Category Archives: britishness

HOW BRITISH POLITICS IS FAILING

The web based comment blog “Unherd” hosts interesting contributions from politically minded commentators.  The one below is interesting.

It is a recent contribution from Peter Kellner.  Peter Kellner is the Blairite Director of YouGov, the internet based opinion pollsters.  His opinion on the interpretation of statistics is well worth considering.  So when Peter Kellner says:- “I wouldn’t bet a great deal against changes that could be immense, and which not everyone will like”, we should take notice.  Also, as he is an enemy of English Nationalism and he is fearful of the consequences – so that should be encouraging too!  

Here is Peter Kellner’s article:-

HOW BRITISH POLITICS IS FAILING

Something odd, and possibly dangerous, is eating away at the fabric of British politics. Brexit, of course, has much to do with it, but the consequences could be with us long after the current crisis is resolved, one way or another. 

Signs of the malaise can be clearly seen in an exclusive survey for UnHerdconducted by Deltapoll. It shows a remarkable lack of faith in both main party leaders, not just by voters generally but by high proportions of their own voters. Loyalties are being tested as never before.  

In the past, one party leader has occasionally had a shaky reputation among their own supporters on one or two characteristics. In the early 1980s, many Labour voters thought Michael Foot was weak; towards the end of her premiership, many Tories considered Margaret Thatcher out of touch. But I have never seen so many supporters of both parties simultaneously hold such low opinions of their own leaders across the board.  

The responses of all voters shows that both leaders have strongly negative ratings on all counts. That is unusual enough. But when we look at the figures, showing how Conservative voters view Theresa May, and the figures, showing how Labour voters view Jeremy Corbyn, the scale of the drama becomes clear. The positive scores for May range from 57% of Conservative supporters who say she is strong, down to 40% who back her on Brexit. Her average score among Tory voters is 45%. Labour voters give Corbyn positive scores ranging from 64 to 38%; his average is 50%. Among all voters, the averages are, of course, even worse: May 26%, Corbyn 28%. 

To put these figures in context, a successful leader would expect average scores of around 80% among their party’s own voters and 40% among the general public. For both leaders to fall so far short of these figures should set off alarm bells in both parties. 

Here, though, is the paradox. Precisely because both leaders have terrible ratings, the scale of the problem is less obvious than it would be if only one was doing badly. In that case (as when Foot led Labour and towards the end of Thatcher’s premiership), their party would have support well below 30% in the polls and facing a landslide defeat. Instead, nothing much seems to have changed since the 2017 election. An average of recent polls shows the two parties still close together, and with almost as many supporters as 18 months ago. The high commands in both parties, though plainly struggling over Brexit, see no wider reason to panic. 

In truth, they should be terrified. For the poll shows that the disenchantment with the main parties and their leaders has spread throughout Britain. Within Westminster, it is rare to find any backbench Labour or Conservative MP who, giving their candid views in private, will say their leader is any good or that their party is in anything other than deep trouble. But some hope this despair is a feature of the Westminster bubble, and that real voters away from London have not changed their views of politicians and parties that much. 

In fact, it is increasingly hard to avoid the conclusion that millions of voters Left and Right are losing faith in the people who either govern us today or aspire to do so in the future. 

Which brings us to the possible long-term consequences of current public attitudes. In any country with a different electoral system, the chances are that support for both Labour and the Conservatives would have crashed by now. Across Europe, countries with more proportional voting systems have seen the traditional big parties slump in recent years – even with leaders less widely derided than Britain’s.  

Here, first-past-the-post creates a huge barrier to entry. Elsewhere, small parties ranging from the Greens to the far right have obtained a foothold in their parliaments with as little as 5% support, and then managed to increase their credibility. Here, they can’t. In 1983, the Liberal/SDP Alliance won 26% and only 23 seats; in 2015 Ukip’s 14% gave them just a single seat.  

The party that might have benefited from the Tory and Labour travails is the Liberal Democrats. But they paid a heavy price for their role in the 2010-15 coalition government. While their support has picked up a little in recent months, they are still scarred by decisions they took almost a decade ago. 

It is, of course, possible that when the Brexit drama has played out, normal service will resume. Perhaps May and Corbyn will both be replaced by leaders who have greater personal appeal to the electorate. 

I am not so sure. My reason is that May and Corbyn’s truly awful ratings do not flow solely from their personal attributes. Both lead deeply divided parties, and these divisions are unlikely to disappear anytime soon. The faultlines will remain: inward-looking nationalism versus outward-looking enterprise with the Tories; ambitious socialism versus progressive capitalism with Labour. A leader that combined the strategic ability of Napoleon with the genius of Einstein and the moral courage of Mandela would still struggle to win public approval if they could not reunite their parties. The Deltapoll figures providence symptoms of a deeper crisis. 

In short, both main parties are more fragile and less stable than for many decades. First-past-the-post could save both Labour and the Conservatives from the consequences of their current divisions. But it is no longer ridiculous to image a different future. Once the adhesive glue of our electoral system starts to crack, things can change with bewildering speed. A century ago, amid the stresses of post-First-World-War Britain and the divisions within the Liberal Party, realignment happened quickly. Labour climbed from fourth place in 1918 to government in 1924.  

Will Brexit end up having the same glue-cracking effect? And if it does, will the beneficiaries be existing herbivores such as the Liberal Democrats and the Greens; or some new centre party created by disenchanted Labour and Tory moderates; or carnivores on the outer fringes of Right and Left? Is the century-long dominance of Britain’s Parliament by competing forces on the centre Right and centre Left about to end? 

Ask me again in 10 years’ time and I shall tell you. Meanwhile I wouldn’t bet a great deal against changes that could be immense, and which not everyone will like. 

Here is the link to the original article>>>https://unherd.com/2019/01/how-british-politics-is-failing/

BREXIT IS DAMAGING UK’S “STRENGTH AND DIVERSITY” CLAIMS WELSH “CONSERVATIVE” MP

BREXIT IS DAMAGING UK’S “STRENGTH AND DIVERSITY” CLAIMS WELSH “CONSERVATIVE” MP

The Remainer newspaper, The Times, recently published the opinion piece set out below written by the Remainer “Conservative” MP for Aberco, Mr Guto Bebb.  In his article he mourns the impact of Brexit on the Union of the United Kingdom and its “strength and diversity”.  As he says:- “As a Conservative, as a Unionist and someone who loves Wales and our place within the UK I am moved to ask if any of this is worth it?”
I would reply as an English Nationalist and as a Leaver that it is definitely worth it!  

Also I would muse aloud:- ‘hasn’t it long been said that the tears of the vanquished are the sweetest joy of victory?’
Here is Guto Bebb’s article:-
Brexit is a risk to the integrity of the UK
The UK’s success is founded on being a multi-national state where we pool sovereignty and share power while taking as many decisions at a local level as possible.
If that reminds you of the EU, it’s not accidental. People with different national histories, traditions and languages coming together to make a new history in common is a very British idea, indeed you could argue that it is the quintessential British idea.
As any Welshman knows the union that is the United Kingdom was not born easily — the magnificent castles that dominate the towns of North Wales were, after all, not built by a grateful populace to celebrate the English conquest.
Policy editor Oliver Wright and politics reporter Henry Zeffman help you understand the effects of the UK’s decision to leave the European Union. 
However, while the history is challenging for many there can be no doubt that today’s UK is democratic to its core. There can now be no question of holding any constituent nation inside the UK if it wants to leave. It is therefore worth noting that before Brexit there was no sign that any majority anywhere supported quitting.
Brexit is putting everything at risk. Recent polling in Northern Ireland showed Brexit would see support for staying in the UK collapse from 52 per cent of the population to just 35 per cent, while support for a united Ireland rises from 39 per cent to 52 per cent.
As well as the damage to our country’s strength and diversity I worry that any attempt, even one based on a majority decision by the electorate, to take Northern Ireland out of the UK would risk a return to violence, mass migration and untold suffering.
It is also clear is that the UK shorn of Scotland would be a shadow of its former self, whether or not it contained Northern Ireland. The complex but often highly constructive relationship between England and Scotland made the UK what it is, something I recognise even though I see myself as a proud and patriotic Welshman.
In Scotland the figures on the impact of Brexit on the independence debate are a concern with a clear pattern. Support for independence rises and support for the UK falls with Brexit and that picture gets more depressing for unionists the harder the form of Brexit delivered becomes.
In a UK reduced to just England and Wales, my own nation’s desire to stay in what would be now a completely unbalanced state would surely become an issue. I can envisage no circumstances under our current constitutional framework where the people of Wales would support independence but it’s one thing to be a partner in a multi-national state of four nations. It’s quite another to be the junior partner in a two nation state where the other party is 18 times larger than you!
As a Conservative, as a unionist, and as someone who loves Wales and our place within the UK I am moved to ask if any of this is worth it? The EU is far from perfect. There is much that needs reforming but surely the unity and the balance of powers developed over the years within our United Kingdom is worth protecting? Surely we can agree that frustration about some rather silly directives often far too easily blamed on Brussels remains a flimsy reason for putting at risk a UK that has served all constituent parts well?
If the price of any of the above was the destruction of the United Kingdom then that is a price that a Conservative and unionists should deem to be far too high.


THERESA MAY AND HER GOVERNMENT MAKE FAKE NEWS

THERESA MAY AND THE TORY GOVERNMENT ARE EXPOSED AS MAKERS OF FAKE NEWS
The above is an image of Theresa May talking about the UK Government’s Housing Plans in terms as if that is a “British” issue. 
However the key point to remember is that housing is not an issue which the British Government has any legal competence to deal with in Scotland, Wales or Northern Ireland.  It is only in England where the British Government has direct rule over England and we English are not properly represented by our own Government that they have any jurisdiction over housing. 
It is thus not surprising that the vast programme of house building that this Government is proposing is to be built only in England.  The English will not be properly asked about this and the members of the Government who are imposing it, although they can still calls themselves members of the Conservative Party, the leadership of it has in fact abandoned traditional Conservatives and traditional values in favour of globalism, multi-culturalism and diversity. 
It is for this reason that housing is being deceitfully represented as a domestically generated need, whereas in fact the primary generator of housing need is the vast wave of immigration that we have had, primarily into England.  This has led to at least 12 million immigrants coming to England in the last 20 years. 
Although some people have left, often to escape the consequences of mass immigration, nevertheless it does mean that, if the Government’s targets are to be met, a new Greater London is to be built on England’s “green and pleasant land” without any proper consultation with the English Nation as a whole. 
Fake news or what?
Below is the report of what she says:-
‘Do your duty to Britain’, Theresa May tells property developers in major speech on ‘restoring dream’ of home-ownership
Prime Minister to pledge to ‘rewrite planning laws’ and force private housebuilders to ‘step up and do their bit’ as she attempts to place housing at heart of policy agenda
Theresa May to tell property developers to ‘do your duty to Britain’ in major speech on restoring ‘home-ownership dream’
Theresa May will announce plans to penalise property developers who do not build homes quickly enough, as she uses a major speech to warn housebuilders they must “do their duty to Britain”.
The Prime Minister will criticise developers who profit from building expensive properties rather than the quantities of new homes the country needs, telling them it is time to “step up do your bit”.
She will vow to “rewrite the laws on planning” in order to help more people get on the housing ladder.
The Government will also adopt a tougher approach to local councils, including setting targets on how many homes each authority needs to plan for.
Number of social homes to fall by 230,000 by 2020, analysis reveals
Key workers such as nurses, teachers and firefighters should be the priority for affordable homes, Ms May will say, and local authorities will be given powers to implement this.
The speech marks another strand of Ms May’s attempt to flesh out a domestic policy agenda that goes beyond Brexit. Last month she delivered a keynote education speech promising to review how universities are funded.
However, opponents said the “feeble” changes had already been announced in the Government’s housing white paper, published last year.
They are also likely to demand the Government make more funding available or allow councils to borrow more to invest in housing. Town halls have long insisted that restrictions on their ability to borrow to fund new homes is the biggest barrier to housebuilding.
Questions are also likely to be raised over the future of Starter Homes – one of the Government’s flagship policies for boosting home-ownership. The Independent revealed late last year that not a single one of the properties, which will be sold to first-time buyers at a discount, has yet been built.
Accepting the failings of current housing policy, Ms May will say “for decades this country has failed to build enough of the right homes in the right places”.
She will once again place housing at the heart of her agenda, saying: “We cannot bring about the kind of society I want to see unless we tackle one of the biggest barriers to social mobility we face today: the national housing crisis.”
The Prime Minister has previously said she will make tackling the housing crisis her “personal mission”.
Speaking at a planning conference in London, she will argue that “in much of the country, housing is so unaffordable that millions of people who would reasonably expect to buy their own home are unable to do so” because the “failure to match demand with supply really began to push prices upwards”, and also drove up rents.
“The result is a vicious circle from which most people can only escape with help from the bank of Mum and Dad. If you’re not lucky enough to have such support, the door to home-ownership is all too often locked and barred,” she will say.
Recounting her own experience of buying a home, she will add: “I still vividly remember the first home I shared with my husband, Philip. Not only our pictures on the walls and our books on the shelves, but the security that came from knowing we couldn’t be asked to move on at short notice.’ 
“And because we had that security, because we had a place to go back to, it was that much easier to play an active role in our community. To share in the common purpose of a free society.”
“That is what this country should be about – not just having a roof over your head but having a stake in your community and its future.”
Flagship government housing plan fails to deliver a single home in three years
Ms May will take a tougher line against private developers, criticising the “perverse incentive” that allows property executives to profit from building expensive homes rather than greater numbers of affordable ones.
She will suggest a company’s past record of delivering affordable housing should be taken into account when it bids for planning permission for new properties.  
She is expected to say: “The bonuses paid to the heads of some of our biggest developers are based not on the number of homes they build but on their profits or share price.
“In a market where lower supply equals higher prices that creates a perverse incentive, one that does not encourage them to build the homes we need.
“I want to see planning permissions going to people who are actually going to build houses, not just sit on land and watch its value rise.”
The Prime Minister will also point out that developers have failed to build thousands of homes that have been given planning permission, warning that “the gap between permissions granted and homes built is still too large”.
Analysis by the Local Government Association (LGA) earlier this year revealed 420,000 homes that received planning permission last year are still waiting to be built.  
Calling on private housebuilders to “step up and do their bit”, Ms May will say: “I expect developers to do their duty to Britain and build the homes our country needs.”
Sajid Javid, the Housing Secretary, has already hinted the Government is considering giving councils “use it or lose it” powers to take land away from developers who are refusing to build homes on sites they own.
Ms May will also criticise David Cameron’s legacy, saying her predecessor had presided over “a great and welcome increase in the number of planning permissions granted” but not “a corresponding rise in the number of homes being built”.
Budget 2017: Hammond commits £ 44bn to housing and commits to delivering 300,000 net additional homes per year by mid 2020’s
Although the Prime Minister will announce that 80 proposals from the Government’s housing white paper will be implemented, housing insiders will be watching closely to see what type of housing the Government will prioritise and whether any new funding will be made available.
Since 2012, the Conservatives have prioritised the more expensive “affordable housing” over social housing, leading to the loss of hundreds of thousands of the cheapest homes.
Ms May is also likely to face calls to reverse some of the provisions of the Housing and Planning Act 2016, which forced councils to sell off social homes and extended the controversial Right to Buy to housing association tenants. The scheme is another leading cause of the fall in the number of low-cost homes.
John Healey, Labour’s Shadow Housing Secretary, said: “The Prime Minister should be embarrassed to be fronting up these feeble measures first announced a year ago. After eight years of failure on housing it’s clear her Government has got no plan to fix the housing crisis.
“Since 2010, home-ownership has fallen to a 30-year low, rough sleeping has more than doubled, and deep cuts to housing investment have led to the lowest number of new social rented homes built since records began.
“This housing crisis is made in Downing Street. It’s time the Tories changed course, and backed Labour’s long-term plan to build the genuinely affordable homes the country needs.”
The Prime Minister was also warned by Conservative peer Lord Porter, who chairs the LGA, that planning changes would be largely meaningless without new funding.
He wrote on Twitter: “If we want more houses, we have to build them, not plan them.
“The [Housing Department] need to push back against [the Treasury] or the nonsense will go on and nothing will change. Less homes built next year than there were this year.
Ms May will insist that building on green belt land is not the answer to tackling the housing crisis. She will instead announce new protections for woodland and coastlines.
Here is a link to the original article>>> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/theresa-may-housing-speech-property-developers-homes-affordable-john-healey-labour-right-to-buy-a8239466.html

THE IMPERIALISTIC ROOTS OF MULTI-CULTURALISM

Back in the Day!

THE IMPERIALISTIC ROOTS OF MULTI-CULTURALISM
It is an ironic fact that multi-culturalism as a device for managing disparate and disjointed populations is not entirely a post-war, Left-Liberal concept. 

My own family have some roots in British Malaya when what is now Malaysia and Singapore were part of the British Empire and I was born there in the British Military Hospital Kinrara, Kuala Lumpur.

Before the war British Malaya was politically run by British colonial officials on an imperialist multi-culturalist basis just like many other “colonies” throughout the Empire.

In colonial Malaya there were various ethnicities. There were the native Indians who lived quite primitive lives in the jungle and who either animist or Christian. There was also a dominant population of Malays who were originally Indonesian colonists and pirates, who are predominantly Muslim and whose leaders were the various “Sultans”. Then there were the Chinese who, during the 19th and 20th centuries, given all the various misfortunes of China, came as settlers. They were very hard-working, upwardly mobile, vying to be professionals or business people (legitimate or triad) and settlers to clear and farm the jungle lands.

Then there were also the British ourselves who brought over, from India, the Tamils to work, in particular, in the tea plantations and we also brought over Sikhs to act especially as police and security guards.

All these communities were kept in a degree of antagonism and separately, allowing British officials to deal with “community leaders”. The Communities were encouraged in multi-culturalist ideas of “community cohesion” and of maintaining their own separate ways as part of an imperialist agenda to divide and rule; which is of course an imperialist doctrine which goes at least as far back as ancient Rome (“divide et impera”).

British officials found this multiculturalist arrangement very convenient, as all the various groups were concerned about the encroachments of the others. This enabled British administrators to seem interested in maintaining the other concerns of each of the groups, whilst ensuring that the general population couldn’t combine to demand independence.

I think it likely that this situation would have continued quite possibly up until today if it hadn’t been for the Japanese invasion and the subsequent attempts by Chinese communists under Mao Tse Tung to destabilise the post-war arrangements.

I think it may well prove to be the case once all the files are opened that we will see that the more recent doctrines of multi-culturalism originated partly through Whitehall officials dusting off these old Colonial Office policies and re-badging them! Wouldn’t that be an irony? 

We make this Point in our manifesto:-

3.16 England and Multi-Culturalism

3.16.1 It is a fact that during the past forty years people of many different cultures have come to live in England. Our country is in that sense a multi-cultural society. However, multi-Culturalism is an ideology which suggests that a mix of many cultures in one society is desirable and that it is the duty of government to actively encourage cultural diversity within the state. Further, it suggests that all cultures should be treated as equal. A logical extension of this is that all languages, histories and law codes should be treated equally. This is clearly impossible in a unified country. All ethnic groups should be free to promote their own culture and identity but the public culture of England should be that of the indigenous English. This position is consistent with the rights of indigenous nations everywhere.

UKIP FAILS THE ENGLISH TEST

UKIP FAILS THE ENGLISH TEST


When Nigel Farage got re-elected as Leader of UKIP there was a distinct move in UKIP, for a time, to portray itself as being, at least to some extent, an English nationalist party. 

Given the various dirty tricks and other activities that were going on with UKIP at the time against us, it seemed obvious to the English Democrats’ National Council that these moves were just designed to undermine the English Democrats, rather than a genuine change of heart.

Over the years since we have had various people say to us that UKIP is an English nationalist party and try to persuade us that we should therefore join forces.

It is obvious from looking at Twitter, Facebook and the internet generally that there are a great many others out there who had also thought of UKIP as being an English nationalist party.

During the course of this General Election the scales should have fallen from all those peoples’ eyes as UKIP has shown itself to be very clearly not an English nationalist party. Nigel Farage has even expressly denied being an English nationalist (and, indeed, even a British nationalist, no doubt to the somewhat surprise of his British nationalist members!).

Not only has Nigel Farage’s new UKIP (British) manifesto very limited mention of England or the English, but their slogan in this election was “Believe in Britain”. Also despite clear commitments in the past to produce an English manifesto it has not been produced. In stark contrast they did launch a Scottish-only manifesto. Last, but not least, we have had a series of very clear remarks from others in the leadership of UKIP that they are British Unionists and not about English nationalism at all.

Probably the clearest example is the comments of David Coburn MEP, who before he became elected as an MEP had for many years been UKIP’s principal organiser in London. Click here for a link to YouTube where we have recorded his very clear answer as to where UKIP’s national loyalties lie >>> https://youtu.be/QSuT0JjgSjY

In fact, of course, nobody should have been surprised, the answer was always in UKip’s name! I wonder if people would have understood that more easily if they had called themselves BRITKIP?

What do you think?

UKIP ‘believes’ in “Britishness” not Englishness!


UKIP goes for “Britishness” not Englishness!


There has recently been a development within UKIP which I didn’t think I could leave unmentioned. Nigel Farage has given several important speeches recently, but has written the article which appears below for the Daily Telegraph. In all these he has made clear where UKIP’s national identity/nationality lies.

I have recently read an excellent book about UKIP written by Dr Matthew Goodwin and Dr Ron Ford called “Revolt on the Right”. It is such an excellent read and analysis of UKIP’s situation and of the whole of what the authors call “the radical right”, that it is well worth reading. Here is a link to purchase a copy on Amazon >>> Revolt on the Right: Explaining Support for the Radical Right in Britain (Extremism and Democracy): Amazon.co.uk: Robert Ford,.

The interesting thing is that the authors of “Revolt on the Right” compellingly compare UKIPs position with the growth of the Right across many other Western European countries, such as the Front National in France. It is noted that all share some common characteristics. These are Euro-scepticism; hostility to mass immigration; attachment to traditional values; hostility to the current political elite; and assertive nationalism.

UKIP of course shares all these points but had been making noises about being interested in England and Englishness. This all began back in late 2010 as a serious effort by UKIPs leadership to destabilise the English Democrats using various dirty tricks.

So for several years now there has been an ambivalence about UKIP’s talk about England, the most extreme example of which we saw only a few weeks ago when Paul Nuttall said that he personally supported an English Parliament as his punch line on Question Time.

Now all that is over and UKIP has nailed its flag to the mast. The only element of the radical right agenda that they had waivered on was which national identity. Now that is clear, as you can see reading Nigel Farage’s article below. There is no more prevarication or hesitation and we can see the colours of the national flag that they have unfurled!

English nationalists should no longer be under any delusions about UKIPs national identity.

Here is the article:-

Nigel Farage’s appeal to Britons: believe in Britain


Ahead of the general election, Ukip leader Nigel Farage sets out his party’s vision

This election campaign has been incredibly dull so far. Labour is trying to claim our National Health Service, as if they own it. The Tories are trying to grab at the economy, as if they haven’t presided over a doubling of the national debt in just five years, and failing to erase the deficit. Pretty predictable stuff.

And that’s because these two parties – the legacy parties – have forgotten that there is a country out there.

There’s a country beyond Westminster, crying out for attention, respect, and assistance at a time when politicians are trying to convince them that everything is absolutely fine.

But it’s not fine. Now more than ever, this country needs a positive political party, with firm ideas for the future of this country. I believe that at this election, Ukip will be that party.

When you look at somewhere like Castlepoint in Essex, this election presents voters with a stark choice.

Ukip’s candidate is a local lad, Jamie Huntman, a timber merchant, who is deeply patriotic, involved in his community, and known as hard-working, straight-talking guy.

He’s a man who, in spite of this country’s woes, despite the ruling classes telling us we can’t be a great nation again, still believes in Britain.

We believe that the backbone of this country – small business owners, families and indeed the legal migrants who come here to better their lives – know that we no longer have a capitalism that works for all.

Instead, we have corporatism, lavishing attention on big corporations while ignoring the little man. Only Ukip will address and tackle this imbalance.

We’ll turn the other cheek to insults and negativity and focus instead on what we could deliver for the country if we have enough MPs.

No one will have a majority after this election. They all know it. But the thing they fear the most is a sizeable number of Ukip MPs in that chamber, holding them to account for you.

And when we say we believe in Britain, we believe in the whole of Britain. We’re the only political party with representation in all four corners of the United Kingdom.

The Scottish National Party and Plaid Cymru are obviously regional parties. Labour has increasingly become a regional party in the North – though voters in the one-party state they tried to create there are now beginning to revolt. The Conservative Party is now a regional party of the South.

Ukip, on the other hand, is doing as well in the North as we are in the South. We’re a party that represents the whole country and, even more importantly, we have broken the class divide in British politics.

And our greatest, most recent growth has been in Labour areas. So far from the narrative and amusing conference line from Mr Cameron, that if you go to bed with Nigel Farage you wake up with Ed Miliband, the truth is that from Birmingham to Hadrian’s Wall, we are the challengers to Labour.

Ukip will put at the heart of its campaign not just the cost of living crisis, because we know that Britons are feeling the pinch, but also the cost of government crisis.

We will have a costed manifesto that deals with these issues, which includes taking those on the minimum wage out of tax, reducing energy bills, and by ending our costly membership of the EU.

But we’ve got to ask ourselves as voters: at what cost do we keep electing the current, Westminster college kids?

At what cost to our freedoms? At what cost to our communities? At what cost to the confidence and belief in the values that underpin British civil society?

These are the big questions the political class don’t want you asking. They’ll try to bore you into submission, or convince you that you’ll let someone else in if you vote for us. Ask Douglas Carswell or Mark Reckless about this. If you vote Ukip, you get Ukip. Nothing else.

A Britain which can govern itself. A Britain with an ethical immigration policy based on the Australian-style points system. A Britain that doesn’t weaponise the NHS, but makes it work for those who need it. A Britain that is more than just a star on someone else’s flag. Ukip believes in Britain, and we know you do too.

We believe in a Britain that can trade freely with the world, honour our troops, work without a nanny state, stop propping up dictatorships through aid, and stop spending your money on white elephant projects like HS2.

I believe in a Britain that has confidence, stands proud, projects a national identity based on our Judaeo-Christian heritage, and our tremendous natural resources.

We believe in a Britain that is the fifth largest economy in the world, not because of our governments, but in spite of them.

A Britain with room to grow, not based on debt, but on real, tangible assets: our fisheries, our gas supplies, infrastructure like Manston Airport, and the prospects of our youth and people who come here legally and integrate and become the best of British themselves.

Not only have we found a way to inject £3 billion more per year into our NHS, but we also want people to have a say in how the NHS is run.

We want to scrap hospital car parking charges, acknowledge that the future for the NHS relies on the innovation and dedication that we will get from British graduates (not middle managers), and invest in research and cleaning up our hospitals.

This is why I’m pleased to say that we would scrap tuition fees for students studying science, technology, engineering, maths, or medical degrees.

And we’ll also fight for a right of recall for MPs who have failed voters.

We’d reverse the opt-in to the European Arrest Warrant, because Britain believes in “innocent until proven guilty” and we believe in Britain.

And we’d reward our Servicemen and women with a National Service Medal, social housing priority, and jobs when they return to civilian life.

We’d toss out ideas like the bedroom tax, and the mansion tax, because they’re two sides of the same coin, equally unconscionable and intended to divide us.

And we’d say no to propping up a government that refuses us an immediate EU referendum – no to any coalition deals with the establishment parties who have taken us so far into this mess.

But we need you to come with us on this journey. So I urge you, when you go to the ballot box, when you send in your postal vote: believe.

Believe in Britain. Believe in real change. Believe me when I say this is not just another election and yours is not just another vote.

If you hold onto those beliefs, if you want that change, then we believe, that together, we can achieve great things.

Here is the link to the original >>> Nigel Farage’s appeal to Britons: believe in Britain – Telegraph

THE 50th ANNIVERSARY OF SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL’S STATE FUNERAL


THE 50th ANNIVERSARY OF SIR WINSTON CHURCHILL’S STATE FUNERAL


Peter Hitchens has written a superb nostalgic piece in the Mail on Sunday which I couldn’t better, so I have re-posted it below.

I can however add a personal element, which is that my Father, then a Captain, was one of the Officers of Churchill’s old regiment, the 4th Queen’s Own Hussars, who carried his medals, orders and decorations in the funeral procession. My Father is shown in the centre of the above picture above the coffin and immediately on the left of one of the heralds.

The one thing (but rather an important omission) that is missing from Peter Hitchens’ article is the conclusion to be drawn from his final comments. He is right that Britain isn’t that country now but he doesn’t mention that it now serves no useful purpose for the English Nation. It is high time to be rid of it and for England to re-emerge from its choking embrace!

Here is Peter Hitchen’s article:-

So uniquely British, but funeral tells a tale of a different country

What a strange thing it is to see my own memories harden into history, and what is, for me, a vivid and living experience, turn into a blurred and fading piece of film.

Half a century ago, at my strict-regime boarding school on the edge of Dartmoor, we were let off our normal Saturday morning lessons of Latin grammar, French vocabulary, rivers and capitals of South America, mostly taught by fierce, bristling gents with military or Naval ranks.

Instead, we were instructed to sit in rows on hard chairs as the school’s one small black-and-white TV was hoisted on to a high shelf. And for three utterly memorable hours we watched in silence as the funeral of Sir Winston Churchill passed slowly through London.

Outside (and no opportunity was normally missed to make us go outside) it was a freezing day of steely skies and pitiless winds, no small matter if you were forced to wear short trousers, as we all were.

Inside, in the comparative warmth, most of us were, I think, mesmerised, so that we forgot we were watching on a screen not much bigger than a breadboard. I certainly saw and remembered the event as a huge panorama.

Afterwards, we knew, quite simply, that something important had passed from the earth for ever, and that our small country was diminished and bereft.

Nobody who came afterwards would be as we had been before we watched it. By comparison, the assassination of President Kennedy is nothing in my recollections.

Last week, I managed to watch a rare, hard-to-find recording of Sir Winston’s funeral. It is the wrong shape for a modern TV screen, and sometimes the picture swims or blurs.

It is, of course, in black and white, but that only increases the feeling that you are watching something impossibly long ago.

The London of January 1965 is almost as distant from me now as the outbreak of the First World War was from us then. Most of the people who appear in the film are now dead, or impossibly old.

The actual procession looks, at many moments, like one of those jerky old films from the Austro-Hungarian empire that they show to illustrate how hopelessly old-fashioned the pre-1914 world is.

Bluejackets in the sort of uniforms they wore at Jutland pull the gun carriage on which the heavy coffin rests (a tradition in state funerals since the Army’s horses kicked over the traces at Queen Victoria’s obsequies, and sailors ran forward to take over the task).

The cortege moves at a mesmerisingly slow pace, swaying strangely to the music of a dozen military bands, thumping out dirges – occasionally interrupted by those uniquely British parade-ground yells, echoing for miles in the freezing air, as sergeant-majors keep their men in line.

The male members of the Churchill family walk behind the coffin, wearing what must surely be the last black silk top hats seen in London, like a Bolshevik caricature of greedy capitalists.

Lady Churchill, vastly veiled in black, rides in an enormous, sombre coach (lent by the Royal Family, but not from their better-known fleet of gilded carriages).

The coachman riding atop it is cloaked and muffled like something out of the Pickwick Papers, reaching back into a past that some of those present would still just have remembered.

From even further back come the Heralds of the College of Arms, most of them ancient men on sticks, looking a little like animated playing cards in their medieval tabards.

A huge drum horse, loaded with war-drums, leads the bands as its ancestor must have done at Blenheim and Waterloo.

The dead man’s orders and medals, borne on cushions, are carried behind him and arrayed by his coffin when it reaches St Paul’s Cathedral, where it is greeted by a man holding up the City of London’s mighty, ancient, black Sword of Mourning.

It is all so old that it was archaic in 1965, and I doubt it could be done now with a straight face. Yet it would have been as normal in Winston Churchill’s youth as it is outlandish now.

The sense of a last moment of something that is passing is emphasised by the figure of the Queen, not as she is now, but a woman coming to the end of her youth, worn by cares and powerfully moved by the heavy panoply and drapery of death on display.

Beside her, Prince Charles is still an awkward schoolboy.

But in one way the most moving faces are those in the crowds – of men and women then young, now pensioners, and above all, those of the soldiers in the bearer party who struggle, with increasing strain and tension, to lift, carry and lay down the weight of the lead-lined oaken coffin.

These are the days before pizza, milkshakes and sugary drinks fattened and blurred all our features into a bland and puffy sameness.

They look so British, in a hollow, hungry, wartime way, that it almost breaks the heart to see them.

The country they and I grew up in has entirely ceased to exist.


Here is a link to the original Article>>> PETER HITCHENS: So uniquely British, but funeral tells a tale of a different country | Daily Mail Online

Is the British Education Establishment conspiring to indoctrinate pro-immigration, multi-culturalist values into English children?


Is the British Education Establishment conspiring to indoctrinate pro-immigration, multi-culturalist values into English children?


I have posed the above title for this article as a question, but I think that once the question is asked the article answers the question affirmatively. As the English legal profession would have responded to such a question for centuries with the Latin phrase:- “res ipsa loquitur” – the thing speaks for itself!

What do you think?

Here is the article:-

Pupils to learn about immigration in new history GCSE


The OCR exam board unveils plans for a new history GCSE that will include a module on 2,000 years of immigration, from the Romans up to 21st century arrivals from Syria

Teenagers will be able to learn about the impact of immigration on Britain over the last 2,000 years under plans for a new history GCSE, it was announced today.

For the first time, a history module will be introduced covering new arrivals to the UK from the Romans up to modern day migrants such as those from Syria and eastern Europe.

The proposals – drawn up by one of the country’s leading exam boards – will assess the reasons for immigration, the experience of new entrants and the impact on the indigenous population.

The OCR board insisted pupils would find large numbers of parallels to the modern day, saying they would be “surprised to learn” that the black population of London may have numbered up to 15,000 in the 1750s and that at least 10 languages were used across medieval England.

Under plans, “Migration into Britain” will be included as part of an optional extended study theme, which will make up around 20 per cent of a new GCSE course being introduced in 2016.

OCR’s GCSE in history is currently the most popular version in the country, with more than 93,000 teenagers sitting it last year, the exam board said.

It is hoped the move will “reinvigorate interest in GCSE history” following claims from historical experts that rising numbers of schools were barring pupils from taking the subject beyond the age of 14.

The move is made as immigration continues to dominate the political agenda in the run up to the election. Last week, David Cameron promised the introduction of tough new rules on access to welfare benefits for migrants entering Britain from the EU.

But the government has insisted that the number of pupils sitting GCSEs in history had increased in recent years, with almost four-in-10 teenagers taking an exam in the subject in 2014.

Mike Goddard, the exam board’s head of history, said: “Migration is an ideal history topic for GCSE students to study, allowing them to consider fundamental historical concepts such as continuity, change and significance, rooted in the major events of England’s history.

“Doing this through the lens of the movement of diverse groups of people has the added benefit of contemporary relevance and will make for a rigorous, stimulating and enjoyable course.”

He said it would require pupils to explore and understand “the constant shifts in the British population”. This included the impact of invaders such as the Romans and the Vikings, the effect of the Empire on India and the West Indies and people coming to Britain to flee persecution including the Huguenots, Jews and, more recently, the Syrians.

The Government has already set out proposals to overhaul GCSEs will more rigorous subject content and a greater emphasis on exams as opposed to coursework.

Under the changes, new history exams require pupils to study a wider range of historical periods, a greater emphasis on British history and at least one extended project.

OCR is currently developing two new GCSEs in response to the reforms. One will focus on the “modern world” and the second will put more emphasis on a range of historical periods. As part of the courses, pupils will have the option of taking a dissertation-style project in the monarch, war and society or immigration.

The proposed new GCSEs will be submitted to the government next year and will be taught from 2016, subject to approval from Ofqual, the exams regulator.

Mr Goddard said: “Migration has been a constant and, in many important ways, a defining feature of our history. Tracking it thematically over time makes for a complex and fascinating study, will build on recent academic research, and will reveal many new and enlightening aspects of our past.”

Here is the link to the original>>> Pupils to learn about immigration in new history GCSE – Telegraph

MY INTERVIEW ON RUSSIA TODAY ABOUT THE OFFICIAL MULTI-CULTURALIST POLICY IN ENGLISH SCHOOLS TEACHING "BRITISH VALUES"

INTERVIEW FOR NEWS FEATURE ON RUSSIA TODAY ABOUT THE OFFICIAL MULTI-CULTURALIST POLICY IN ENGLISH SCHOOLS TO TEACH BRITISHNESS


Early on Thursday, 20th November, I was quietly fuming to myself about the article which had appeared in the papers about a primary school in Lincolnshire being marked down by Ofsted for being too English. The phone then rang and I was invited to come to Russia Today’s studios at Millbank Tower to be on this News to talk about it. Naturally I was happy to do so and the YouTube of my interview is below. Before you look at that interview though do read the article:-

Rural school is denied top grade by Ofsted inspectors because it’s ‘too English’ and not diverse enough

 A high-performing primary school has missed out on Ofsted’s top grade after being judged too English.

Pupils at the rural primary lacked ‘first-hand experience of the diverse make-up of modern British society’, declared the watchdog.

However, around 97 per cent of the population in the town to which the school belongs are white.

Ofsted refused it an ‘outstanding’ rating and graded it ‘good’ instead.

It said the school was failing to do enough to ensure pupils understand the ‘cultural diversity of modern British society’ and experience ‘first-hand interaction with counterparts from different backgrounds’.

But parents complained Middle Rasen Primary in Market Rasen was being punished for factors outside its control and had effectively been told it was ‘too English’.

The row is the latest controversy over new rules on teaching ‘British values’ introduced in the wake of the Trojan Horse scandal, in which Muslim extremists tried to infiltrate schools in Birmingham.

Schools are required to ‘actively promote’ British values such as democracy, tolerance, mutual respect, individual liberty and the rule of law.

However the rules – and Ofsted’s enforcement of them – have brought criticism from some schools and faith groups. A Christian school in Reading says it was warned it could face closure for failing to invite imams and other religious leaders to take assemblies.

In another case, a Roman Catholic school in East Anglia was marked down for failing to do enough to ‘teach students about the dangers of extremism and radicalisation’, although the report was later withdrawn.

The 104-pupil Middle Rasen Primary, in the town of Market Rasen on the edge of the Lincolnshire wolds, was inspected last month.

Ofsted praised it for high standards of teaching and leadership and the courteous and enthusiastic behaviour of pupils. But the inspector said: ‘The large majority of pupils are White British. Very few are from other ethnic groups, and currently no pupils speak English as an additional language.’

It said the school should ‘extend pupils’ understanding of the cultural diversity of modern British society by creating opportunities for them to have first-hand interaction with their counterparts from different backgrounds’.

Yesterday parents attacked the Ofsted decision. Mother-of-two Kirsty Egen, 29, said: ‘I think it’s ridiculous. It’s a brilliant school.

‘Why would the school spend time on trying to teach the children how to integrate with people who aren’t even there? It seems very vindictive to just mark them down for something they cannot change.’

Jodie Miller, 35, whose daughter Dylann, six, attends the school added: ‘We are a small rural community, there just aren’t many children here from different backgrounds.’

Julia Weeks, 47, who has a son of ten at the school, said: ‘To mark a school down for something they cannot control is crackers. If there were more people from ethnic minorities around then maybe you could have a complaint, but there just aren’t.’ Father-of-one Benjamin Bannan, 33, added: ‘It’s outrageous that a British school can he punished for being too British.’

Head teacher Melonie Brunton said the school was now looking to partner with an inner-city school in an effort to comply with Ofsted’s recommendation.

‘Ofsted are very keen on British values,’ she said. ‘We were very pleased to have got the very positive comments. We are a rural Lincolnshire school and that is always going to be an issue.’

Ofsted said: ‘We judged this school to be good across all areas, including teaching quality and pupils’ behaviour. All schools must teach pupils about fundamental British values.’

Father-of-one Benjamin Bannan, 33, added: ‘Its outrageous that a British school can be punished for being too British. It just doesn’t make sense at all.

‘We would welcome people from different cultures with open arms I’m sure – but there just aren’t any ethnic minorities around here.’

Ms Brunton said the school would look to look to partner with an inner-city school to develop their understanding of multicultural issues.

She said: ‘We would have liked to be ‘outstanding’ but we were very pleased to have got the very positive comments.

‘We all worked really hard – everybody, the staff and the pupils have worked hard.

‘I think the problem is that we are a rural Lincolnshire school and that is always going to be an issue. I agree that we could do more and we are trying to get a partnership with an inner city school.’

The head said school trips usually involve visits to the countryside, such as farms and zoos.

But they recently had a trip to Derby, which included a mosque visit as well as touring the Rolls-Royce factory.

She added: ‘We try to do things but not enough. I felt the Ofsted comments were a backlash against the Birmingham Trojan Horse issue and Ofsted are very keen on British values.’

Reverend Charles Patrick, who was head of the governors at the time of the report, added: ‘There is always more that you can do and maybe now we look at twinning the school with ones from other minority areas or something like that.

‘But this is a rural area, like 80 per cent of the country, we don’t have many non white residents. Perhaps it would be a different matter if we were in the middle of London or Manchester or something.’

Tory MP for Gainsborough Sir Edward Leigh said: ‘This is political correctness gone mad.

‘Middle Rasen Primary School is an outstanding school by any standards, and Melonie Brunton is a brilliant headteacher – I back the school and its head one-hundred percent.

‘Just last week I wrote to Nicky Morgan, the Education Secretary, objecting strenuously to the new so-called ‘equality’ regulations she is implementing in schools.

‘Conservatives have always stood for freeing our schools from the deadening hand of state-enforced orthodoxy.

‘Why there has been such a massive U-turn under Nicky Morgan is inexplicable to me.

‘Multiculturalism is an irrelevance in Lincolnshire with its low number of ethnic minorities, who are already welcomed and well-integrated into our local communities, as they should be.’

A spokesman for Ofsted reiterated that it was not the only factor in depriving the school of its ‘outstanding’ rating.

He said: ‘We judged this school to be good across all areas including leadership and management, teaching quality, and pupils’ behaviour and safety.

‘All schools must teach pupils about fundamental British values including mutual respect and tolerance of those with different faiths and beliefs.

‘That way they will be prepared for the future wherever they go.’

Click here for the original of the article >>> Middle Rasen Primary School denied top grade by Ofsted as it’s ‘too English’ | Daily Mail Online

Now here is the link to my interview with Russia Today – click here >>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q6MSh487lKQ

What do you think?

FARAGE – V – CLEGG – THE LBC EU DEBATE

FARAGE – V – CLEGG – THE LBC EU DEBATE


I watched the LBC/SKY debate between Nick Clegg and Nigel Farage over “Britain’s” membership of the EU.  I thought Nigel Farage did very well.  Although he is not as polished a debater as Nick Clegg, he was certainly able to more than hold his own.  From an English nationalist point of view, it was also interesting to hear him confirm repeatedly that he was “British” and to emphasise that what he is concerned about is “Britain’s” place in the world.  His comments will have firmly and finally nailed UKIP’s colours to the mast of Britishness!

So far as Nick Clegg was concerned, there was again talk of “Britain” and “British” interests, although Clegg is not as enthusiastically patriotic about Britain as Nigel Farage, he did take the crown by saying that:- “I want us to be Great Britain, not Little England.  And if you feel the same, then now is the time to make your voice heard”.  My response to Nick Clegg is: Now is the time for a voice standing up for England to be heard!

After Nick Clegg’s performance over student “top-up” fees, we all know that nothing he says should be taken as anything more than a useful line spun for the moment, but it was entertaining to see that even applies to his rhetoric about “our country”.  After the 18th September, we may be moving to the end of “Great Britain” whatever the Westminster and Whitehall Establishment may want (memo to Nick Clegg :- E + S = GB therefore GB – S = E).

One very interesting aspect of the discussions that Sky TV showed afterwards, was interviews with the various political commentators like Sky’s own Adam Bolton and many other media lovies. They all seemed to think that Nick Clegg had won the debate.  This is an interesting illustration of the point made by Drew Weston in his book, ‘The Political Brain’, that people tend to be completely blinded to what other people think during political debates because of their own political identity.

The opinion polls show that by far the majority of people thought that Nigel Farage had won.  This is, of course, for the same reason, in that those people are seeing only what appeals to their political identity.

Putting these reactions together shows that the leading commentators in the British media are so politically divorced from the views of most normal people that they have no instinctive understanding of how most normal people will react to a political point.

It seems that “liberals” think that political debates are won by making precise nit-picking points rather than statements with emotional punch.

The other thing about the debate was that it was very nice to see a studio audience in a TV debate not as carefully selected for Leftist bias as we always seem to find with BBC selected audiences!  I wonder if we will see usual BBC audience bias in the BBC hosted debate in a few days?