’ll look at the world of marketing, something that I know a fair bit about. I’m sorry to all those of you that know this stuff, but I’ve always found that many people are surprised about what actually goes on in this field.

Let’s take for example, a bottle of beer and how we would market it. Firstly, we’d have to look at the consumer marketplace, in particular beer drinkers and decide if there were any segments that we could exploit. We may then spend hundreds of thousands of pounds on market research to refine and gain an in-depth knowledge of these segments.

I’ll use as a further example the ‘Jack the Lad’ beer brands that sprang up in the 1980s. Commercials often featured wise cracking, know it all Jack the Lads that cleared pool tables, generally beat everybody at everything and were pursued by legions of beautiful young women. Of course the Jack the Lads would never drink anything other than your magnificent beer. It’s all about peoples’ perceptions of themselves and of course, to sell them our beer, we’ll do everything we can to reinforce this perception.

In reality nothing could be further from the truth. These spotty youths would probably send women running, though ideally they’d drink our lovely beer until they were sick all over the branded clothes that they felt made them appear as their Hollywood heroes.

Research has shown us that the less well off in society are very susceptible to marketed brands. The poorer people are, the more they need a prop to promote their self worth. Many people live in an illusion promoted by marketing media and it has never ceased to amaze me as to how easily people are manipulated.

In the end, beer is beer. Some is of better quality (but probably not the stuff our Jack the Lad drinks) but it all has the same unfortunate result and ends up against the wall somewhere. Our wise, all knowing Jack the Lad probably works hard and what little money he earns ends up in the hands of the tax man, the banks or landlord. What’s left will go to breweries and on overpriced brands that he could live without and can’t afford. Marketing companies will tell their prospective customers anything their research say our Jack the Lad wants to hear to sell him their beer, probably at a premium price.

Here’s the thing: politics is exactly the same.

According to the Electoral Commission, at the last election political parties in Britain spent around forty million pounds on campaigns. The Conservative party alone, according to Business Insider, spent fifteen point six million on their campaign, including:

  • Market Research / canvassing 4,684,487.73
  • Advertising 3,618,907.85
  • Unsolicited material to electors 4,322,374.69
  • Campaign broadcasts 213.491.37
  • Media 20,968.05

Total Marketing Bill 12,860,229.69

So the Conservatives spent nearly 13 million of their 15.6 million pounds of campaign funds on marketing alone. The Conservatives spent more on advertising than UKIP spent on their entire campaign. As with all marketing campaigns, they are closely monitored to make sure they’re on track. If not, the message will soon be changed. There is little conviction, just the desire and a strong incentive for power and control at any cost.

I’ll refer now to an article on the WWII website Alpha History that compares the lives of Hitler and Stalin. Although the two despised each other, they were very similar, both coming from poor and humble backgrounds to become revolutionary leaders. Here’s the key part:

Both promised progress, modernisation and better lives for their countrymen – but both were more concerned with consolidating and expanding their own power, rather than pleasing the people.

So, whatever the message that they propagated to their people, whether it was Communism, National Socialism or indeed Fascism, it was always just about power. Millions died. Particularly in the case of Hitler, that message could very quickly change dramatically to suit his purpose.

Today Britain is in a rapidly deteriorating crisis. The country is virtually bankrupt and has to borrow and print money to pay its bills. The immigration we’ve been told for years is so good for us is a complete disaster for the majority of Brits. It has brought with it massive housing shortages, a crisis in the health service and enormous social service costs. Then there’s the gang rape and child grooming and probably much more but I’ll leave it there for now.

All of the above, no matter which political party is in power. The people that we’ve elected to supposedly represent us have been all too keen to sell us out to globalists, to give away the power we’ve vested upon them to an anti-democratic European Union.

Democracy doesn’t work like that. In a democracy our government must represent and work in the interests of its citizens. A democratic government cannot represent globalist, anti-democratic organisations and its people at the same time.

Our successive, supposed ‘governments’ are still prepared though to spend many millions of our own money to sell us the illusion of democracy, to make us believe that we still have a democratic choice. In reality, whatever name they give themselves, whatever political ideals that they try to sell us with smiles and reassurances, we’re just revenue raising units to them, it’s all about power and control.

Whatever Liberal, Labour or Conservatives tell you, it’s all the same poison. This time, it may not be beer but it’ll certainly give you a hangover. I feel that UKIP now has a choice to make. Is UKIP going to be the party that fights to give us the true democracy that we deserve or is it going to be just like the more established political parties?

If UKIP chooses to fight for democracy, I have a feeling that people will be ready to listen.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
About flyer (50 Articles)
I'm not living in the UK at the moment, and I'm an ex university lecturer in IT and MBA. I don't belong to any political party but if I was in the UK I'd be with UKIP.

21 Comments on The Illusion of Democracy

  1. The Brexit leave vote surprised all, so democracy seems to be working at least in this manner. It seems, it is not as rigged as in the USA, majorities win and are even recognized numerically, if not morally.
    The right to appear at trial, to be heard, to be tried once, to be able to represent oneself or be silent are the pre-requisites for freedom, and are gone or under threat.The right to speak freely has gone, as others may be perceived to be offended, the have the right to violence, blamed on the speaker.
    There has never been a right to platform, but that is becoming controlled by fewer and fewer. The inter-web thing is still unregulated, perhaps not for much longer. The liberal elite raised the anger of so many, who felt they were being bullied by by posture seeking illiberals. “Multiculturalism’ and ‘diversity’ are no longer postured so loudly, now that we have are suffering the consequences.
    Apparently, ‘equality’ s the latest buzzword, though what that actually means differs depending on happenstance.
    The liberals seem to like a wide diversity of views, as long as they are the same as theirs. (* I use “liberal” to describe the urban elite who like to posture their multicultural credentials with solidarity for those they corral as downtrodden masses, an old, very inaccurate description of people nowadays.

  2. Thankyou flyer for the articles, each illuminative.
    I was going to add the following comment elsewhere this afternoon as a raw reaction to having seen a bit of the budget thing. However decided it was self evident and did not add anything that this readership wasn’t already aware of so left it out. In a way this following comment simply shows the frustration of being caught up in the current political stagnation caused by the success of Theresa May & Co and her Labour counterparts as they chew up the UK and mangle BREXIT. (I would say since the 60s when the balance of generations shifted.) Did Theresa May really give the Lancaster House speech ? Here is the comment:

    Pact of silence in Westminster
    I confess to not having listened to all of the Hammond-Corbyn budget show this afternoon. So if I missed their words which would undermine my point please forgive my lack of diligence and ignore this comment.

    Jeremy Corbyn talked about child poverty, homelessness, wage stagnation and lack of affordable housing. Philip Hammond spoke about increasing housing and further spending on the NHS.

    Neither side of the “house” to my knowledge spoke about the cumulative effect of UK net migration since 1997. The UK population in 1997 was 58 million and 20 years later in 2017 it is 65 million (source countrymeters).
    The budget talked about allowing more money to the NHS and investing in housing with 5 billion here and 10 billion there.
    I may have missed it, but I did not hear any reference to the impact of population increase on wage suppression and housing shortages. Nor did I hear any reference to the unknown billions cost of giving the EU an upfront payment of 20, 40 billions as a taster before trade talks can begin.
    Any discussion of the “Budget” without reference to the impact of net immigration on population increase and the payment demands the EU are making, seems to be a collective deceit by both sides of the house.

    • You are correct Chris, they only mentioned symptoms of the root underlying cause of the NHS and housing Crisis. The UK population is too large due to mass migration, demand now outstrips supply.
      Socialized welfare (NHS) is not designed for use in a mass migration model, you can have one or the other, but not both.
      I laughed when Hammond announced 300,000 houses to be built annually. Considering 600,000 newcomers arrive on our shores per annum, most of that new housing will be needed for those individuals. Recent research found 8 out of 10 new homes are headed by a migrant.
      You have to deal with the underlying cause first, there is no point emptying a bath while the taps are still full on…
      Anyone with common sense sees the issue, so either they are incompetent or this is deliberate. My view leans towards the latter.
      Porous borders, a weak deportation system, over-geneous welfare to migrants and we are in a race to the bottom folks.
      Our national debt is heading quickly to £2 trillion, they never talk about this either. Migration is killing us financially and as Manchester showed, literally. Throwing money at a problem does not fix it, this will not save the NHS. The NHS is a health care model that is doomed and will swallow up more and more of our revenue. It needs major reform and sensible adults to do this. We could start by making health insurance compulsory for UK travelers, other countries do this already. This budget will change nothing, migration will continue unabated with a stampede before March 2019. The NHS will continue to fail, people will die by neglect and waiting lists will get longer. House prices will still rise and not enough houses built…my question is what will UKIP do about it?

  3. flyer,

    You hit the nail on the head, its all about power over the masses. The two party system is a game of good cop/bad cop, they are essentially both sides of the same coin. They take turns at the helm, but they go to the same colleges, universities, schools and clubs. They are the same people masquerading as different. They appear different to scare the gullible into voting for them for fear of the other side; in fact they are the same guys. They turn (along with their MSM supporters) on any upstart group who threatens their balance hegemony.
    These groups are fickle and blown in whichever direction the wind (or public opinion) takes them.
    The party system has failed us, parties are there for themselves, not the electorate. The UK needs major constitutional reform:
    1. A proper fully written binding constitution, enshrining freedom of speech, primacy of British law etc.
    2. Accountability for politicians in office, they make a bad call financially, their party pays up, e.g. Gordon Brown and the UK’s gold.
    3. The ability to impeach MPs, Cameron mentioned it once, then kicked it into the long grass.
    4. Full transparency on the activities of all political lobby groups and NGOs.
    5. A major reform and clean up of the House of Lords.
    6. Maximum of two terms for all MPs; there are too many careerists, unlimited terms encourages corruption and this will clear out the same old faces.

  4. There is no real democracy in this country, and arguably in many other countries that claim to be ‘democracies’.
    Labour and Conservatives may claim to be different parties, but at the end of the day neither are really serving the interests of the people, nor have any real discerning policies of their own, they are both puppets of the ‘establishment’, both under the thumb of their real masters, namely ‘big business’ and of course the big banks.
    The ‘fake democracy’ charade consists of voters going to a polling station every five years, putting a cross in a box on a piece of paper, seemingly having a democratic ‘choice’.
    Notice how nothing really changes whichever party is in power? Manifesto pledges go out the window.
    One recent example I can think of is when all the fuss over the Paradise Papers blew up. Accusing fingers were pointed at the Tory government, “what are you going to do about this?” etc, while everyone failed to point out that during the 13 years that Labour were in power, Labour also did NOTHING to close these tax loop-holes (and probably allowed a few more to open up).
    Labour are just as much in the pockets of big business, big banks and the ultra-rich as the Tories are.
    But as Flyer points out, the marketing ‘spin’ is painting Labour as being ‘for the many, not the few’, which is almost the same as saying that Carlsberg is the best lager in the whole world (which it isn’t by the way).
    Clever marketing = bullshit. And politics = bullshit.

  5. Both this and ‘Trumped’ are excellent articles Flyer. Thank you.

  6. There are some similarities between Hitler and Stalin but also some interesting differences
    JS was a failed religious student who embraced nihilism
    AH was a failed art student who embraced ultra nationalism
    JS spent the 1WW hiding or plotting
    AH was a decorated warhero (and yes the war was a catastrophe for Europe)
    JS had no attempts on his life as he was guarded at all times and never ever met ordinary people during his dictatorship.he lived in palaces far away from the slaves of his Empire. He was responsible for the deaths of 40million soviet citizens (not inc 2WW)
    AH had about 12 attempts on his life. He never stopped spending time with ordinary people esp in his beloved Munich. When there he would still visit his favourite restaurant(still exists) and favourite beerhall (ditto). For saving Germany from utter ruin he was cheered to the rafters inc for dispensing with the communist internal threat. the economic revival of Germany 1933-38 was stunning and has never been surpassed. The fatal2WW was of course his total downfall.
    JS was ruthless with the lives of the people but also cared nothing for animal husbandry nor the environment. AH gave German workers paid holidays, minimum wages, safety standards, subsidised housing. He cared passionately for green politics legislating to protect the environment and was personally responsible for world’s first effective protection of all domestic and farm animals. Standards then in Germany were higher than they are now in UK ( to our halalinduced shame). Make of my comments what you will but consider them as true and/or do your own research.

    • citizenkain – I’ve often read about the better side of Hitler and I must say that he didn’t totally betray his own people like Angela Merkel has done.

      By the time Merkel’s legacy has unfolded who knows how many will be dead. She’s let a hostile and ruthless army invade her country in disguise as refugees, the same has happened all over Europe.

      It’s early days yet, the war against ISIS may be being won in the Middle East,but it doesn’t matter, they’re all here in Europe.

      Angela Merkel’s legacy may well turn out to be worse that that of Adolf Hitler.

      • The war against ISIS has been all but won by the Iraqi army and the alliance of Syria, Hezbollah, Iran and Russia. Incidentally, history sites on the internet are notoriously unreliable i.e. tendentious and I’m afraid I can’t give Alpha history a pass on that after a brief look.

        • Well, I wouldn’t give Alpha History a pass either as a reliable academic source, I just like that particular paragraph that I’ve quoted. I know enough about it to agree with that particular statement.

          Many alternative media sources are absolute garbage, but among all of this there are some jewels of information and if we didn’t look we’d be left at the mercy of the Mainstream Media. It’s a case of sifting through the alternative media and sorting out the wheat from the chafe.

          Iraq may be freeing itself from ISIS but we certainly are not. Whether they call themselves ISIS, Al Queda or any of a large number of other names, they’re all MUslims, radical, fundamentalist or whatever, they all hate us.

          The war in Europe is just getting started and probably in Britain too. It amazes me that so many people think that as the Muslim population grows in Europe, US and the UK that one day we’ll all shake hands and be best friends: no chance,dream on.

          There is no peaceful ending to the lunacy of Angela Merkel and the European Union.

  7. Interesting article. I agree that the alleged difference between Labour and Conservative is largely a diversionary charade – a smokescreen, an obfuscation. On most points of importance they have the same or similar policies – pro-immigration, pro-EU, pro-PC and pro-globalist (in the sense that I understand that term).

    But what do you mean, Flyer, when you refer to “true democracy”?

    Perfect democracy is unachievable. I would settle as a start for more democracy. So in practical terms how do we in UKIP campaign for “more democracy”?

    Here are 4 ideas:

    1) More referendums (NOT more PR)

    2) Actually enforce the referendum results we have had – i.e. Brexit. Democracy doesn’t mean just having votes but also ensuring those votes are implemented. Voters will be disenchanted if they know their votes are meaningless and ignored.

    3) Recognise that political parties are themselves undemocratic (including UKIP – JRE was on to something here).

    4) Try to reorientate the main two political parties away from the old and increasingly meaningless left-right divide to the much more important In-Out divide.

    • The official UKIP line on this is “not a cigarette paper’s worth of difference between them” as Nigel succinctly puts it…

    • You will not get more referenda by demanding them; you will need to wield political power to change our system from one in which those that bankroll the politicians know best to one in which the people can assert their opinions to the better understanding and obedience of politicians; however, we have had a virtual duopoly in national politics since our parliament was first contructed on the basis of benches sited opposite each other, and without changing to a PR sytem, nothing else is going to change.

      Compare our system and situation with Germany where, under PR, from a standing start, the AfD have won 93 seats in the Bundestag when UKIP winning a higher proportion of the national vote succeded only in electing Tory plants.

      UKIP’s problem is that although many of its supporters are intelligent and patriotic, they are either in work other than politics or retired.
      Without a reasonable chance of a career, it is difficult to attract people of high enough calibre to take UKIP forward.

      • “(Y)ou will need to wield political power to change our system..” – precisely. I agree.

        And that is why I am opposed to PR. Because PR makes it more difficult for progressive, anti-globalist, anti-establishment parties like UKIP, AfD and the French National Front to actually get into power. Centrist, establishment parties will always combine against them.

        PR may make it easier for progressive anti-globalist parties to gain some representatives in national parliaments and assemblies. But it makes it much, much more difficult for such parties to get into government, that is into actual power.

        It is not easy to get referendums either. But progessive, anti-establishment parties can, by offering voters the opportunity to have a direct say on matters such as unlimited refugee admissions, the compulsory TV licence or repeal of the Human Rights Act, put pressure on the establishment parties to respond.

        • In the last General election UKIP won 0/650 seats by FPTP after 24 years of existence. After 5 years of existence AfD won 92/709 seats by PR. Front National after 45 years won 8/577 seats by FPTP; it is perfectly true that En March! won 312 seats from a standing start but as an advertising expert I would have thought you would have noticed that Macron was marketted as the most revolutionary product since sliced bread with saturation coverage in every media outlet for a period of six monts prior to the elections. Perhaps you would like to quantify the value of the free advertising he received and the likelihood of UKIP getting similar treatment from our MSM.

          Meanwhile, AfD has already put a spanner in Merkel’s works, preventing her from even forming a government.

          • While I applaud AfD’s achievement, UKIP won something far more valuable than 92 seats in the Bundestag. It won a referendum that we went on to win.

            It’s true that that referendum result now has to be enforced. But actions count for more than seats in Parliament. As at the moment, in terms of actions, UKIP, operating under FPTP, has achieved more than either AfD or the French National Front.

            By the way, I’m not an advertising expert. I think that is the author of the article – Flyer.

          • Apologies for my confusion. However, the argument that our achieving the Referendum was due to FPTP does not really stand up against a hypothetical situation in which we would have had 80 seats as well as there being Eurosceptic Tories and Labour in the HoC; we would all be pushing hard for a decisive for a clean break from the Brussels regime and its unlikely that the Maybot would even be PM..

    • True democracy, is where governments actually represent the people that they were elected to represent, at least a lot more than they do now.

      Perfect democracy, no chance, nothing ever is perfect, but governments that pursue their own agendas entirely and fob us of with the bul*L*hit that they do is nowhere near democracy.

      Certainly a democratic government cannot represent us and the European Union at the same time, we have to come first.

    • Mr Forthurst, if there had been PR at the 2015 election there would have been a continuation of the Tory-LibDem coalition and hence no Referendum.

      It was the Tory promise of an In-Out referendum that led, much to David Cameron’s surprise, to the Tories getting an outright majority in 2015. This then forced Cameron to hold the referendum – a promise he never thought he would have to deliver.

      So, yes, in my opinion, it was FPTP which won the referendum.

      • Either you believe in democracy or you don’t; if the former, then, with PR, there should have been a majority in parliament for a Referendum. It would not have been up to somone lie CMD to gamble on winning in order to sideline UKIP (only possible in a FPTP system). If you don’t believe in democaracy, an idea with which I have some sympathy then the electoral system is an irrelevance because it will always be highjacked by an enemy within buying crap polilitians like the Maybot et al.

  8. It will be apparent to all the “illusion of democracy” when we don’t get a proper Brexit or not at all.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*