Latest from UKIP Daily

UKIP Will Not Die, But Thrive, if it Embraces Economic Patriotism

On that warm summer’s day in June 2016, as we waited up all night in nervous anticipation of the Brexit referendum results, we were thrilled to hear David Dimbleby awkwardly state we’d triumphed. However, I was surprised to hear supposedly ardent Brexit activists tell me they had left UKIP. The battle may have been won, but the culture war most certainly has not.

Even the leaders of two major Brexit groups expressed to me that Theresa May would deliver. However, it is absolute folly to presume a politician will keep their word, especially an empty platitude such as “Brexit means Brexit” uttered from the lips of a Remain activist, and likely coined by a spin-doctor. The woman is a globalist, a member of the “Wets”; the social democrat bloc within the Tories.

Moreover, UKIP is not merely a Brexit party. It has a full manifesto, covering a range of topics, and not only the question of EU membership. UKIP members are mostly a mixture of Old Labour, neo-liberals, and Burkean conservatives. In an effort to bring all of these groups together behind an ideology beyond Brexit, there were attempts by Patrick O’Flynn and Suzanne Evans for some shift to the centre, rather in the style of the Tory Reformists, to unite “blue” and “red”. This is certainly not an election-winner, with the Conservatives already firmly nestled in that position of social democracy, and they already face a tenacious challenge from the LibDems, and even the Blairite bloc within Labour.

Rather, what brought together the working class and the aristocrat behind the UKIP banner is exactly the unifying factor expressed by Disraeli in his famous Crystal Palace speech of 1872, or in modern-day America, the MAGA campaign of Trump: ardent patriotism – as the party logo now rightly states, UKIP must be the voice of the nation. At the last UKIP leadership hustings, most of the candidates failed to promote the raison d’etre for the party, in the way it was so well expressed in the USA by Trump, or in France by Le Pen.

The postmodernist establishment quelled the rising populist force by bogging it down in debates over internal party structure. I was aghast as John Rees-Evans’s team declared at hustings that “direct democracy” would mean that the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), the brain of the Tory party, would present policies that the party members would choose between – seemingly another failed, but ingenious Tufton Street attempt at a UKIP takeover.

Aidan Powlesland presented interstellar travel, but the merits of such aside, I do not believe this is of concern to many voters. Let’s focus on the real reason we voted for Brexit. While talk of sovereignty has weight, certainly, and it is given the most focus, because it is seen as acceptable, the real reason most people backed Brexit was frustration with open borders and multiculturalism.

The main point UKIP must stand on, and not be afraid to do so, despite the cries of from the lefty media and globalist think tanks, is that unskilled migration has driven down wages. This is not racist: it is mathematics; science; fact. This is the ‘supply:demand ratio’ of business theory. If we already have persons unemployed, bringing in more workers will only increase competition and drive down wages (creating quick profits for the likes of Richard Branson).

Moreover, one of the biggest issues affecting the working class that is overlooked, would be the lack of sensible restrictions on imports of goods. Britain is run by slick careerists, a London-centric metropolitan elite; stabbing backs, while sporting black bow-ties at Westminster drinks functions, who care only for one thing: power. The British succeeded in our hard struggle for centuries to gain fair wages, fair hours, and a safe workplace. Hence, the greedy liberal elite closed factories and mines, opting for cheaper imports from China and India, where people are worked like slaves. They sacrifice their British countrymen, their family, their nation for the great sin of a quick profit, pure greed, as was expressed by the words from a speech of Disraeli, in the House of Commons on the 15th of May 1846 (paraphrased):

“It is a question of displacing the labour of England that produces [steel], in order, on an extensive and even universal scale, to permit the entrance into this country of [Chinese steel] produced by foreign labour. Will that displaced [British worker] find new employment?”

In the spirit of Trump, UKIP can harness great support from both the aristocrat and the working class. If it is to stand truly for the nation, it must brace the chorus of execration from Tufton Street, and make a bold call for economic patriotism. While I am often told that Anne-Marie Waters is the voice of nationalism, I have not heard her express this concept. Furthermore, with negative liberty so enshrined into the British way of life, with concepts such as freedom of religion, even most UKIP members did not embrace an “anti-Islam” message, as the leadership election results showed.

I believe the general public would be more drawn to a call for, if I am to expand on a phrase used often by Henry Bolton, “rule of law”, which fits well with the rather neo-liberal, if not Burkean, or paleo-conservative, patriotic, strong voice that Nigel Farage expressed. UKIP will have a unique position none of the main parties offer if it is to focus on enforcing already existing laws against certain horrific acts, such as female genital mutilation (FGM), and there we come to the real problem: special interest groups influencing the CPS.

It is no surprise that David Kurten was backed by Leave.EU, Make Britain Great Again and Paul Joseph Watson of InfoWars, because he challenged a major threat to the nation: cultural Marxism, or in plain English, the political correctness which Brussels promulgates. The system has become overrun by those who Churchill warned of. The Frankfurt School set out on a plan to eradicate British/American culture, because the notion of “an Englishman’s home is his castle” does not allow for the absolute collectivism that communism so requires. Hence, the institution of family has been targeted by militant feminism, the church attacked, and the nation-state demonised as a concept only embraced supposedly by uneducated simpletons and dinosaurs.

We face nonsense, such as the Tory government requiring state departments to stop using male and female pronouns, in case such offend. A filthy, postmodernist, globalist alliance of neo-liberals, “open borders” libertarians, and social democrats dominates the 1922 Committee, and so firmly holds back traditional patriotic conservatives, while pushing Social Justice Warrior anti-science on gender, that a vote for Tories merely delays, rather than stops the advance of cultural Marxism (followed by a descent into abyss of Islamofascism.)

It is therefore false to say UKIP has no purpose remaining in politics. Rather, it can stand out as a truly unique force if it will promote tradition over hedonism; nation over multiculturalism; family over state.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
About Luke Nash-Jones (2 Articles)
I am the Editor-in-Chief of MBGA News

22 Comments on UKIP Will Not Die, But Thrive, if it Embraces Economic Patriotism

  1. Sic(k), transit(van), glory(hole)

    My interpretation of the recent past and I hope not true; present day management and infrastructure of UKIP. Sick (as in sick), requires wrapping up in bin bags and transporting (in a transit van, of course) to the nearest glory hole (used to refer to that dark space under the stairs, but any tip or cowp (Scottish tip) will do nicely).

    Irrespective of all the theories of a certain faith`s, evacuation, evaporation or even evisceration, I believe we now have the official UKIP “take” on the situation.

    According to what Pokémon writes in Independence:-
    “It was clear that there were attempts being made to tear the heart out of UKIP, so it could be tossed to people who didn`t know or understand the journey we had been on together. Our party was seen as a vehicle that could be used to deliver a single, simplistic agenda.
    Whilst the agenda itself had some merits, the calibre of the people driving it left a lot to be desired…………”
    So there you have it, job done, all now nicely tidied up and these little bits of local difficulty all brushed under the carpet.

    Glad to hear there was “some merit” in our efforts, not to tear the heart out of the party, but to hold it to account for the ineptitude of not seizing the moment to capitalise on primarily “OUR” (UKIP`s) victory of 23rd June 2016 – declared by Nigel as Independence Day.
    It wasn`t the grass roots who ignored the opportunity to fill a political vacuum, but the traitorous head office, NEC and top echelon who ignored their electorate and opted for fratricide.

    If holding this lot to account constitutes tearing the heart out of the party, it`s only what the party requires – it does require a radical heart transplant.
    Whether Henry is capable of root and branch reform, I doubt if he can get his hands on the levers of power, so perhaps I must agree with Russell Hicks
    posting below.

  2. UKIP most definitely has a purpose but that’s as obvious as saying plants need water. The problem is that UKIP still doesn’t have a leader. Bolton is useless and clueless.

  3. It’s true that 70% of members voted for someone radical, with 30% for establishment, but I guess it’s the fault of the radical candidates that they failed to form an alliance and win. Oh, the pettiness of ego.

    Re: Trump, the ex-Tory more-establishment-than-the-establishment rump of UKIP fund him distasteful, although even Nuttall derided him. Banks has been suggesting in recent days that he will launch his populist party on Trump lines so unless UKIP move quickly another open goal will be missed.

    • Was not egos that was stopping alliance. Was AMW saying wanted deport Muslims.

      “ex-Tory” Farage has been to Trump’s HQ in the USA, and hardly finds him “distasteful”. There is no evidence that kippers that was Tory or Labour or nothing hate Trump. We is all kipper. Get over it.

      • Actually Nuttall said he didn’t like him and wouldn’t vote for him, and HB hasn’t said anything positive, only criticised Trump for his retweets. Farage has clearly distanced himself from UKIP. So of the 2 UKIP leaders of the Trump era, neither have embraced him or his message.

        Plus excluding AMW, the other 3 radical candidates could have allied directly, e.g. DK and JRE, or DK and PW, etc. She was not the only reason.

      • “Was AMW saying [she] wanted [to] deport Muslims.”

        No, she didn’t say that, Marty. You are another person who is misrepresenting her policies.

  4. UKIP totally fell by the wayside post 23/6/16. Much criticism has been levelled at the government of the day for failing to prepare for a leave result in its arrogance but we made the same stupid mistake.
    Independence offers so much in the way of economic opportunity, a healthy opposition – we were the latter but definitely not the former- would have had the agenda at least drafted so we could kick straight in and keep calling the shots. To keep our supporters on board we needed more than border control, we needed the optimistic vision the other parties could not and would not be offering. Sorry folks D- there, utter fail.
    At our September branch meeting I asked if anyone was interested in submitting a motion to conference – we had two days before the deadline. One member jumped up “root and branch reform of taxation”, he was quickly backed by two other members and the wording thrashed out. This motion was duly debated and voted through. After Brown’s extensive tax convolutions and extensions, after years of the follies of VAT ( the stupid merry go round if you trade business2bisiness, the incentive to tradesmen NOT to go over the threshold & have to charge 20% more & idiocies like the tampon tax) we can do it! But only if we have true Brexit. It’s time for UKIP to lead on sound economic policy and we could get back our support especially after Heseltine’s bombshell.

  5. Luke Nash-Jones: “UKIP…must… make a bold call for economic patriotism. While I am often told that Anne-Marie Waters is the voice of nationalism, I have not heard her express this concept.”

    Anne Marie Waters’ economic manifesto during her UKIP leadership campaign, p3: “Protect and Encourage British Industry. I would like to see a very liberal, low tax, enterprise economy internally, while allowing tariffs and protection externally. Once out of the EU, we would be free to raise tariffs to encourage our own business and put Britain first all the time. We would not tender abroad for government contracts. I would like an end to free-for-all globalisation and have a specific policy of putting everything British first.”

    So AMW DID express the concept of economic nationalism, and as Sean says below, the candidates who were prepared to speak plainly about Islam DID together win twice as many votes as the candidates who wouldn’t.

    • Anne stood on a platform of deporting Muslims. She didnt ‘win twice as many votes as the candidates who wouldn’t.’ Only she was a candidate who wanted that. The economic things were thrown in quick by someone else who wrote up her manifesto.

      • Bill please give us the quote from AMW where she spelled out a policy of kicking mossies out the country.

        • Live at the Apollo, recently on BBC with Romesh Ranganathan, did a ‘comedic’ skit against UKIP, with the punchline being that UKIP policy is to deport immigrants. Personally I am not acquainted with the “deport immigrants” part of any recent UKIP manifesto. But then, many of the BBC Apollo comedians do what seems an obligatory mini lecture on the benefits of open border – multicultural-multifaith-pc-UK during their routines. I guess its a way of injecting a booster of tolerance into what is mostly younger audiences. If the ‘comedians’ give UKIP or Nigel Farage a quick bash, even better. It is so regular that its possibly written into their contracts, or worse, unwritten into their BBC contracts.

          There is probably a technical term for associating an oppositional political group with a false policy then earnestly make fun or rebut that false policy. It seems to work well in the UK Westminster political landscape of chronically accusing UKIP supporters of being anti-immigrant anti-refugee when all UKIP is asking for, is some sanity with border controls.
          I remember the earlier days of UKIP, as no doubt many others on here do as well, when immigration was not a major policy. Imperial weights-measures, shopkeepers and keeping the pound ?

          • I guess they were referring to JREs incredibly ill-thought through plan to offer corner shop owners money to leave the UK. Not UKIP policy of course, but so stupid to raise this.

          • Helpful point Graham thanks,

            In future, if I make further posts, they will be with this modified name Chris-

      • “Anne stood on a platform of deporting Muslims.” No she didn’t. That’s untrue.

        I didn’t say she personally won twice as many votes as the candidates who wouldn’t speak about plainly about Islam. Readers can see above that I didn’t say that.

        “The economic things were thrown in quick by someone else who wrote up her manifesto.” She had an entire separate economic manifesto from her main manifesto. Indeed she was the only candidate who published any manifesto. Even if she didn’t write every word, she agreed with it all and put it on her web site. It was HER economic manifesto, not anybody else’s.

        Your tactics are familiar to me, Bill. You are using exactly the same tactics of misrepresenting AMW’s position into something unreasonable, then ‘refuting’ that imaginary position instead of what she actually said, as the UKIP leadership and other candidates used against her. The same tactics that UKIP’s enemies have used against us for years. You should be ashamed of yourself.

  6. ‘The postmodernist establishment quelled the rising populist force by bogging it down in debates over internal party structure. I was aghast as John Rees-Evans’s team declared at hustings that “direct democracy” would mean that the Institute of Economic Affairs (IEA), the brain of the Tory party, would present policies that the party members would choose between – seemingly another failed, but ingenious Tufton Street attempt at a UKIP takeover.’

    Eh? Perhaps you could clarify exactly where you got that nonsense from Luke.

  7. A positive, useful article.

    As people here understand, I am no expert on UKIP recent history where seemingly UKIP went a bit off course. The presenting symptom was the increased tensions between Nigel Farage and UKIP during the past couple of years or so. Possibly those tensions were off putting for some UKIP supporters. It led to doubts that possibly external forces were internally undermining UKIP at its core. The activities of D Carswell and others did not always add to UKIP cohesion. For some Nigel Farage supporters, this turbulence, made UKIP less attractive.

    However UKIP is where it is. It is a new era. (Am unclear why UKIP would adopt a new logo, noticeably heading Henry Bolton’s xmas address, which is already an established feature of another political group’s imagery )

    Am surprised Luke Nash-Jones is not encouraging the “trident” party over UKIP. Possibly he realises, that out there in the land of the public who mostly vote for the triopoly, that steady, sober Henry Bolton’s UKIP party will be more attractive and within the fatter part of the bell curve.

    UKIP once again has to re-energise to attract all the voters who feel distrustful of the usual three parties. Hopefully UKIP is now set to make some electoral headway.

    I may be wrong but the former chair of the 1922 committee Lord Spicer is the independent chair of the Parliamentary and political service section of the Honours system which may have had a hand in putting forward N Clegg for knighthood. A clear signal of which way the system leans in terms of EU, and border controls. I agree with Nash Luke-Jones that the conservative party, based on its performance over past decades does not offer the UK any meaningful route away from its deepening crisis.

    Am pretty sure I understood why I voted for Leave.

  8. I totally agree with the view that no political party can be successful focusing on only one issue. I think that Luke Nash-Jones is right by saying UKIP can (and in fact should) claim huge support by striking a chord with millions of people in this Country, by standing for tradition, nation and family. However it is still not clear if Henry Bolton is the man to lead UKIP on such a crusade against the cultural Marxism, that is so prevalent today. I found HB’s Christmas message, where he seemed to be controlling his own auto cue, in a deserted park at the dead of night, to be rather weird to be honest. For all AMW can be accused of being fixated with the Islamification of Europe and the U.K., she is passionate about mass immigration into our Continent and she shows that passion by delivering evidence of the problems that it brings. People know that she means what she says and that she is prepared to put her head above the parapit. There is indeed a huge number of people in this Country, people who have no doubt voted in the past for the other 3 main parties, who would now vote in great numbers for a party that stood for tradition, nation and family. However in this day and age, when anyone with views resembling those three virtues, are vilified by the cultural Marxists, as being racist and xenophobic, people will need to be inspired to believe in that party. Inspired to join the crusade.

    • I also found it quite bizarre, seemed to me like a last-minute job. His objectives for post-Brexit are motherhood ‘hope, security’ but he never seems to explain HOW these things will be achieved. Until he does so I can’t support him as I simply don’t know what he stands for.

  9. Luke I do watch your videos on YouTube and I am a fan but I have to take issue with the statement “even most UKIP members did not embrace an “anti-Islam” message, as the leadership election results showed.” Well actually they did.

    It was Graham on here that did the maths and pointed out that David Kurten, John Rees-Evans and Anne Marie Waters, who are all very much anti-Islam, their votes combined clearly made up the majority by 2 to 1. The least anti-Islam was Henry Bolton.

    So you’re just plain wrong.

    • Rubbish. Kurten and JRE were not saying to deport Muslims. She did not win.

      • I said anti-Islam not deport Muslims. But to be honest I don’t honestly see any other way the UK will survive when for under 16s the Muslim population is 15% and rising rapidly. Let’s see how Austria and the Netherlands deal with their Muslim population which percentage wise is larger than ours.

    • you should add Peter Whittle to that list. David Kurten is strident, JRE actually has a venture trying to convert muslims to christianity ( and AMW – nuff’ said. So 4 of the other main candidates were anti-islam, but all were too short-sighted to see the benefits of cooperation, and for this they should hang their heads in shame.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.