Latest from UKIP Daily

UKIP: A Fit of the Miseries

Cast your mind back to the 24th June last year.

More than half the British nation was in a state divided into an element of disbelief, backed by a following element of euphoria: we were a happy nation, we were a very relieved set of bunnies to have the prospect of the removal, collectively, of a 40 year old monkey from our backs.

I suppose that after the pre-Brexit “fear” campaign we should not be surprised that many of the previous suspects have made it their business to continue spreading their original poison, unabashed by the evidence that things didn’t turn out along the lines of their original forebodings.

There they all are – out on the election trail: the remainiacs still refusing to accept the result of the Referendum in one fashion or another, but all of them making out that Magpie May will not get a fair deal and what will we do then when we reach the stage that Mrs May considers the deal offered is so bad that she has no alternative than to press the “No Deal” button and opt out!

What a calamity, they all will call out, what an utter tragedy for this once great nation, they will cry, poison, poison, poison all the way, drop by poisonous drop! Trade and the economy will drop off a cliff edge. Oh! let’s not be nasty to the Germans and that nice Mr. Juncker who is doing his best for us!

Well I’ve news for all those doubting Thomases: if they have worries about the trading position, please read Mr. Roger Bootle’s column in the business section of the Daily Telegraph on Monday 8th May 2017 (£). Strangely enough he appears entirely relaxed about the prospect of “No Deal”.

Mr.Bootle analyses the situation as follows:

The Prime Minister has said that no deal is better than a bad deal […]

We have been left with the impression that we are going to have to pay an enormous divorce settlement, agree to the continuing jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice, accept free movement, for at least a time […] before the EU will even begin discussing future trading arrangements with the UK, never mind the “bold and ambitious” free trade agreement (FTA) that Theresa May is seeking […]

The 2 year deadline is a major disadvantage: when talks stall, the pressure will begin to build, as time ticks away […]

The former Greek finance minister warned  “the EU is a past master at intimidating others by deft use of agendas and timetables.”

What we need is to work out a plan B,so if plan A fails we have something to fall back on. Also, if you have a plan B, there`s more chance of plan A succeeding. It must be seen that we have an alternative and are prepared to walk away, not in fear or trepidation. Otherwise they may not give ground to us.

Mr Bootle observes:

“Above all the government must avoid  the trap that David Cameron fell into; he asked for very little, but got even less, his mistake was to make it clear that however little he got he would support staying in the EU.”

My note here: remember the Greek renegotiation – the EU knew that in the end the Greek people didn’t want to leave the Euro!

Is there a plan B? Well, there’s this dreadful mountain of “Access to the Single Market” which Business and others who should know better see as a sort of “Beechers Brook”: impossible jump.

In the words of Mr.Bootle

”[…] an image of some precious restricted space, with entry only through a locked door, perhaps closely  guarded by a bibulous Jean Claude Juncker, carefully checking membership cards […];

[…] as I and others pointed out all along; every single country in the world has “access” to the single market. It is just a matter of having to pay the EU’s tariffs and abiding by its various rules and regulations governing product quality, eg, just as we have to do into every other market in the world, that`s why countries all round the world who are not members of the Single Market manage to export to it successfully. Access to the single market: so powerful an image is in fact a chimera.

[…] fall into the clutches of the WTO: It is as though the WTO (World Trade Organisation) were some sort of monster that devours its members, especially juicy new ones like us. In fact the UK helped to set up the WTO, has remained a member all along albeit with our seat vacant because our trade policy has been run by the EU. On leaving  the EU, we would simply take up our seat again.

[…] remainers say trading with the WTO would be a disaster, a step into the unknown … as part of the EU the UK already trades under WTO rules to govern trading practices, and as part of the EU the UK already trades under WTO rules with over 100 countries around the world including the USA, our largest single export market, as well as China, India, Brazil and Singapore.

In addition to the WTO there are various  technical arrangements called  Mutual Recognition Arrangements (MRAs) without which goods trade is almost impossible.The EU has such agreements with virtually all countries around the world including those that are neither members of the single market nor have an FTA in place.

All the UK has to do is simply to carry them over into the new world and if the EU refuses to agree MRAs with us this would count as discrimination under WTO rules and would lead to huge fines.”

So come on Government et al: convince yourselves that there is no reason for gloom – be happy! No Deal is not such a bad deal after all.

I am also getting a bit peeved by the constant gloom and churlishness expressed  about Mrs May and her attitude and ability to deliver a hard Brexit. She has indeed pulled off a remarkable coup by adopting most of our, UKIPs, policies and indeed seems to be speaking for 17.4 million Brexiteers.

Most of the politicians are going around pointing out that Tory policy is UKIP policy. Why not be glad: we couldn’t have a higher accolade in the public eye. If they make a mess of Brexit, it will be apparent it is not our “blame” (Scottish expression).

Be positive in everything – people don’t vote for the miserable party!

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

41 Comments on UKIP: A Fit of the Miseries

  1. UKIP 2022
    Few organisations are blessed with five years planning time for an opportunity that they know is coming down the tracks. UKIP has that opportunity. Why? Because surely the 2017 general election is a done deal and UKIP will be relegated to the sidelines of British politics with no or if we are very luck, perhaps one or two MPs. What we do have the opportunity to do is to plan and organise ourselves to deliver a real electoral challenge to the Tories in 2022.

    It is almost certain that there will be an opposition of chaos with Labour and the Lib Dems both in disarray and with the SNP just agitating mindlessly for independence that only the irrational believe in.

    There is no doubt that all the main parties have moved to the left and it appears Mrs May is doing the same. Why? Because they throw more and more of our money and debt at policies to appeal to short term vote catching and pretend that this is in the National Interest and a ‘fairer’ UK. In fact it has pushed us nearer and nearer the financial cliff edge and now we are precariously balanced looking over the precipice. Continued bribery of the electorate is what has got us into our parlous state.

    If and it is a big if, UKIP is to be led by Mr Nuttall in 2022 then he must be meticulous in surrounding himself with a cadre of qualified thinkers and workers who are capable of masterminding the task of re-enthusing what used to be inspired battalions of UKIP voters. Our leadership must listen, analyse the mood of the country, capitalise on opportunity and select the right political high ground and policies to appeal to an electorate that cries out for a straight talking party that faces difficult issues head on in the national interest and not self interest. A party not driven by the politics of envy, left, right or centre. Our party must be identified with a common sense approach that puts our citizens first but in the context of our responsibilities to deal with a global political and economic set of challenges. There have been no end of articles and ideas published that point the way forward. Above all we must be seen not as the one trick BREXIT party but as a serious party with a full and vital agenda that will lead the country forward from the BREXIT that we engineered.

    IF our leadership is capable of taking up this challenge then they must start now. We need a group of tech gurus to come up with a strategy to mobilise properly controlled social media channels to get our message across and to appeal to a large section of the electorate who voted Tory in 2017. They did so in the knowledge that they have been the best of a bad bunch and so there has been no other choice. UKIP must be the party of choice to provide that choice and become a force to reckon with in Parliament.

    • Sorry Tim, but I have no confidence in Mr Nuttall’s Leadership. If you could show me how it has improved UKIP, delivered dynamism and increased membership, or even kept membership, I might change my mind. But he hasn’t, precisely because he has done none of the things you suggest in your last two paragraphs. Indeed, John Rees-Evans, who put forward a comprehensive strategy for modernizing our social media platform was completely ignored until very recently -far too late to remedy the situation we now find ourselves in coming up to the GE.
      I so agree with your last sentence, but it will never happen under UKIP’s current Leader.

  2. Peter Lilley when interviewed on Radio 4 last week said that when Blair came to power there were 600,000 jobs available; 4 million immigrants later there are still 600,000 jobs available. He also made some very telling points about the staffing of the NHS. One explanation for the ‘need’ of immigration is reflected in my local town. One street about 300 yards long houses 3 Indian restaurants and one Chinese. No doubt at least some the owners of these restaurants have come to this country as probably serving or cooking staff. Some then want to start their own eaterie and so they need further staff to get their project up and running. Then one or more of his staff do exactly the same thing and so the need for immigrants continues. Maybe a rule to bar immigrants from setting up their own business might be a start. This fact may well deter other potential immigrants if they know that menial jobs are the only ones on offer.

  3. With all respect to Hugo, I believe his letter (below) to the Western Daily Press, which effectively recommends voting Tory and UKIP standing aside in favour of the Tories, is irresponsible and damaging.

    The fallacy in his approach is his cosy assumption that a vote for the Tories is a vote for a real Brexit. He does not explain why he thinks this is so, or why he trusts Theresa May to deliver a full and prompt Brexit.

    We know she has left the door open to a transition period (see point 12 of her Lancaster House speech). We know that she is going to be returned with a very large majority. We know that both Anna Soubry and David Cameron have recently stated that Mrs May will use that large majority to outnumber and marginalise the influence of what they call “extreme” and “hard” Brexiteers among Tory MPs.

    We also know that Sky News have reported they estimate the new Tory MP intake will be dominated by Remainers.

    The voters who choose UKIP can remind Mrs May to remain faithful to the Referendum result. But a vote for the Tories merely increases Mrs May’s massive majority to either implement or wreck Brexit as she sees fit.

    So why does Hugo trust Mrs May to deliver a full, complete and prompt exit from the EU?

    Even if a voter does trust Mrs May – given the fact she will win this election easily – a vote for UKIP would be prudent as an insurance to ensure she stays true.

  4. In general I full agree with the article.

    I still have difficulty in understanding what a Soft Brexit is! If a Soft Brexit means accepting some control of the UK political, fiscal and legal policies then we should use the term Soft Remain.
    Leave (exit) means not accepting any form of EU control over British Policies; any other alternative is a Soft Remain.

    Access to the EU single market (the market of the remaining 27 states of the EU) will be a decision made by the EU during the negotiations. If there is no access then it will be an EU decision not a UK decision. That is the Hard Brexit. The follow on is that the EU should not be given access to the UK single market.

    My definitions are:
    A Hard Brexit is one where the EU denies the UK access to the EU single market.
    A Soft Brexit is one where the UK leaves the EU and has access to the EU single market, access without any political interference.
    A Soft Remain is one where the EU permits access to the EU single market and has some form of control over British Policies.

    The ‘verb’ in Soft Brexit and Hard Brexit is Brexit (British Exit). British Exit is leaving the EU’s political, fiscal and legal controls. Leave does not mean stopping co-operation with the EU in non-political, non-fiscal and non-legal policies.

  5. By not standing candidates in every branch, it offers a great opportunity for branches to support each other, and for inter-branch networking.

    Usually we are kept in our silos. Maybe those at the top like it arranged that way. The grassroots might have too many radical ideas (such as opposing non-stun religious abattoirs), and this may be contrary to the wishes of those at the top, who are too much swayed by religious lobbyists.

    It is curious that political parties are not very democratic internally. Someone mentioned to me that Conservative HQ demands they have a candidate in every seat, even if by cooperatively withdrawing, a better result could be obtained overall.

  6. My letter to the Western Daily Press:

    Tactical withdrawal

    This General Election is quite unlike any that I have experienced in my voting lifetime. To a large extent it is effectively a second referendum on the EU, and the voters recognise this fact, and are switching to support the Conservatives. They are switching away from the anti-democratic Lib Dems and the chaotic Labour Party.
    I am delighted to see that UKIP is putting Country before Party, to allow the Prime Minister to have the strongest possible negotiating hand. Labour seems to have no clue whatever regarding negotiation tactics – those on the opposing side need to believe that you are willing to walk away if an adequate deal is not achieved. The Labour approach would allow the EU to blackmail us into accepting a very poor deal.
    It would make no sense for UKIP to stand against staunch Brexiteers such as Jacob Rees-Mogg. Also in the constituencies where the Lib Dems threaten to unseat a Conservative then this hopefully can be prevented by UKIP not standing. Thankfully wiser and older heads have prevailed over the exuberance of youth. Maybe also the younger generation is less resilient to receiving abuse.
    Since UKIP is putting Country before Party by deliberately not standing everywhere it is inevitable that the national poll percentage for UKIP becomes small. However the national poll is an average figure and takes no account of local conditions. There are some winnable seats in our region. I am helping the UKIP campaign in Bristol South in support of Ian Kealey, and it feels really positive. The Labour MP has no faith in her leader, and the referendum last year has shaken voters out of their habitual voting patterns. It could throw up a surprise!

    • I wholeheartedly agree, Hugo, about not standing against staunch Brexiteers like Jacob Rees Mogg. But I think UKIP should stand against Tories who campaigned for Remain in the EU Referendum campaign.

      • It is too late now as the candidates have all been declared. However the test should have been: if a Conservative MP will write a declaration that they support Brexit now, then that would be an indication to help decide whether to stand against them or not. Irrespective of how they campaigned a year ago.

        I have obtained such a declaration from my MP, and so am reassured to be standing aside for him.

        I did suggest that there is this proviso in my article:
        “With the proviso of course that the candidate being supported is in favour of Brexit, or is at lest supportive of the Prime Minister even if they originally campaigned on the Remain side. The Conservative manifesto 2015 clearly states that the Conservatives will honour the referendum results, whichever way it goes.”
        http://www.ukipdaily.com/labour-seats-taking/

        • Hugo, I agree with you on most things, but I have to say that a Tory being supportive of Theresa May signifies nothing. You obviously believe that she intends to deliver the Brexit we voted for, which I don’t. In fact I think we are going to be well and truly shafted into a ‘transition period’ in order to take her past the next election with all the Tories on board, except possibly the few true Tory Brexiteers who will be unhappy but still there.

          I believe we are going to be treated two almost two years of theatrical ‘bloody difficult woman’ up against ‘bloody difficult’ Macron, Globalists both, play acting their hearts out. Ken Clarke is no fool, he intended, as the most passionate European Tory Bilderberger of the lot, that his remark would be widely reported, and indeed it has been the only thing May has campaigned on – as intended.
          She has done nothing, said nothing, of any substance, that ties her to actually delivering anything.

          At least her non-delivery means that UKIP might get a credible Policy Platform out in time for the next election!! Seriously, it means post GE, whatever happens, we need to clear out the UKIP swamp, get a good team and Leader in place and organize NOW for 2021 (unless the EU implodes first).

  7. I can’t wait for the “No Deal” button to be pressed but, sadly, we will have seen billions of our money squandered in futile attempts at “negotiation”.

    I wonder if UKIP were to have pressing that button as its main policy would it get some representation in parliament? Obviously it is too much to hope for a significant number of MPs but a few “troublemakers” in parliament would be useful.

  8. I think the policy is basically one in one out. Previously was a moratorium for five years, which considering the current chaos of too many people and not enough housing, effect on our culture etc made more sense to me

    • Sorry this should have been a reply to Maximus

      • Think I’d better go to bed. Even managed to post this on the wrong article

        • John,
          I`m pleased you are a fellow “Night Owl” I probably didn`t see your comment because it would have still awaited moderation, but even if it is posted in the wrong thread it does give me an opportunity to agree with you.
          The entire reason for the great debate on immigration has, seemingly, been allowed to lapse and as you point out the sheer effect of the country being FULL UP
          “current chaos, too many people, not enough housing, effect on our culture etc…..”

          In my opinion, the whole tendency of the Referendum shifted when almost at the end of the campaign the debate shifted to immigration and the all round affects and effects of creation of the equivalent ofmore cities the size of Coventry and Leicester, every year, requiring the provision of all the structures and services common to them, PLUS the realisation that for the years of” swamp nett immigration”, no real additional financial provision had been allocated and a policy of “STRETCH” was and still is being followed.
          Along with Brown`s stupid policy that it is “good to borrow to invest”, the facile cry that “immigration is fine because they contribute to the economy”.
          Perhaps they do (a bit) but probably not when you look at the hidden costs to services and collateral damage to culture.

      • Thanks John. I noticed your reply. That looks like a softening from a moratorium. So UKIP are not taking this issue seriously enough and not differentiating themselves from the Tories.

    • Unfortunately I don’t think UKIP’s official policy has EVER been ‘ a complete moratorium on all new immigration for settlement for five years ‘.

      That is one of ( the main actually ) policies I tried to stand on in the last NEC elections ( but the pamphlet which came out from Head Office omitted my website address from my printed blurb ).

      It is the only immigration policy which makes sense and is defensible intellectually and morally.
      [ YES I believe it is immoral for our Government and MPs to encourage, by inaction, continued mass immigration into a country which is already overcrowded and suffering probably the worst housing crisis in Europe.]

      Unfortunately a complete Moratorium for five years is not our policy.
      A policy which says ‘ If 200,000 Britons leave then we can accept 200,000 new immigrants ‘ is about as mad as a box of frogs as you can imagine.
      It is intellectually incoherent.
      FIRST of all, if we were to have zero ( or almost ) new immigration for five years whilst a million, say, Britons left, then it would be some modest help in solving the housing crisis and the utter misery it causes.
      SECONDLY: The people leaving, by and large, are people with qualifications and attractive work skills ~people we need. Quite a few, I imagine ( and in some cases I know to be the case ) are leaving because they perceive the country to be finished…..on a slow motion death march to extinction as a coherent cultural and political identity. Put shortly because they see that England ( like Europe more generally ) is committing cultural and societal suicide.
      By contrast, the people coming in ( and this has been the case for the six million or so who have arrived over the last 20 years ) are people seeking low wage jobs supported by taxpayer funded benefits ( called ‘Tax Credits’ but they are, in fact, benefits ). The only thing they contribute to the country is negative: they consume benefits taking money out of the economy; they inevitably enter the housing market on the demand side pushing up prices way beyond affordability; and they take entry level jobs which could have been filled by indigenous youngsters who instead prefer to remain on the dole / in the black economy.
      The whole damn thing has been a total disaster for the country with no redeeming features whatsoever. ( No, I don’t consider Polish language newspapers on sale in Sainsbury to be cultural enrichment .)
      So even UKIP, in 2017, is not offering a sensible immigration policy, let alone something distinctive from Mrs May’s policies.

      • Rhys. You make a persuasive case. This is the leadership we need. Once the GE out of the way we need to work towards building grassroots support for a complete moratorium on immigration. To influence the leadership. To support any candidate standing for the leadership on this policy.

        • ‘A Complete Moratorium on all New Immigration for five years’ is an ESSENTIAL policy for UKIP.
          It may not be, of itself, SUFFICIENT, to offer the public ( I would minor on much tougher criminal justice policies ~for example minimum 20 years to be served if convicted for murder ) but it is certainly essential.
          That plus No Deal Brexit and complete recovery of our sovereign rights to a 200 mile EEZ in OUR waters.
          Unfortunately I have banged on with these policies on this Forum for well over a year and couldn’t even come near getting elected to the NEC, let alone the Leadership !

  9. I read on Twitter that UKIP is standing against Peter Bone! As a UKIP member I find this extremely embarrassing – no candidate should have accepted this post, even if the local branch wanted someone to stand.

    • “Embarrassing”? Downright stupid in my view but typical of what we have come to expect from the inept (I’m being polite) Ukip leadership.

    • Our branch chairman wanted to stand a candidate against Jacob Rees-Mogg!

      Thankfully this stupidity has been halted, not without a great deal of ill feeling though.

      • Hugo, I wondered what had happened about that. Thank goodness someone or some people still had a few functioning neural synapses!

    • For crying out loud!! Bone is a Brexiteer of such long standing that it is the heighth of bad manners to attempt to dilute his vote. I hope his majority is unassailable by Fib Dems and Labour. If it is, what’s the point of UKIP wasting resources?

  10. UKIP should not talk about hard or soft Brexit. The emphatic cause is “REAL Brexit”. This means taking control of all that is ours. Keep repeating that phrase.

  11. It may be that the PM has various Plans B,C, D up her sleeve, but she won’t reveal them to anyone outside the inner circle unless necessary. The Barniers and Junckers of the EU are sly, sneaky, underhand and untrustworthy, the kind you wouldn’t want to invite to dinner if you could help it, so why would she signal any of her real intentions to them in advance?
    The PM has stood firm in the face of constant howls, squeals and sobs of protest from inside and outside Parliament, and from the EU about those poor, distressed EU nationals who absolutely must be reassured without delay that they will get all the rights they are hoping for – and blow the Brits abroad who are hoping for a similar reassurance from the EU. The Brits can just twist in the wind as far as those libtards, leftards, SNiPers, lords, ladies, media johnnies and Gina the queen of mean Miller are concerned. May has re-stated scores of times that no reassurance for EU nationals is forthcoming until the British expats get the same.
    This gives me hope that May will hang tough on other issues and let the EU racketeers and EUphiles keep barking threats while she prepares her moves.

    I’m not a Theresa fan, but as she’s our only hope at the moment, it’s better to hope for the best rather than indulge in the miseries.

  12. All true but missing the biggest point of all. Which has be raised on this site repeatedly.

    Repeal the Act that took us IN and we are OUT (European Communities Act 1972)

    It puts EU law – now and in the future – over Uk law.

    Reverse that, parliament in charge.

    MAY would be on the front foot with that repealed. But she doesn’t want it. Ask yourself why?

    And try to get that across to every Tory believing May is the next Maggie.

    This ukip-Tory standing in Barrow & Furness.
    And the ECA 1972 is the silver bullet if ukip is quick enough to fire it.

    IMHO. Check Gerard Batten

    • What happened to the ‘Great Repeal Act’ which was supposed to include repeal of ECA1972 as I recall? Or maybe it was wishful thinking on my part?

      • We need to be very very careful about the ‘Great Repeal Act’.
        If it essentially states ‘all that law which till this point was law by virtue of E.U. laws and treaties hereby ( or ‘on the date that the UK leaves the EU ‘) becomes enacted as UK law by virtue of this Act of Parliament’ then that would, for example, enshrine the Common Fisheries Policy as suddenly part of UK law needing a new Act of Parliament ( with all the opportunities that would entail for Remainers to obstruct ) to repeal, would it not ?
        That would mean that the UK Parliament hands over to the EU all those Northern Irish, Scottish, Welsh and English fish, yeah even unto the 200 mile Exclusive Economic Zone limit. And we wouldn’t want that, would we ? Not that we hear anyone in UKIP banging on about this, as far as I can tell.

  13. Well there are two outcomes: the Tories do a good job or they mess up the greatest opportunity in history. To encourage the former and prevent the latter, UKIP need to hang over the Tories like the Sword of Damocles.

  14. Roger, the reason that Pushing the No Deal Button Disaster thing is being touted is, I believe, because everything including a sham ‘Titanic Battle’ between the (sham) Bloody difficult Woman and Macron Merkel et al is setting us up for a ‘transition’ period that will take May past the next election still bravely battling for Britain. It’s the only way she can keep the Tories in power without delivering a true and meaningful Brexit, which I don’t believe she intends to do.

    • Dee, I agree; we are being set up to fail. The globalists have their tentacles everywhere so are able to get away with any measure necessary to fulfill their dreams including “removal” of those who will not dance to their tune. I don’t trust May but, even if she were sincere, who knows what pressures will be brought to bear?

      • …..and how will we ever know Jack?., we`ll be shafted either way.

        There`s one thought I am hanging on to. To the MSM, all the other failed political parties and many of the public – May has absorbed UKIP ; most of our policies, most of our voters from other parties and quite a few of our members into the bargain and thus whatever 17.4 million of us thought we were voting for anyway. we have in some way absorbed her, as somebody pointed out in Radio Any Answers last week; Nigel set out to reverse take over the Conservative party – the writer thought he had succeeded.
        I believe if she tries or is forced to sell us short, she would lose the 2022 GE.
        I think we have her by the short and curleys and she would press the button or card marked “Go immediately to GO and collect……..(all the brickbats in the world but she would be safe….except for…….?)

        For god`s sake let`s stop alienating her, first rule “keep your enemies and friends close to you”

  15. The key issue about what May will do is immigration. This threatens our existence. Ups and downs of the economy do not. It’s difficult to have any confidence when she’s issuing the under 100,000 line yet again having lied for years is it not?

    Big article in the Standard about the ‘threat’ to curry shops from restricting immigration. No chefs! So apparently Indians already here are incapable of learning to cook curry? Insulting really. How do they do it at home? Live on takeaways?

    There will be massive dollops more of this false Cassandra lark about immigration. Will May resist?

    • I agree this is the key issue. The voters are ready and waiting for a mainstream party to tackle this issue. UKIPs immigration policy does not seem to have been announced yet.

      • Maybe one day, Maximus….

        • Dee. Us in the grass roots can get organised and make our voice heard. After the GE I hope to get in contact with some of the contributors on here and discuss what we can do.

          • Great, Maximus – it must happen. UKIP may be down and mostly out for now, but we will be desperately needed in 2022 and we must have UKIP fully able to meet the challenge – which means getting rid of current Leader and Chairman at the very least.

      • Do they have one aside from the ineffective points system previously suggested?

    • Thoroughly agree, Mike, that the key issue is immigration. As you say, ” .. (t)his threatens our existence. Ups and downs of the the economy do not.”

      Well said.

    • No she won’t ( resist).
      It is terribly sad that UKIP does not have a leadership which believes in and proclaims the urgent necessity for a total Moratorium on ALL new immigration for settlement for a five year duration.
      Such a policy is intellectually coherent, distinctive from that of all other parties, and would be popular particularly amongst former Labour voters now heading for the Cons ( or abstention ) as the least bad of a bad bunch.
      Establishing a local government army of Clitoris Inspectors is no substitute for such a policy.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*