Latest from UKIP Daily

Whither UKIP?

Saturday’s Daily Telegraph editorial nails the point perfectly – once out of the EU, Britain needs to roll back the creeping tide which is undermining our freedom and democracy. The tide that arguably began incoming in 1972 and accelerated under Tony Blair through David Cameron. The list is long but the underlying point simple – the State has increasingly taken upon itself the authority to right all the (perceived or real) wrongs of the nation (even of the world!) and to force its solutions upon us, heedless of the costs, the practicalities, and careless of the need for the checks and balances vital to protect the citizen from over-mighty authority.

Surely this is exactly the theme that differentiates UKIP from the other political parties?

The repeal of the 1972 European Communities Act is simply the necessary precursor to this ambition, the first battle in the war that must now be fought. In the Referendum result we have only achieved the tactical success required (but not sufficient) to enable us to win that first battle.

Leaving the EU aside, some of these attacks on our freedom may be readily listed:

  1. The increasing use of secret courts where justice cannot be seen to be done – indeed, given that all the participants are human, and in many instances the cases involve a department of (local) government versus a family or individual, we must assume that miscarriages of justice are taking place. I note that the number of children being taken into care is reported as being at an all-time high – this seems to be a dreadful situation, but we can only guess at the truth.
  2. The deliberate attempt to muzzle the freedom of the press via the Leveson inquiry (note that it’s not too late to respond to the Government’s consultation at Freethepress).
  3. The naked attack on our money, whereby the target for inflation is 2%, thus (if met) guaranteeing that our savings are whittled away. Likewise the desperate (and so far futile) attempts to achieve inflation through QE, which has ensured derisory rates of interest on savings and a distorted investment market.
  4. The fear of the term “racist” causing crimes within immigrant communities (eg: FGM, forced marriage, sexual abuse) to be swept under the carpet. The associated concept of “institutional racism”, used to put law-enforcement agencies on the back foot. Likewise the concept of “racial aggravation” used to demonise a criminal and punish the motivation as well as the crime. Is racial motivation really any worse than any other kind? Hitherto we had drawn a line between criminalising actions and criminalising thoughts inclinations or beliefs, thus we encouraged free speech and freedom of religion and criminalised only incitement and criminal action – we need to get back to that.
  5. The unnecessary extension of postal voting to enable anyone to get one, thus removing defences against coercion and vote-rigging.
  6. The lazy assumption commonplace in politics that improvement can be guaranteed only by spending more money (foreign aid, welfare, NHS, defence etc). When will we insist that the focus moves to what we get for the money? Until then, money spent translates into money down the drain; money not spent translates to impaired services.
  7. The drive to make government ever bigger and more costly, exemplified by (a) devolution (why have two parliaments when we can have four, or with luck five?), (b) the ever-increasing complexity of our tax and Planning systems, (c) the growing plethora of Quangos and Regulators.
  8. The trend towards trying to commit future Parliaments to current policy by enshrining it in law (e.g.: foreign aid). No parliament may bind its successor and that should be it – to do otherwise is to attempt to suspend the will of the people.
  9. The commitment to major agendas (e.g.: “climate change”, HS2, Hinkley Point, foreign aid, NHS reorganisation(s)) which will span several parliaments, will be supremely costly, but which have neither popular mandate nor reasonable chance of success – this is an affront to our collective freedom to spend our taxes as we choose. Where a project will span several parliaments, major spending policies should be put to the nation in a referendum before being given the go-ahead. They should be authorised subject to a specified ceiling on cost overrun that would trigger cancellation.
  10. The perverse selective cutting of expenditure for vital services (e.g.: police, legal aid, prisons, defence) whilst splurging tax receipts and borrowed money (future tax receipts) on (9) above.
  11. The use of elevation to the House of Lords as a reward for “cronies”. The Lords has a long and illustrious history but has been traduced by “cronyism” and the spill-over of party politics (and politicians) from the lower house. It needs sensitive reform to restore its function as a repository of wisdom and a respected apolitical revising chamber of historic grandeur. It should be dedicated to ensuring that laws that reach the statute book are just, workable, and in keeping with our freedoms.
  12. The extradition of our citizens to other jurisdictions (currently to the EU and the USA) without the need to demonstrate a prima facie case to answer.

I’ve taken up enough space – one can no doubt think of more. The key principles to be reasserted may be summarised:

  • Freedom of choice, movement, expression, and association.
  • Freedom from excessive taxation and other costs mandated by government.
  • Accountability of Parliament to the People through fair elections.
  • Democratic control over spending priorities and mega projects which span more than one parliament.
  • The presumption of innocence until proven guilty, reinstatement of “habeas corpus”, justice to be seen to be done.
  • Justice blind to race religion colour class condition sentiment and supposition and alive only to firm evidence, heard in open court. Life-changing cases (heavy sentences, family break-up, care orders etc) to be heard by a jury.
  • Oh, and especially: “less is more”.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email
About Jim Makin (10 Articles)
Retired after a working life spent in IT (manufacturing systems) UKIP member since 2006 First by-election Wythenshawe and Sale Active member of UKIP East Hampshire Branch

24 Comments on Whither UKIP?

  1. Great article saying it just as it is… If UKIP can present this vision for Britain and show the hypocrisy and falsehoods that have been purveyed by the other parties; can present a positive, strong and hopeful message that cuts through the meaningless ideological and PC gloss that has infested public life for so long, I feel sure it can win massive support.

  2. Jim,

    A truly excellent article; thank you. The big question of course is how we can force change on UKIP the leadership of which seems unwilling to rise to the challenge with the (radical?) policies which are necessary to save our country.

    • Thinnish Free-Thinker // January 11, 2017 at 9:58 am // Reply


      The current UKIP leadership are not really interested in policies, radical or otherwise, that’s a few levels of intellectual activity above their preferred focus of operation, which appears to be maintenance of their income (£78k basic + £98k for ‘subsistence’ and ‘office costs’ for starters) and infighting in a small political party of dwindling membership (47,000 in May 2015; 39,000 in September 2016; 32,757 in November 2016).

      But fear not. The current leader has political and personal preferences which will appeal to a wide range of voters: repeal of The Hunting Act 2004; telling people what to do with their bodies (severe restrictions on abortion); membership of the Roman Catholic Church (worshippers dwindling in the UK until, interestingly, bolstered by an influx of immigrants from eastern Europe and Africa).

      All of these will go down a bomb, won’t they, especially with all those traditional Labour voters in the North, whose heads have to be turned overnight? Overcoming a 10,000+ Labour majority in some constituencies — with inclinations like the above, couldn’t be easier!

      • TFT.

        I am presuming all that you point out is tongue in cheek? it is about time that apart from a few of our MEP’s who are speaking out that the rest earn their pennies worth as well, they have been there long enough to pull their fingers out now.

        Them and our leaders are all we have to speak on our behalf and others who feel like us, so come on get busy buddies, we are all here waiting for you to get cracking. It cannot be left all up to Paul and a few others.

  3. The answer to your question Jim is nowhere, not with this sort of stuff. It interests a few people but not the only ones who can take us to victory – working people in the Midlands and North. They are our only hope, and distractions like this are not going to fulfill it.
    We need to start understanding the basic facts of politics and offer policies which will improve the lives of these people, and quickly.

    • Thinnish Free-Thinker // January 11, 2017 at 9:16 am // Reply


      Where is your evidence that issues of general political philosophy (the core of Jim’s article) interest only a few people?

      What are your assumptions that enable you to make the statement that only the working people in the Midlands and North can take us to victory?

      Which victory is that?

      Would you care to enlighten us as to what UKIP must do to gain the votes of electors in the Midlands and the North, and elsewhere, to achieve success?

      • TFT
        Do you really think Andy Cap cares about the Daily Telegraph’s (and mad Barclay bros’) view of the world?
        Well southern Tories aren’t going to, so who’s left? Even NF said we ought to be going for north labour, so it must be good advice. I’d like him to explain his Thatcherite rationale in that regard, but it’s a start.
        Next GE, but we also need to get a mini-manifesto out in Apr for May election. We have to regain momentum quickly.
        Read my articles, more to come.

  4. I like this article, Jim, it makes sense in every detail, but I would like to also see as a priority British Law enforcement, which would do away with multiple wives, FGM and all the rest, especially no-go areas and much better use of Police Forces backed up to do that enforcement. We also need to build more prisons and ensure that they too are properly funded so that they are properly run.
    If we are to roll back the state then Q’s suggestion of railway nationalization would have to go, I imagine. Would jobs come if there was less state intervention, and would people understand that? Jobs will undoubtedly come to parts of the North if we get full control of our fishing right back, which is a point I wish Mr Nuttall could manage to mention- perhaps by now he has, in today’s interviews. Do we have any plans for other employment opportunities in the North?
    Mrs. May’s philosophy as of yesterday seems to be more state not less, she obviously thinks that it is she who will capture the Northern vote, what do you think, Northern Voice?

    • Dee
      Much as we must revive the fishing industry, it’s not going to change the north’s fortunes.
      The libertarians have no answer to your questions other than more of the same, and it isn’t working.
      See my future articles!

    • Dee, being a Northener born and bred I feel justified in saying that we in the north are not as green as we are cabbage-looking, didn’t come down in the last shower of rain, and are very well aware whether we’re at the park or the pictures.

      In other words if DillyDally May thinks she is fooling anyone up here with her pathetic little soundbites, meaningless phrases and attempts to sound more socialist than Jumpin’ Jezza, she is dafter than she looks.

      There’s only one thing we’re interested in at the moment: get us OUT NOW and give us three major things that will reassure us we’re out for good and ever –
      OUT of the single market (total control of our borders)
      RESTORE our fishing rights (to pre-Heath conditions)
      RETURN our blue British passports (and make bonfires of the EU ones)

      I was prepared to give May the benefit of the doubt at first, but after more than 6 months shilly shallying, wasted opportunities and no further forward, I’m sick of the sight of her and wish Gove was PM (tho’ Nigel would be 100 times better than all of them).

      • Thanks Panmelia. I watched the Sky thing the other night and the woman leaver in,that discussion there thought May was wonderful. I can’t remember where it was but it wasn’t in the South.
        In my opinion Gove realized that the plan was to have Boris as PM and he did the only thing he could for the country, because he believed in Leaving and knew Boris would have stitched us up. I give him credit for that. The man we need as PM (if it must be a Tory) or leading BREXIT is John Redwood he is brilliant, resolute and says there is no problem with any of it we should just leave.

        • “John Redwood says we should just leave”

          So Does Ace Columnist Peter Oborne and George Galloway – “just send an email…..”

  5. Thanks for a really excellent article; absolutely spot on!

  6. Superb points for a new manifesto. Is anyone in HO looking/listening/willing to consider and comment?

  7. Dear Jim (Makin),

    A brilliant piece of work. I trust you will be helping with the next UKIP manifesto … starting now.

    Some UKIP members are worrying that we might need to shift our policies to the left, in order to hoover up all those northern votes. Any such shift would NOT go down well here in Surrey.

    Your screed cuts right across any such thoughts. We need to move toward all of the many things you have listed. That will be enough to fill a manifesto. And your thoughts may be very attractive to the voters of Sunderland.

    Thanks again for your superb work.

    Toby 01932-873557

    • Such a shift to the left won’t go down well in the North either! People just want straight talking, no nonsense policies. Keep on the right track. The left are considered to be a bunch of irrelevant London Loonies, just about everywhere these days.

      • Wrong sort of left, NV!
        You can be as straight-talking and no-nonsense as you like, it’s the quality of the argument that counts.

    • Toby
      Surrey will go on voting Tory till the end of time.
      And the people of Sunderland are much more interested in jobs, some state initiatives to get them and the rich paying their fair share.
      If you, Jim, NV, John can’t see that then we’re finished.

      • Ok may not go down well with Surrey and Sunderland. What about the rest of the country?

        • John
          The rest of the country is 2nd XI territory for us, too many Tories, few of whom will see any reason to change. With possible exception of east coast. (Essex man is not typical of the working class. Being refugees from London makes them strong supporters, but even so we haven’t managed to win many seats in those parts, have we?)
          The main battleground has to be the north.
          I’m not against entirely libertarianism – but there are 2 main concerns. Firstly most working class people couldn’t care a fig about this sort of stuff. Secondly, most working class people, once they find out what economic libertarianism really means, a la Douglas Carswell, will be severely unimpressed.
          We should also be careful not to entrench certain cultural ideas which offend other principles of an enlightened society.
          We have to get the support of working people or we have no future. And that means policies designed to attract them without alienating the middling classes. Please read my future articles.

  8. Jim
    Incontrovertible – mostly! Not so keen on your libertarian foray into money. We can’t do much without it, in any endeavour / organisation / situation – call that a lazy assumption if you like. We all have our thoughts on the priorities – one of yours seems to be legal aid. Well the middling classes never had access to it, so what’s all the fuss? In a perfect world it would be available to all – perhaps you’d like to put tax up to achieve that.
    2% inflation gives stability and the means for savings to be maintained. And QE is the face of liberal economics – or, more accurately, the liberal establishment’s attempt to save itself from an economic philosophy which has led us to the state we’re in.
    Speaking of which … there is every role for some vehicle to maximise the welfare of millions with civilised standards – it had just better get it right. It’s called the state, and we shouldn’t be so frightened of it.

  9. The excellent points you make about the encroachment of the state need to be addressed in the Ukip manifesto. That will be a way of getting notice and actively start the process of redress

  10. I AGREE
    with every word in the above article

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.