Dire: 'UKIP: The First 100 Days'

Should national broadcasters be permitted to run 'docudramas' with the intent of interfering in the political process during the run-up to a General Election?

Last night's Channel 4 offering, 'UKIP: The First 100 Days', was as predictable and dull as it was woodenly acted and blatantly partisan. How could a review conclude anything else? (Admittedly, I've not read the Guardian review, so it may well praise it for its 'objectivity' and great 'public service'). From the outset, it was obvious that this programme had been commissioned and screened with no other intent than to portray UKIP as the new 'nasty' party; a party of not-very-closet 'racists', frightfully white and not very bright. Although Channel 4 sometimes commissions and delivers excellent documentary programmes, such as Dispatches, last night's drama could not be adjudged to meet the broadcaster's often high standards, falling instead into a knee-jerk pantomime Leftism, that characterised anyone with concerns about mass immigration, the undemocratic nature of the EU or globalism, as racist, xenophobic and innately stupid. If it was intended to be political satire, it was about as funny and cutting edge as David Cameron delivering a stand-up routine, or George Osborne shoving an unexpected tax demand in your face.

That its central character - a fictitious female MP of Sikh extraction - should eventually 'see the light' and turn on UKIP, was a known given of the drama as soon as the camera first alighted upon her. What else could such a character do? The writer evidently thought that both she, and the programme's viewers, needed to be awakened from their state of false consciousness.

Although, obviously, the UKIP platform - so far as we can make it out - being anti-EU, anti mass immigration and anti-multiculturalism, lies in direct opposition to Channel 4's pro-EU, pro mass immigration and pro-multiculturalism editorial stance, should this fact alone allow the broadcaster to screen such a programme at this time? If so, surely for the sake of political balance, we ought to see analogous documentaries dealing with the other 'major' political parties operating across the whole of the UK? Channel 4 could portray Ed Miliband as an out-of-touch elitist intent on wrecking the public finances, or David Cameron as a friend of transnational corporate capital selling off the country's economic assets to hostile foreign investors; Nick Clegg as . . . Nick Clegg, or Nathalie Bennett of the Greens as a vegan totalitarian with a soft spot for ISIS (not the Egyptian goddess) and a desire to extinguish Britain in an immigration tsunami from Africa and Asia? That would strike me as being both as fair and as objective as the 'docudrama' that we saw last night.

That complaints should have been submitted to Ofcom in the wake of 'UKIP: The First 100 Days' is perfectly understandable. Will Ofcom take any notice? What do you think?

Liberal Democrat defects to UKIP

Curiouser and curiouser! A Liberal Democrat councillor named Diane Horn has defected to UKIP ahead of standing for election to the Snepshed borough and town council elections later this year. She explained her decision to switch to UKIP as arising from her disillusionment with the Liberal Democrats, occasioned by, according to the Loughborough Echo, the fact that “I am no longer sure what the Lib Dems represent.” 

Councillor Horn is not impressed by Nick Clegg and his volte-face over the tuition fees issue. She told the paper that she thought that the Lib Dems are considering some “frightening” measures in connection with the NHS, whereas “UKIP is trying to protect jobs and repair the UK economy and reduce debts.” For her, UKIP’s stance is also closer to her own insofar as she wants “to make sure the people of England are put first.” Leaving the EU therefore holds no fears for her. Councillor Horn has served her local community as an elected representative for nine and a half years, and before her defection, was considering standing down altogether, owing to her disillusionment with her former party. 

Sadly, and predictably, Councillor Horn has been called a ‘racist’ owing to her change of party allegiance. She is not.  

How many more defections might occur? It would, of course, be entering the realms of science fiction to imagine a Lib Dem MP defecting to UKIP, but it will be interesting to see how robust their grassroots membership proves to be in the coming years. Although Councillor Horn’s choice of new party is unlikely to appeal to most Lib Dems, the Greens must surely present a more agreeable home for many of them. It will be interesting to see what impact the seven-way debates have on the relative fortunes of the Greens, the Lib Dems and Labour.

Whither the Liberal Democrats?

With the results in from the three parliamentary by-elections held in Corby, Manchester Central and Cardiff South and Penarth, and the outcome of the first elections for Police and Crime Commissioners (PCCs) filtering in from across England and Wales, a number of clear messages are becoming apparent. The first of these relates to widespread voter apathy, with turnout – particularly for the PCC elections – being remarkably low. So unmotivated to visit the polls were electors, that the Corby by-election turnout of 44.79%, which in itself would normally be seen as low, looked very high compared to what was achieved elsewhere. In Cardiff South and Penarth, turnout was a meagre 25.35%, whilst in Manchester Central, the corresponding figure stood at 18.2%. The last of these figures was noteworthy for being the lowest turnout in a parliamentary contest since the Second World War, but even so, it seemed high when compared to the percentage turnout in the PCC elections, which in many areas was below 15%.

Whereas these figures in themselves constitute an indictment of the current state of our democracy and of the wasted £100 million allegedly spent in introducing elected PCCs, they also contain some interesting messages for our existing political parties. Although Ed Miliband’s Labour Party may be trumpeting its relative success today, the clearest message for any party has been delivered to the Liberal Democrats, and its content cannot be seen as anything other than highly disagreeable for its membership; overall, the party has been resoundingly crushed. In Corby, its share of the vote plunged from 14.5% in 2010 to just 4.96%, with its candidate Jill Hope losing her deposit. The party was squarely beaten into fourth place by a robust performance from the UKIP candidate Margot Parker who took 14.3% of the vote. As UKIP did not stand a candidate in Corby in 2010 and the Conservative share of the vote went down by 15.6% on this occasion, it seems clear that many traditional Tories disaffected with the Cameroonian coalition switched their support to UKIP. Other candidates fared so poorly as not to be worth a mention.

Although the Liberal Democrats managed to hang on to second place in the Manchester Central constituency, their share of the vote collapsed from 26.6% to 9.4%, whilst in Cardiff South and Penarth they narrowly held onto third, place despite their corresponding share falling from 22.3% to 10.8%. Whereas UKIP may have been ebullient about Corby, their shares in these two by-elections were rather more modest, although they were both up from the last General Election: 4.5% and 6.1% respectively. UKIP are therefore enjoying something of a fillip in their fortunes, but the percentages that they are polling fall way short of offering them the prospect of winning any Westminster seats. However, from the perspective of the Conservative Party, a resurgent UKIP that could potentially ‘rob’ them of anywhere between 10 and 15% of the vote in any given constituency, might cause them to lose many more marginal seats to Labour. Farage’s party could therefore be strong enough to damage the Conservatives, but not robust enough to take any power for itself. This in itself is indicative of two of UKIP’s primary weaknesses: its embrace of Thatcherite globalism, which is justifiably unpopular with all but a minority of the electorate, and the manner in which the party is run.

The experience of coalition government has clearly done the Liberal Democrats massive damage. Their unpopularity should not be seen as the straightforward consequence of Nick Clegg reneging over his promise regarding university tuition fees, but as indicative of a wider discontent with Liberal Democrat policies. Whilst I am no fan of our mainstream political parties, when the Coalition Government formed I had a glimmer of hope – admittedly illusory – that the fusion of the separate policy agendas of the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats could result in something more positive than either alone would impose. Like many people, from the Conservatives I hoped for a robust approach to the EU which would have presented us with the option of withdrawal, as well as an end to mass immigration and to the legislation that muzzles free speech in the name of political correctness, whereas I wished for the Liberal Democrats' approach to economics to temper the asset-stripping globalist monetarism of the Conservatives.

This best of both worlds outcome however, was not to be, for we ended up with an inversion of this scenario: the rigorous promotion of Liberal Democrat policies in favour of the EU, mass immigration and political correctness, combined with the ongoing ruinous globalist economics promoted by Osborne. Who therefore, other than the stereotypical sandal-wearing bearded liberals of yore, would have any positive regard for the Liberal Democrats today? Personally, I know people who have supported the Liberal Democrats and their predecessor parties for decades (none of whom wear sandals or sport beards of any description), and yet they are disgusted with the party’s attitude towards the EU, mass immigration and political correctness, as well as of course, tuition fees. They would willingly support a party that put an end to this ongoing undermining of our national sovereignty and social fabric, providing of course that it was reasonable, in favour of genuine freedom of speech, assembly and expression, and not some monstrous authoritarian entity harbouring tacit agendas imbued with sinister motives. In this respect, they are like many people today, who feel that they possess no real political choice and no viable political party to vote for. A new mainstream anti-globalist party with a libertarian streak is required, and the various alternatives currently being hawked in the political market place do not fit the bill.

Returning to the question of the future electoral prospects of the Liberal Democrats, what lies in store? One development that could have a major bearing upon their prospects relates not to their current unpopularity in England and Wales, but to the future status of Scotland, for it could, after all, theoretically have left the Union by 2015. Scotland is home to 11 Liberal Democrat MPs. Another major bailiwick for the party is the West Country, where it has for many years provided the effective opposition to the Conservative Party and has won an impressive number of seats. Quite how many of these it might lose in 2015 however is moot, for the West Country is also one of the strongest areas for UKIP, which given its current stronger showing could take considerable numbers of votes from Conservative candidates in many seats where they are challenging the Lib Dems, potentially allowing the latter to retain their seats. It is a complicated picture, and we have another two and a half years before the next General Election, so much could change in that time. Nonetheless, whatever should happen, the future does not look bright for the Liberal Democrats who could be replaced by UKIP as the nation’s third party. Then again, what impact might a new political entity with the correct policy formulation make? Time will tell. 

Liberal Democrats: not flying high

Nick Clegg's Call to Prayer

Not only does Nick Clegg want the whole of the UK to be deluged by immigrants, but he is also vigorously courting the vote of the denizens of their most hostile and entrenched bridgeheads: the Muslim colonies that have sprung up like poisonous fungi in so many of our cities and towns. According to the Sunday Express, he thinks that the Muslim call to prayer (muezzin) is "a joyful thing" that should be broadcast over loudspeakers wherever those not-so-magnificent 'badges of our subjection' - mosques - happen to be.

Clegg, despite his professed atheism, thus demonstrates his alpha dhimmi status with this craven piece of politicking. An atheist actively promoting Islamisation? He's really not very bright, is he? Are you readying yourself for the scimitar's edge Nick?

Why you ‘should’ vote for Nick Clegg

‘Cleggstasy’ is a freshly-minted neologism, and as the word suggests, indicates a collective public mood that is euphoric, frenzied and hallucinatory, for how otherwise would a party with policies which directly contradict the will of the majority of the people in the UK be riding so high in the polls? Let me elucidate. Apparently, Clegg is popular because he looks better on TV than Gordon Brown. Well, who wouldn’t? He is popular because he speaks with conviction, unlike marketing man and plastic Tory David Cameron. Once again, who wouldn’t (well OK, Gordon Brown perhaps)? He is popular because of that borrowed meaningless phrase ‘it’s time for change’ and the Liberal Democrats are ‘outsiders’. No they’re not, they’re in Westminster and are part of the tripartite party consensus on the EU, immigration, multiculturalism, political correctness, globalism and Islamisation. He has an attractive wife. True, but what’s that got to do with anything?

The majority of the electorate wishes for immigration to be drastically reduced if not choked off altogether, whereas the Liberal Democrats see nothing wrong with the population skyrocketing beyond 70 million and care not from where the immigrants come. The majority of the electorate wished for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, whereas the Liberal Democrats wish to see the UK completely submerged within the nascent EU superstate and for the pound to be replaced by the Euro.

So, if you’d like to see Islam in Ilfracombe, minarets in Minehead, Afghans in Ayreshire, yashmaks in Yeovil, Pakistanis in Penrith and Somalis in Stroud, vote Liberal Democrat. If you’d like to lose your sovereignty to an EU that the Liberal Democrats and Labour wish to see include Turkey and then the Muslim countries of North Africa and the Middle East, then vote for the party of Clegg and wait for your country to fall to Islam. If you think that your quiet shire town needs ‘enriching’ with an admixture of Nigerian knife-crime, yardie turf wars or Muslim misogyny, then vote Liberal Democrat. If you are indigenous British, hate yourself, your family, your culture, your nation, your ethnic group, your race and your civilisation, then vote Liberal Democrat. To paraphrase David Steel in a bygone age, Clegg’s message to Liberal Democrats might be: ‘Go back to your constituencies, and prepare for shariah!’

If you want to stop the above nightmare from unfolding, then do not vote Labour or Conservative, for they will both tread the same path as the Liberal Democrats although not quite as quickly (yet admittedly, Labour are trying their damnedest). The only way that you can stop this nullification of nationhood, this removal of our rights and our culture is to vote BNP. Granted, if there’s no BNP candidate in your area then vote UKIP, or failing that, English Democrat; but on no account vote for the three main parties or the suicidal policies of the Greens, for the latter are akin to those of the Liberal Democrats but on steroids, except with respect to freedom of speech (they would outlaw criticism of Islam) which they wish to see removed. Vote for the Green Party if you’d like to embark on a bad acid trip from which you’ll never come down.

Keighley: BNP Target Seat Number Three

Andrew Brons was recently selected as the BNP candidate for Keighley. Having acquited himself well since he became the party's MEP for Yorkshire last June, Brons is fighting for the seat contested by Nick Griffin himself in 2005. This time around, veteran Labour MP Anne Cryer is standing down, with the Labour candidature falling instead to Jane Thomas. To be fair to Cryer, she did at least acknowledge that there were problems specific to some elements of the Muslim population in Keighley, but unfortunately, she and the local Labour Party at first claimed that the BNP were lying when the latter drew attention to the serious issue of Muslim males grooming local native schoolgirls; plying them with drugs (heroin in particular), and sexually abusing them amongst their family networks. It took the BNP's honesty to force the issue of this Islamic paedophile pimping into the open, but sadly, as more recent cases in Rotherham and other northern towns attest, this is a problem which has yet to be eradicated.

Keighley is a demographically diverse constituency which includes not only working-class Keighley and its outlying Pennine villages, but also the wealthy town of Ilkley in neighbouring Wharfedale which is natural Conservative territory. Keighley itself contains a significant Muslim population comprised of Pakistanis and Bangladeshis (officially circa 15% in 2001 but now higher, yielding an estimated total of 7,000 voters in 2005 according to Muslim News). The seat has thus swung from Conservative to Labour and back again.

Anne Cryer took the seat for Labour in the 1997 General Election with 50.6% of the vote. However, in the subsequent elections of 2001 and 2005 her share shrank first to 48.2% then 44.7%. With Cryer's departure and Labour's general malaise in the polls, it is likely that Jane Thomas, a career politician very much in the New Labour mould (studied Politics at Swansea University, worked briefly for Sheffield Newspapers then spent 16 years as a university lecturer teaching Politics and Public Policy Management) will secure no more than 35% of the vote at best. The seat is likely to turn Tory and fall to Kris Hopkins.

Although Andrew Brons is an excellent candidate, like other BNP members he has a hard task on his hands trying to make significant inroads in the constituency in the face of bitter opposition. When Nick Griffin stood there in 2005 the national media were up in arms and Searchlight and Hope Not Hate ran an intensive operation in Keighley barraging its voters with anti-BNP propaganda. This is probably being repeated today. The other Nick ('Saint' Clegg) recently chose to vent his morally indignant spleen upon the BNP whilst pandering to the Muslim bloc vote on the BBC Asian Network stating "I feel really strongly about this. The BNP is an evil, vile, fascist organisation." Strangely, this generic rant agains the BNP was reported by Keighley News. The Liberal Democrats are once again standing Nader Fekri as their candidate, and it is my guess that he could lure a goodly proportion of the Muslim bloc vote away from Labour. Although Fekri secured only 11.8% in 2005, I would anticipate something in the region of 16% next month.

Nick Griffin managed to poll 4240 votes, some 9.2% of the total. He did this in competition with only the three main parties, but this time around both UKIP and, bizarrely, the National Front (an historical throwback) are also fielding Paul Latham and Steven Smith respectively. If anything, UKIP will take as many if not more votes from Eurosceptic Tories as from the BNP, whereas the National Front is more or less an irrelevance which is unlikely to secure more than 1% of the vote. Given that Brons will be subject to a significant black propaganda effort and will not receive favourable coverage in the local print and electronic media, I would be surprised if he was able to better Griffin's share of the vote. Although I think Brons deserves to win, and has been given odds of 20/1 by Paddypower.com to take the seat, my guess is that the final result will look something akin to the following: Conservative 36%; Labour 33%; Liberal Democrat 16%; BNP 9%; UKIP 5%; National Front 1%.  If Andrew Brons is able to secure more than 15% of the votes cast he will have done extremely well.

Watch the following clip of Andrew delivering a recent speech in the EU Parliament. This man speaks sense, and gives the lie to the false media claim that the BNP is comprised of illiterate knuckle draggers.



Brons is one of the most eloquent members of the BNP and can be seen in the following interview providing his perspective on the June 2009 EU elections.

Brown's Immigration Speech: Hearing, not Listening

As has become customary Labour practice, selections from Gordon Brown’s speech on immigration today have been fed to the press in advance. As the BBC notes, this is his third such speech since becoming Prime Minister. Its content is wearisomely, depressingly familiar. He says that he must “listen” to and “engage” with public concerns on immigration, yet he knows not the meaning of the word “listen”; he does not “listen”, he merely hears. “Engage”? What does this word mean? It means ignoring what he hears; what we see, feel and think. What we know counts for nothing. It means telling us again, and again and again, that we are wrong.

Tellingly, he says: “How we conduct this debate is as important as the debate itself.”

My answer to this is no, it is not. It is not the manner in which it is conducted, but the substance itself – the issue of mass immigration - that is of such importance. Moreover, it is the question of the deliberate engineering of this human tide, and the annulment of national sovereignty that needs to be addressed and answered. These matters are portrayed as being of no importance by the likes of Brown, Cameron and Clegg, yet they are the very bedrock of our liberties and national democracy. These, it has been their intent to remove, and mass immigration, combined with absorption into the EU, have been their means of achieving this. Our sovereignty and national being have been stripped away, leaving what?

If you gradually replace the contents of a bottle of wine with water, does it remain a bottle of wine? It does not. If you replace the native British with myriad ethnic groups from around the world, does Britain remain Britain? No. It has become a Balkanised colony.

It is Brown’s belief, shared by all but a handful of Westminster politicians, that mass immigration is a good thing. Good for whom? Cui bono? Not us. Not the ordinary people of Britain.

When they, the advocates of this unbidden policy, cannot convince us, they hate us, and bring to bear a battery of fearful abuse: “extremist”, “racist”, “xenophobe” and “fascist”. Yet we are none of these. We are men and women of an independent cast of mind, who cannot and will not yield to the lies that we are fed from on high. We demand nothing more, than a return to a state of normalcy in our daily lives; a state in which we are free to speak our minds without fear of sanction or violence, in which we are sovereign; where our birthright is upheld. Today, sadly, this is not the case. Brown’s speech, and the cross-party consensus that it embodies, should be seen as nothing more than a cynical ploy to gull the electorate, an anodyne administered to a confused dying patient – the British people – to keep them quiet as they pass out of this world.

The BBC’s report on his speech is reproduced below:

PM urges united immigration front
Gordon Brown is to urge all parties to show a "united front" against those opposing immigration out of prejudice.

In a speech in London, the PM will say it is right for politicians to talk about the issue and address people's concerns about immigration levels.

But he will say debate must be measured and talk that immigration is "out of control" plays into extremists' hands.

The speech comes as a number of leading politicians challenged the main parties to toughen pledges on immigration.

The parliamentarians, including Labour MP Frank Field, have written an open letter challenging all the main parties to toughen their manifesto pledges.
The British National Party (BNP), which wants a stop to all immigration, except in exceptional cases, and to deport all illegal immigrants, won its first seats in the European Parliament last year.

Some Labour and Tory politicians blamed the BNP's breakthrough on the failure of their parties to address concerns about the impact of immigration on jobs, housing and social services.

'Right to talk'

Labour says the points-based system governing the amount of people that can come to work in the UK based on different criteria - introduced in 2008 - is fair, flexible and has contributed to a fall in immigration.

But the Tories say the current system is not working and have urged an annual cap to be set on immigration to reflect the UK's economic needs.

“ How we conduct this debate is an important as the debate itself ”

Gordon Brown on immigration

Conservative leader David Cameron has said net immigration levels - the difference between those coming into the UK and those leaving - have been too high in the past 10 years and need to be reduced.

In his second major speech on immigration in the past six months, Mr Brown will say people have a right to talk about the issue.

"As politicians in the mainstream of British politics, we have a duty to listen and engage with them - because if we don't people will listen to whoever does," he is expected to say.

"When we talk of fairness, it is right to talk of immigration and address people's worries and concerns.

"The question of who comes to Britain, and what they have to do to earn that privilege - it is something that should be the subject of open and responsible debate.

"But how we conduct this debate is an important as the debate itself."

'Standing together'
Mr Brown will say there is a consensus among mainstream parties in favour of immigration as a positive force in British society and a necessary contributor to economic growth.

"So I call on all those in the mainstream of our politics to stand together in the coming weeks and present a united front against those who don't value the diverse and outward-looking Britain that we stand for."

In November, Mr Brown announced plans for a points-based test for permanent residence and citizenship and more recently pledged to tighten the rules on student visas.

The Lib Dems have said immigrants should be encouraged to go to parts of the UK with specific skills shortages and which have the "will and resources" to accommodate them.

They have also called for improved border controls and for exit checks at all ports to be reinstated.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/1/hi/uk_politics/8595973.stm