the Government is making claims of ensuring everyone has high speed connection to broadband – a situation they are seemingly a million miles from achieving, whilst the public, myself included, clamour for workable broadband speeds and reliability in this modern age (which we do not have in this area!).
People can hardly complain when once people get decent connections, particvularly if they are stupid enough to plaster their private details all over the likes of Facebook, Instagram and the like, don’t be surprised if corporations, politicians, government and crooks use that data you have freely given.
We have here the latest version of invasion of privacy which is just as specious and fundamentally dishonest as all those petty nobodies who had their phones hacked and got huge compensation for being too idle or too stupid to change their passwords!
The internet is remarkably simple to control, but the will to do so is not there!
On line obscenity, abuse, pornography can be stopped with one simple control – but the industry and Government seem unwilling to do anything about it.
In the mean time don’t expect anything on the internet to be private – it just isn’t – and for as long as it isn’t don’t be surprised or complain if the information you pump out is used, whether to your advantage or against!
Leave.EU used ‘creepy’ Facebook profiling technology to win Brexit campaign — and now the data watchdog is investigating
Jake Kanter March 2017
View photos
Nigel Farage
PA
Leave.EU admits using “creepy” Facebook tech to scoop up data and target voters with anti-EU messages.
The data firm that helped Donald Trump take office, Cambridge Analytica, distances itself from the Leave.EU project.
Questions over whether Leave.EU broke rules on political donations and if Cambridge Analytica breached data protection laws.
LONDON — The communications director for Leave.EU, the Nigel Farage-backed Brexit campaign group, has admitted using “creepy” Facebook profiling technology to persuade Brits to vote to leave Europe.
Leave.EU communications director Andy Wigmore told The Observer at the weekend that the group — which is bankrolled by UKIP’s biggest donor Aaron Banks — harvested personal data last year and targeted voters on Facebook with anti-EU messaging.
He claimed Leave.EU worked with Cambridge Analytica (CA), the data firm credited with helping Donald Trump win the US election, on an informal basis on the project. CA has denied it worked for the campaign, however.
Now Leave.EU is the subject of a complaint over whether it broke the rules on political donations, and Cambridge Analytica is being investigated by the government’s data protection agency over whether it breached privacy laws, sources tell Business Insider.
Facebook as a propaganda weapon
Wigmore told The Observer that Facebook was a powerful weapon in Leave.EU’s armoury. “Using artificial intelligence, as we did, tells you all sorts of things about that individual and how to convince them with what sort of advert,” he said.
“And you knew there would also be other people in their network who liked what they liked, so you could spread. And then you follow them. The computer never stops learning and it never stops monitoring.”
View photos
A man is silhouetted against a video screen with a Facebook logo as he poses with a Samsung S4 smartphone in this photo illustration taken in the central Bosnian town of Zenica, August 14, 2013. REUTERS/Dado Ruvic/File Photo
Thomson ReutersHe admitted that the technology’s accuracy is unsettling. Wigmore said: “It’s really creepy! It’s why I’m not on Facebook! I tried it on myself to see what information it had on me and I was like, ‘Oh my God!’ What’s scary is that my kids had put things on Instagram and it picked that up. It knew where my kids went to school.”
The firm has developed a proprietary technique known as “psychographics” to profile individuals and target them with messages, but in a statement to Business Insider, it said it played no part in Leave.EU’s Brexit campaign. “Cambridge Analytica did not carry out any kind of paid or unpaid work for Leave.EU,” a spokesman told us.
Business Insider contacted Leave.EU four times to ask why CA was disputing Wigmore’s version of events and request more information about the data firm’s actual involvement in the social media profiling. Leave.EU did not respond to our emails or phone calls.
Complaint to Electoral Commission and data protection probe
A complaint has been filed with the Electoral Commission over CA’s alleged work for Leave.EU, according to a source who has seen the complaint. Under election rules, political parties must declare donations of £7,500 or more, including services-in-kind.
“My guess is that we are now beginning to see a rather fuller picture of how the Leave vote and the Trump vote really came about,” the source told Business Insider. The source was a supporter of Britain remaining in the European Union but agreed only to talk anonymously in order to avoid any attendant negative publicity.
View photos
Brexit protest
To view the original of this article CLICK HERE
Regards,
Greg_L-W.
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 44 (0)1594 – 528 337
Calls from ‘Number Withheld’ phones Are Blocked
All unanswered messages are recorded.
Leave your name & a UK land line number & I will return your call.
ALL MY BLOGS & WEB SITES are clearly sourced to me
I do NOT use an obfuscated eMail address to hide behind
I do NOT use or bother reading FaceBook
I DO have a Voice Mail Message System
I ONLY GUARANTEE to answer identifiable eMails
I ONLY GUARANTEE to phone back identifiable UK Land Line Messages
I do NOT accept phone calls from witheld numbers
I Regret due to BT in this area I have a rubbish Broadband connection
I AM opposed to British membership of The EU
I AM opposed to Welsh, Scottish or English Independence within an interdependent UK
I am NOT a WARMIST
I do NOT believe the IPCC Climate Propaganda re Anthropogenic Global Warming
I AM strongly opposed to the subsidy or use of failed technologies eg. WIND TURBINES
I AM IN FAVOUR of rapid research & development of NEW NUCLEAR technologies
I see no evidence to trust POLITICIANS at any level or of any persuasion
I do NOT believe in GODS singular or plural, Bronze Age or Modern
I value the NHS as a HEALTH SERVICE NOT a Lifestyle support
I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial or GBH rape.
I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial, terrorist, mass or for pleasure murder.
I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial gross child abuse including sexual.
I do NOT trust or believe in armed police
I do NOT believe in prolonging human life beyond reasonable expectation of sentient participatory intellectual existence
I believe in EUTHENASIA under clearly defined & legal terms
I try to make every effort to NOT infringe copyrights in any commercial way & make all corrections of fact brought to my attention by an identifiable individual
you will I am sure have noted that I predicted that in their utterly predictable failure in Stoke they would start to tear their own hear4t out, just as Ukip always has in the past. Paul Nuttall can be assured to lack the integrity to admit it was his own abject incompetence and undeniable duplicity and dishonesty backed by incompetent idiots managing his failed campaign that caused Ukip to fail to win in Stoke – most probably the most likely and easiest seat for Ukip to win in the whole UK!
Increasingly Ukip confirm they have not got, nor have they ever had or ever will have a rle in British domestic politics – even if they had a single ethical member of any standing to put forward as a candidate it is unlikely they will ever have an MP in Westminster other than the odd turncoat who had established themselves in their constituency and failed within their original party of choice. Such as the tree they have had to date, only one of whom was returned as an MP.
Even Ukip’s comic has published details of how they have collapsed into the gutter squabbling:
1 day ago – Ukip donor calls for Douglas Carswell to be ‘REMOVED’ in fresh party feud. … UKIP’s only MP Douglas Carswell has been branded a “disgrace” in a scathing attack by the party’s largest donor. … Arron Banks said the former Conservative politician was a “poor return for four …
2 days ago – Douglas Carswell was quizzed on Question Time whether defeat in the Stoke … UKIP’s only MP Douglas Carswell criticised former leader Nigel …
2 days ago – UKIP RIFTS: Douglas Carswell is a ‘DISGRACE’ and must be EXPELLED from party, MEP claims. … DOUGLAS Carswell must be expelled from Ukip or leave the party after his “disgraceful” comments on Question Time, a leading MEP has blasted. … Mr Etheridge told the Express.co.uk: “Douglas …
UKIP RIFTS: Douglas Carswell is a ‘DISGRACE’ and must be EXPELLED from party, MEP claims
DOUGLAS Carswell must be expelled from Ukip or leave the party after his “disgraceful” comments on Question Time, a leading MEP has blasted.
PUBLISHED: 02:34, Fri, Feb 24, 2017 | UPDATED: 08:22, Fri, Feb 24, 2017
Bill Etheridge, Ukip’s MEP for the West Midlands, was scathing in his criticism of the former Tory MP after he called the party’s values and principles into question on the same night Paul Nuttall was fighting a crucial by-election in Stoke-on-Trent Central.
Ukip’s defence spokesman also attacked Mr Carswell for his remarks on former party leader Nigel Farage – who was not in Stoke for the by-election count amid rumours of new rifts within the party.
GETTY
Bill Etheridge blasted Douglas Carswell for his remarks on the party
GETTY
Bill Etheridge MEP said Carswell should resign from Ukip
Frankly, it’s time that action was taken to deal with this kind of behaviour and these kind of comments
Bill Etheridge MEP
Mr Etheridge told the Express.co.uk: “Douglas Carswell’s performance on Question Time was an absolute disgrace.
“His criticism of Nigel Farage, and what’s more, his criticism of the values of our party and the smug, smirky manner in which he has done it on a night what is so important to our party is a disgrace.
“Frankly, it’s time that action was taken to deal with this kind of behaviour and these kind of comments.
“All the people who might agree with Mr Carswell and disagree with the values of our party should seriously consider their position and look at joining another party or at least leave Ukip so that we can continue with the important, radical work that Nigel Farage started and Paul Nuttall will continue.”
Douglas Carswell labelled Nigel Farage’s unsuccessful campaign in South Thanet as “mayhem” and smirked as he slammed the leading Brexiteer for “representing LBC” rather than Ukip – despite stating he would not “take a dig” at the former leader.
He said: “That to me is a disgraceful thing to say. The reason we don’t get the benefit of the doubt is due to smears and attacks by our opponents.
“We should be defending our party and be positive about the values we put forward.
Brexit: Which parts of the UK had the majority vote?
Fri, February 17, 2017
Much of the North East of the United Kingdom voted to leave the European Union including Sunderland, Gateshead, Darlington, Durham, Hartlepool, Middlesbrough, Stockton, Redcar and Cleveland, North Tyneside and South Tyneside, and Northumberland. Newcastle was the only borough to vote to remain.
GREAT YARMOUTH: The town of Great Yarmouth on the East Coast of England voted by 72% to leave the European Union.
“As Nigel Farage said last week, if Ukip aren’t a radical party, we will amount to nothing… We will not change.
“We will continue to be a radical, reforming party who continue to challenge the status quo.
“Mr Carswell wants to make us more mainstream. The whole purpose of Ukip is to be a radical party who finds the consensus. His performance tonight is proof positive that he has no future in our party.”
GETTY
Paul Nuttall narrowly lost the Stoke-on-Trent Central by-election
Mr Etheridge said he would be taking the matter to the Ukip’s National Executive Committee (NEC) – who would have the power to make the decision to sack Mr Carswell – after receiving support from “grassroots activists and all throughout the party”.
Paul Nuttall received a vocal show of support from Mr Etheridge, but he added his campaign in Stoke-on-Trent had “suffered” because of the advice he had received from certain members within the party.
Mr Etheridge said: “Paul is a great man and a great leader. He has suffered from very poor efforts of advice by people who have got close to him and I think it’s time the rest of the party supported Paul properly and helped him get the party back on the right track, which is a radical, libertarian party.”
The Express.co.uk has contacted Mr Carswell for a response.
It took less than twenty-four hours from the moment Paul Nuttall was soundly defeated in Stoke and like clockwork, the infighting and bullying within UKIP had already begun. We predicted as much in our piece published earlier in the week and we’re sure nobody reading this is really surprised.
The target this time is someone who is well used to being attacked by his own side and in true UKIP fashion, their one electable and somewhat moderate MP, Douglas Carswell, is facing calls for his expulsion from Bill Etheridge after he made “disgraceful statements” on BBC Question Time last night.
Perhaps Carswell made racist comments or endorsed torture. Maybe he posted false statements about his presence at a disastrous and tragic event. Or did he make multiple sexual harassment calls to women while employed as an adviser to the party?
No he did much, much worse. The Clacton MP is arguably UKIP’s last remaining source of credibility in a party that is beyond toxic and – unlike the majority of his party’s other elected MEPs – is actually known to be a good constituency MP. But the parliamentarian made an indiscretion that UKIP cannot tolerate, a sin so heinous that his immediate expulsion must be arranged.
He suggested that voters have issues with the way UKIP conducts itself and in turn, this may have an impact on why people don’t vote for them. In the twisted and dark world of the UK Independence Party this is sacrilege of the highest order. An inquisition must surely be formed – just don’t call the NEC.
“We as a party need to ask ourselves “what is it, what is it to do with our values, what is it about us?” that means many people aren’t giving us the benefit of the doubt. That’s a key question, regardless of the outcome of the by-election.” – Douglas Carswell MP’s “disgraceful statement”.
It is not the MP’s first run-in with UKIP’s bully boy routine. Last year members of the Young Independence youth movement applauded and cheered when MEP David Coburn declared that “hanging would be too good” for Douglas Carswell at the YI conference.
There have also been multiple briefings and attacks against Carswell placed in the media, including a report that “dark forces” within UKIP had attempted to cause problems in the former Tory’s marriage by launching a blackmail plot – apparently as a way of punishing him for supposed crimes against the party.
The disgraceful behaviour can only be described as a bullying campaign and it is no wonder the MP refuses to attend party conferences and meetings. Perhaps he is worried about his personal safety, after-all, the last time he attended he was verbally abused by UKIP’s most prolific donor.
What makes it all the more shocking is that this campaign is being led and endorsed by UKIP’s elected MEPs, using their media and social media profiles to seek and destroy their man in Westminster; enabling like-minded UKIP supporters and thus expanding the bullying campaign. UKIP MEPs routinely like and re-tweet posts which viciously attack perceived party enemies including Carswell, Suzanne Evans and others, using their profiles as elected members of the European Parliament, not just their private accounts.
UKIP’s MEPs routinely use their media and social media reach to attack their solitary MP.
It’s is exactly this type of behaviour and culture that led to the shocking scenes in Strasbourg last year when UKIP MEPs Steven Woolfe and Mike Hookem let their fists fly in a vote meeting; a boiling over of internal tension that concluded in Woolfe’s seizure and hospital stay. It was not outside the realms of possibility that he could have died as a result of his injuries. Thank god he did not.
Long before “the scuffle” Woolfe had confided in his staff that he was “under attack” by senior UKIP figures, including Paul Nuttall, claiming: “They are out to get me.”
The former UKIP MEP was so concerned by bullying and intimidation among parliamentary staff that he instructed one of his aides to “protect himself” and “not take the bullying”.
Steven Woolfe acknowledges the bullying culture within UKIP in a text conversation with an aide in December 2015.
We have been told of several other alleged violent altercations between UKIP MEPs and /or staff in previous years. Readers will also remember that one of UKIP’s own ethnic minority aides was attacked in his office by the party’s Brussels press chief when he dared to speak up about racism and bullying within the EFDD group.
Judging UKIP by their words and actions it is painfully obvious that this type of “altercation” is the rule rather than the exception. Bullying, intimidation violence and the threat of physical force is a way of life within UKIP.
To view the original of this article CLICK HERE
Regards, Greg_L-W.
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 44 (0)1594 – 528 337
Calls from ‘Number Withheld’ phones Are Blocked
All unanswered messages are recorded.
Leave your name & a UK land line number & I will return your call.
ALL MY BLOGS & WEB SITES are clearly sourced to me
I do NOT use an obfuscated eMail address to hide behind
I do NOT use or bother reading FaceBook
I DO have a Voice Mail Message System
I ONLY GUARANTEE to answer identifiable eMails
I ONLY GUARANTEE to phone back identifiable UK Land Line Messages
I do NOT accept phone calls from witheld numbers
I Regret due to BT in this area I have a rubbish Broadband connection
I AM opposed to British membership of The EU
I AM opposed to Welsh, Scottish or English Independence within an interdependent UK
I am NOT a WARMIST
I do NOT believe the IPCC Climate Propaganda re Anthropogenic Global Warming
I AM strongly opposed to the subsidy or use of failed technologies eg. WIND TURBINES
I AM IN FAVOUR of rapid research & development of NEW NUCLEAR technologies
I see no evidence to trust POLITICIANS at any level or of any persuasion
I do NOT believe in GODS singular or plural, Bronze Age or Modern
I value the NHS as a HEALTH SERVICE NOT a Lifestyle support
I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial or GBH rape.
I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial, terrorist, mass or for pleasure murder.
I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial gross child abuse including sexual.
I do NOT trust or believe in armed police
I do NOT believe in prolonging human life beyond reasonable expectation of sentient participatory intellectual existence
I believe in EUTHENASIA under clearly defined & legal terms
I try to make every effort to NOT infringe copyrights in any commercial way & make all corrections of fact brought to my attention by an identifiable individual
Self Serving Egotism Passed Off As Leadership! As at last Ukip may be rid of the monkey on its back losing him to a job in America – one can but hope!
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
.
Hi,
I am, I said…
November 9th, 2016.
Just days before the US Presidential elections, the London Evening Standard published an op-ed by Nigel Farage MEP on the race to the White House (Trump is not perfect but he is the agent of change we need- Nov 4th).
Farage drew parallels between Trump’s supporters and those who voted in favour of the UK’s withdrawal from the EU – Brexit – in June of this year. Certainly the campaigns have been similar, with concerns about security, the economy, health care, crime, and unemployment all being placed firmly within the contexts of immigration and Islamic Fundamentalism. This is populism at its most simplistic; find an enemy, and blame him for all your nation’s woes. This strategy of issue linkage draws everything together; buck-passing, safety in numbers, patriotism, and at the end, salvation through national sovereignty. It certainly worked in Germany in the 1930s.
But the most interesting aspect of Farage’s article, which begins with the words “I had always said…” is that Trump himself is used as no more than a prop to assist the UKIP leader onto centre stage.
“…my trip ended up with me not only being invited to attend a Donald Trump rally but I was suddenly informed that they wanted me to speak and that Trump would be introducing me.” To refer to oneself five times in the same sentence is not good form, to say the least.
In fact, Farage refers to himself no less than an astonishing 28 times, whilst Trump, supposedly the subject of the article, warrants just 13 mentions.
This is naked narcissism, nothing more, nothing less. Farage sees himself at the centre of everything.
Farage’s behaviour in respect of the leadership of UKIP is also enlightening.
First elected to the office in 2006, following the leadership of Roger Knapman, who was widely credited as being the architect of UKIP’s performance in the 2004 elections, Farage was to resign in 2009 in order to contest the Buckingham constituency in the General Election of 2010. He handed the helm to Lord Pearson, a UKIP peer. Nobody has ever satisfactorily explained this rather strange move.
Farage, who was convinced he was on his way to Westminster, failed to secure the seat with 17.4% of the vote, coming 3rd, behind, amongst others, a man dressed as a dolphin.
And so, he reclaimed the throne, becoming party leader for the second time.
He was then to resign again, in 2015, stating that he wanted to resume a normal life. However, new standards in political farce were set when UKIP’s National Executive “refused” to accept the resignation. So Farage was “forced” to unresign, and he came back for a third time.
Following the Brexit vote in June, he resigned yet again.
The ensuing leadership election was wrapped in the now familiar internal bitterness and acrimony, but it was to deliver an absolute gem: the winner of the election, Diane James, announced after 18 days that she didn’t actually want to be leader after all. And so Farage became de facto leader for the fourth time. Yet another leadership election is due to be held later this month; Farage has declared that he will not stand.
Following the shock win in the US Presidential election by Donald Trump, Farage is quoted in the UK press today as saying that he is seeking a role in the Trump administration, and that he would like to serve as Mr Trump’s ambassador to the European Union that he professes to detest so much.
ALL MY BLOGS & WEB SITES are clearly sourced to me
I do NOT use an obfuscated eMail address to hide behind
I do NOT use or bother reading FaceBook
I DO have a Voice Mail Message System
I ONLY GUARANTEE to answer identifiable eMails
I ONLY GUARANTEE to phone back identifiable UK Land Line Messages
I do NOT accept phone calls from witheld numbers
I Regret due to BT in this area I have a rubbish Broadband connection
I AM opposed to British membership of The EU
I AM opposed to Welsh, Scottish or English Independence within an interdependent UK
I am NOT a WARMIST
I do NOT believe the IPCC Climate Propaganda re Anthropogenic Global Warming
I AM strongly opposed to the subsidy or use of failed technologies eg. WIND TURBINES
I AM IN FAVOUR of rapid research & development of NEW NUCLEAR technologies
I see no evidence to trust POLITICIANS at any level or of any persuasion
I do NOT believe in GODS singular or plural, Bronze Age or Modern
I value the NHS as a HEALTH SERVICE NOT a Lifestyle support
I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial or GBH rape.
I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial, terrorist, mass or for pleasure murder.
I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial gross child abuse including sexual.
I do NOT trust or believe in armed police
I do NOT believe in prolonging human life beyond reasonable expectation of sentient participatory intellectual existence
I believe in EUTHENASIA under clearly defined & legal terms
I try to make every effort to NOT infringe copyrights in any commercial way & make all corrections of fact brought to my attention by an identifiable individual
Ukip, Nigel Farage & Power Struggles WILL LOSE The Referendum For BreXit – Just as the 1975 Referendum was lost by the British peoples’ best interests due to a lack of coherent plan, FUD, the lies of the EU & Government & squabbling!
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
.
Hi,
Ukip are squabbling like ferrets in a sack – just for a change!
This time it is a power struggle where Nigel Farage would seem willing to do absolutely anything to get his hands on the cash available if ‘Grassroots-Out’ aka ‘Leave-EU’ can get the designation in the EU Referendum.
Susanne Evans together with a few cronies, just doesn’t seem to believe Nigel Farage can be trusted and have joined his opposition contesting for designation and the pot of gold.
All this greed, self importance, show boating and squabbling is clearly at the cost of these United Kingdoms and the best interests of Britain and our peoples – in fact EUrope at large and global peace, as it stands this is just a repeat of the 1975 Referendum – almost as if these squabbling ferretts are using the book on the 1975 Referendum as an instruction manual!
All the same mistakes are being made that lost Britain the Referendum in 1975 with most of the same lies and desperate claims designed to spread FUD that won the day for the EU in 1975 – Read the book for yourself it is available in electronic version free CLICK HERE
Suzanne Evans’ application in the High Court to have her suspension from UKIP lifted has failed. She’ll have to pay £5,000 costs. Patrick O’Flynn has started a petition to get her reinstated. Read all the gory details of the court case only on Guido here…
UPDATE: Suzanne speaks:
“I am stunned and distressed by this latest turn of events. I will look to take up whatever right of appeal is open to me. I remain determined to keep my personal focus on working to the full extent of my ability to help secure a ‘Leave’ vote in the EU Referendum on 23rd June, and contribute to electoral successes for UKIP on 5th May.”
UPDATE II: UKIP hit back:
“A disciplinary panel constituted by the UKIP National Executive Committee today (23 March 2016) heard a complaint against Suzanne Evans that she had publicly criticised a fellow candidate in breach of the party rules and in terms which contravene the Party Constitution. The panel resolved to suspend her membership of the party for six months. The decision may be subject to appeal. Ms Evans sought an injunction in the High Court today to prevent the hearing, but this was unsuccessful. As a consequence of this, she will not now be nominated as a UKIP candidate in the London Assembly elections to be held on May 5th.”
Guido understands there a plans afoot in UKIP to suspend Suzanne Evans from the party. The party scheduled a disciplinary meeting this morning to discuss whether to take action against Evans over a series of claims involving alleged breaches of party rules. Court documents show that Evans is filing an application to the High Court at midday today to attempt to postpone any disciplinary action until after the GLA nominations are closed on March 31. In the explosive court documents, Suzanne writes that Nigel Farage is trying to force her out:
Evans makes a series of allegations against Arron Banks and Farage’s former aide Raheem Kassam:
She concludes:
The most explosive developments in the UKIP civil war yet…
UPDATE: UKIP confirm Suzanne Evans has been suspended for six months.
Farage’s revenge on Vote Leave-backing Suzanne Evans continues – last week hesacked her as deputy chair, today he’s sacked her as welfare spokesman. Last night Nigel told a Ladbrokes panel that Douglas Carswell is “irrelevant“, the second time in a week he has slagged off his only MP. How about focusing on the real enemy?
UPDATE: Suzanne tells Guido:
“I must be the most purged woman in British Politics! You have to laugh it’s so ridiculous.”
UPDATE II: Peter Reeve, UKIP’s local government spokesman and also a Vote Leave supporter, has also been sacked by Farage. He’s been replaced by porn scandal David Sprason, who signed up UKIP councillors to Grassroots Out.
Suzanne Evans is no longer UKIP’s deputy chairman. Farage says in a statement:
“I have made some changes to our structure today. Both of our Deputy Chairs are candidates in the upcoming elections and this will limit any role they can play in the national referendum campaign. So I thank Suzanne Evans and Neil Hamilton for their time as Deputy Chairs and announce they will be replaced by Diane James and William Dartmouth.”
Expect to hear from those involved that this is nothing to do with UKIP’s internal politics. Though allies of Farage say this is a putsch against Suzanne, long seen as a threat by the leader’s camp and a supporter of Vote Leave, not Nigel’s preferred Grassroots Out…
UPDATE: A Breitbartstory written by Farage’s former aide Raheem Kassam reveals the thinking at Grassroots Out – stripping Evans of the deputy chair role hurts Vote Leave’s bid for the designation:
“Ms. Evans no longer holding a position with the party is also problematic for the ‘Vote Leave’ campaign who have been trumpeting her support as their UKIP “cross party” backing. Now they are limited to one Member of Parliament, one Member of the European Parliament, and one member of the National Executive Committee.”
UPDATE II: Evans speaks:
“I’m naturally disappointed. I felt I was doing a good job and helping to broaden the party’s appeal both in relation to the EU referendum and the upcoming electoral challenges of May 5th and beyond.
I’d like to say a huge ‘thank you’ for all the many messages of support I’ve had from UKIP members already today, but I certainly have no intention of being drawn into any disharmony. I of course accept that it is entirely within any party leader’s authority to choose and to change their own top team.”
“I have thrown my hat into the ring to apply to be UKIP candidate for Mayor of London and or an London assembly member. Let’s be realistic, I don’t think London is going to have a UKIP mayor any time soon. But I think it’s time for London to have a different view, a different approach. I think there are a growing amount of people in London who want to see things from a UKIP perspective.”
Also in the running for the UKIP nomination is Culture spokesman Peter Whittle, asrevealed by Guido last week.
Guido also hears that Richard Hendron, organiser of UKIP’s Gay Pride contingent, is also throwing his hat into the ring. Suzanne says she reckons she is Nige’s candidate…Suzanne Evans tells Iain Dale:
“There has been no purge,” sacked Suzanne Evans told Victoria Derbyshire this morning, insisting it is “a coincidence” that she, Patrick O’Flynn and Gobby have all since lost their jobs. Apparently we shouldn’t believe the “hostile media agenda” and “the […]
Maya Angelou’s Iconic Words ‘I Rise’ To Aid the Exposure Of the tragic, toxic, self important egos that seek importance in the Evil in which they see themselves in their own distorted mirrors.
Let us not forget the words of their past fellow traveler:
“I can’t take any more of this woman”.
Strange that it is the words of the dead that so readily and appositely denounce the evil of the unpatriotic, in their determination to place their egos and obsessions with themselves before our Country, our birthright and our future in their divisive support that so aids the EU as Christopher Booker and Richard North have made so clear.
Next Wednesday, courtesy of the Campaign for an Independent Britain (CIB), we will be launching the first of a series of seminars on the EU – click flyer (left) for details. The day session is directed mainly (but not exclusively) at the business community and is free of charge, making it rather better value than the seminar planned by the Continental Drift at £1,800 per person.
I am taking the afternoon session, when my talk will be based on an expanded version of my successful presentation in Iceland. It was there that I first outlined in public some of my ideas for how we might leave the EU.
Needless to say, this heightened activity is bringing the wreckers out of the woodwork. Already, there is an active e-mail campaign, where the groupescules have convinced themselves that Booker is variously taking instructions from the Barclay brothers, and or is an MI5 “sleeper” with myself as his handler.
It would be very easy to dismiss these people as a joke (correction: it is very easy to dismiss these people as a joke), except that they are the same group who possess the soul of UKIP, insisting that Article 50 is a “trap”.
These are the people who now aver that EUReferendum, Witterings from Witney and other such blogs are “usually product of MI5’s RICU (Research Information Communications Unit)” aimed at “sabotaging the retrieval of our democracy”.
And so incensed is one of them, Lynn Atkinson, wife of Rodney Atkinson – who has never forgiven Booker for having “betrayed Jimmy Goldsmith’s Referendum Party at the last minute” and “sabotaged” his own “election as UKIP leader” – that she is planning to come to Harrogate, telling us that when she saw the flyer, she “thought it had been devised by the European Movement!”.
This is a flyer, incidentally, which advertises my talk on how to leave the EU but, according to Mrs Atkinson (and many hundreds like her), “Dr Richard North not only does not know how to exit the EU” – he “DOES NOT WANT TO EXIT THE EU!” (her capitals).
Thus, she tells us, “I shall certainly be attending in order to contradict him loudly and stop him doing even more damage than he has already done, just when Britain has made up its mind at last (too late now, the invaders outvote us in London and soon will all over the country)”. The latter is hugely ironic coming from a South African immigrant of Irish origin.
For us, though, this rhetoric is nothing new – it is a continuous and continuing backdrop to everything we do, a hard core within UKIP and alongside it, comprising in part manic Christian fundamentalists who combine Islamophobia with scarcely-concealed racism of such an intensity that it would frighten off the KKK as too extreme.
These are the people, alarmingly, who form a hidden “Praetorian Guard” within UKIP, a constant threat to Farage. With the support of much of his inner circle who share their values, they keep him on the “straight and narrow”.
It would be wrong to say that these people run UKIP – they do not. But their influence is pervasive, writ through the DNA of UKIP and inseparable from it. And there is nothing unreal about their hatred of “non-believers” such as myself who made the “mistake” of putting up two Islamic candidates for UKIP at the 2001 general election.
Now that I contradict their mantra of overnight repeal of the ECA as the only way to leave the EU, disbelieve the “fact” that the EU is a Nazi plot, and support the “trap” of Article 50, I am totally beyond the pale. That I am prepared to contemplate negotiation with the EU is treachery of the highest order.
Over on Autonomous Mind, you will see some words of wisdom on how we should construct our referendum strategy, but to the Praetorian Guard, such words are the vilest of heresy. Reasoned argument simply invokes a hatred that you could cut with a knife as they spread their conviction that anything short of immediate, unilateral withdrawal from the EU is written by or for MI5 with the intent of keeping us in the EU.
By comparison, their “dislike” of EU is relatively mild. They direct most of their energies and tenacity to the pursuit of “traitors” and “saboteurs” such as myself. We are the true objects of their hatred, our primary qualification for attracting their ire being that we do not wholeheartedly agree with them.
This, sadly, has been going on for decades, an enormous expenditure of energy which spills out into countless poisonous briefings, snippets of which even find their way onto this blog’s comments and the forum, their immediate authors often unaware of the original source. They achieve nothing but to hamper those who are seeking to take the fight to the real enemy. But then, to the Praetorian Guard, we are the real enemy.
Despite all that, we will be at Harrogate next week and even if Mrs Atkinson is not there in person, she will be there in spirit to remind us of how much we are hated for daring to take on the EU in a way of which they do not approve. Unwittingly, though, they are of huge assistance to us all. By comparison, they make fighting the EU look easy.
One recalls in this context the words of the American poet Maya Angelou, whose death was announced today. In her poem, I rise, she writes: “You may shoot me with your words, You may cut me with your eyes, You may kill me with your hatefulness, But still, like air, I’ll rise”.
Who, though born into poverty and hardship in the Southern States rose from her background of rape at 8, the murder of her rapist by her uncle showing a strong personality even in her early years this black lady built an outstanding reputation in the Civil Rights movement working alongside such iconic figures as Martin Luther King and Malcolm X – who then built a career in music spreading her reputation internationally as a singer with a fine repetoir in calypso.
Maya Angelou then built a career, though ever willing to burst into song, as a poet and biographer tackling her early years head on in ‘I Know Why The Caged Bird Sings’ which covered her life from 8 to 17.
Maya angelou went on to write and publish some 35 books including seven autobiographies, three books of essays, and several books of poetry, and is credited with a sizeable list of plays, movies, and television shows spanning more than fifty years.
Ever willing to promote or defend her views in rich discourse both face to face and on live media.
Her President commented on her death saying:
“one of the brightest lights of our time”.
He hailed Angelou, who has died aged 86, as
“a brilliant writer, a fierce friend and a truly phenomenal woman”.
President Barrack Obama awarded her The Presidential Medal of Freedom in 2011
whilst before him
President Bill Clinton awarded her The National Medal of Arts in 2000.
A staggering achievement minded of the poverty, abuse and prejudice into which she was born some 86 years ago. Her leadership and example may well be best known from her interviews by Oprah Winfrey and others.
I believe each of our lives are enriched by her achievements just as our lives are diminished by her passing – a measure of her strength speaks volumes of her life:
‘Still I Rise’ by Maya Angelou
You may write me down in history With your bitter, twisted lies, You may trod me in the very dirt But still, like dust, I’ll rise.
Does my sassiness upset you? Why are you beset with gloom? ‘Cause I walk like I’ve got oil wells Pumping in my living room.
Just like moons and like suns, With the certainty of tides, Just like hopes springing high, Still I’ll rise.
Did you want to see me broken? Bowed head and lowered eyes? Shoulders falling down like teardrops. Weakened by my soulful cries.
Does my haughtiness offend you? Don’t you take it awful hard ‘Cause I laugh like I’ve got gold mines Diggin’ in my own back yard.
You may shoot me with your words, You may cut me with your eyes, You may kill me with your hatefulness, But still, like air, I’ll rise.
Does my sexiness upset you? Does it come as a surprise That I dance like I’ve got diamonds At the meeting of my thighs?
Out of the huts of history’s shame I rise Up from a past that’s rooted in pain I rise I’m a black ocean, leaping and wide, Welling and swelling I bear in the tide. Leaving behind nights of terror and fear I rise Into a daybreak that’s wondrously clear I rise Bringing the gifts that my ancestors gave, I am the dream and the hope of the slave. I rise I rise I rise.
The IEA, The BrExit Prize, A Referendum on Leaving-The-EU, UKIP’s failure of knowledge understanding and ability & Christopher Booker’s View in The Sunday Telegraph last July!
.
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
.
IEA, BrExit, Referendum, UKIP & Christopher Booker’s View
with the upcoming EU elections on 22-May-2014 I felt it was apposite to revisit the question on the minds of the majority of Brits which tends to stretch from the simple and in my opinion sensible Leave-The-EU option which in the long term would I believe serve our peoples, our Country and our planet best and the unworkable and dishonest idiocy of re-negotiated terms with the EU as put forward by Tories who quite clearly are either hideously ill informed as to how the EU functions or just obscenely dishonest in pretending they can change the EU and get unanimous support amongst the other vassal states – the precondition for any major change!
Revisiting an article of Christopher Bookers from last summer little or nothing has changed – UKIP still haven’t a clue and have absolutely no exit and survival strategy just a clique squabbling like ferrets in a sack to stay on the gravy train, with the aim to get more MEPs elected but with zero vision and less hope of changing ANYTHING having abjectly failed to do so to date, hence their continued failure in domestic politics!
The Torieas were shocked into a debate in The House of Commons by the Independent MEP Nikki Sinclaire who gathered well over 200,000 signatures and forced the debate to occur, a debate in which David Cameron’s Government was confronted with his largest ever rebellion and was thus forced to make an undertaking to hold a referendum, allbeit he hedged his bets as ever.
To carry on the fight for a referendum Nikki Sinclaire formed the ‘We demand A Referendum Now Party’ and is standing for the cause in The West Midlands as an MEP – we can but hope this hard working and refreshingly honest and open MEP is re-elected to continue her patriotic defence of Britain and her constituents.
Sadly UKIP having done absolutely zero to support the cause now see this as an apposite band wagon to jump on to get more income by getting more MEPs! However let us not forget thaty UKIP has no ethical leadership, lacks transparency and has such a poor selection rigging process that already candidates are falling by the wayside, exposed as racists, anti homosexual, Islamaphobic and corrupt.
Let us not forget that of the 19 MEPs UKIP has had elected their titular leader has subsumed almost all power to himself, controls incomes and appoints his wife and mistresses to the staff! Little wonder that of the 19 elected he has fallen out with at least half and the balance are as much use as a soup sandwich having achieved absolutely nothing of note in their period on the gracy train!
Even Ukip has no idea how to get us out of the EU trap
Our politicians are stumbling around in the dark when it comes to EU rules. There is only one way we can renegotiate our position with Europe to our advantage
Fears over trade are forcing us into a frustrating ‘consensus’ position with EuropePhoto: Alamy
There is virtually no political issue that generates more ill-informed nonsense than whether or not Britain should stay in the EU. We have those 304 MPs voting for David Cameron’s wish to renegotiate our relationship with the EU and put the results to a referendum no later than 2017. We have Theresa May announcing that she is going to demand a British opt-out from 133 EU regulations on law and order, but then apply to opt in again on 35 of them. We have John Cridland, head of the CBI, repeating yet again the old canard that it would be disastrous for us to think of emulating Norway and Switzerland, the two richest countries in Europe, because although they trade freely with the EU’s single market, they have no say in shaping its rules. On and on goes such grandstanding, not touching reality at any point.
The essence of the problem is that, while the British like some aspects of the EU, other aspects make them deeply resentful, without them ever really understanding the rules or how it works. Thus, for many years, as the EU surges towards “ever closer union”, Britain has, in the words of the late Roy Jenkins, become an ever more “foot-dragging and complaining member”. On one hand, the pollsters report that up to half or more of British voters want us to leave. On the other, we have an establishment “consensus” between most of our politicians, media and big business, claiming that, although the EU in its present form is unsatisfactory and needs drastic “reform”, we must stay in for all the benefits we gain from trading with it, and because it gives us “influence”.
It is this “consensus” position that is so riddled with contradictions that it amounts to no more than multiple wishful thinking. There is no way Mr Cameron could obtain the kind of “à la carte” relationship he hints at, let alone that he could do so if re-elected, in time for a referendum in 2017. First, the rules would necessitate a new treaty, requiring procedures so lengthy that it could not possibly be completed by 2017. Second, the return of powers he claims to want would breach that most sacred principle of EU law, that national powers once surrendered can never be given back.
So, legally and practically, it is impossible that Mr Cameron could get anything of what all those MPs voted for the other day. The only semblance of a realistic understanding of all the issues involved comes from a research paper recently published by the House of Commons Library on what would be involved in a British withdrawal from the EU. This explains, with an authority no MP could muster, that the only way Britain could continue to trade freely within the single market without having to accept so much of the rest of the EU’s political baggage, would be to invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.
But this, of course, can only be done by a country giving notice that it wishes to leave the EU. This alone can compel its fellow-members to negotiate with it the kind of new relationship Mr Cameron says he wants. And this he could not rule out more emphatically, as again in a recent interview with El Pais, where he said there was no way he could support a vote for Britain to leave.
Regardless of Mr Cameron’s views, however, the Commons researchers then go on to explain how Britain could continue to enjoy full access to the single market by joining Norway and Switzerland as members of the European Free Trade Area (Efta), or, like Norway, as also a member of the European Economic Area. This is precisely the option Europhiles such as Mr Cridland are so desperate to misrepresent, by falsely claiming that Norway has no influence over the single market’s trading rules. Anyone who argues this has no grasp of how the system works. Not only are Efta members fully consulted in the shaping of single market legislation, but much of it now derives from global organisations above the EU, in which Norway has a voice in its own right, exercising more influence than Britain, which too often has to allow the EU to speak for it.
But it is this argument – playing on the fear that unless we remain in the EU we will be without influence and even excluded from trading with it – that would be made the centrepiece of the campaign in any referendum on Britain’s continued membership. So relentlessly would it be put over by supporters of the “consensus”, given full voice by the BBC, Open Europe and others, that it is almost a foregone conclusion that the stay-in vote would win the day.
What has so far been almost wholly lacking from the debate on all this is any properly worked-out alternative vision of what Britain’s future in the world could be if we were to regain our independence by leaving. Equally lacking, although it is again explored in the Commons research paper, is any recognition of just how incredibly complicated a British withdrawal from the EU would be, because we are enmeshed with it by such a mountain of laws and other legal obligations. To disentangle all this would present a challenge so immense that it could only be brought off by a government fully committed to the task and fired up by a vision of how well Britain could thrive outside the EU. This would require a degree of political will which so far simply doesn’t exist.
One of the odd features of this debate is that the only party committed to a British exit from the EU, Ukip, appears to have little understanding of how this could, in practice, be achieved – let alone a positive vision of how well Britain could fare outside it, to counterbalance the relentless defeatism and negativity with which the “consensus” establishment would seek to terrify us into staying in. Too many Ukip supporters take equal refuge from reality by pretending that we could simply wave a magic wand by repealing the European Communities Act. With one mighty bound we would be free. Sorted. These are children.
I confess that when I read that Commons research paper, although it did not say anything new, I did end up depressed. Its calm, common-sense reviewing of the real issues once again brings home just how inane most of the public debate over Britain’s membership of the EU has become. Without the vision and the will to work for a positive alternative, it seems we are doomed just to limp helplessly on as a “foot-dragging and complaining member” of the “European project”, as it itself staggers helplessly on into a drably visionless and ever more uncertain future. So saying, I am off for a few days to Italy to look at 15th-century paintings, from the time when Europe was still in that frenzy of creativity and intellectual engagement that was to make its civilisation the glory of the world.
One thing that has changed since Christopher wrote this article is that a wave of optimism did sweep through the informed as the IEA announced the BrExit prize offering £100K to the winner who came up with the very best and most workable exit strategy to follow the day Britain was announced it would Leave-The-EU.
Sadly it transpired that it would seem to have been rigged to suit, it would seem, just one judge who presented a paper immediately before the closing date and would seem to have had a hand in ensuring the apparently pre advised competitors who upheld his unworkable and ill informed paper passed to the final round.
The eventual winner chosen, it would seem by preselection, put forward a particularly ill informed paper which offerd a clearly unworkable solution which was backed by very little refertencing and researching apparent.
To be fair to the IEA they were clearly embarrassed by the exposure of Roger Bootle’s apparent dishonesty and corruption of the process that they withdrew his voting rights as a judge, however the lacked the ethics to denounce him and ensure those who seem to have, either unwittingly or deliberately, cheated were debarred.
I would hazard a guess that there was a pre scan of the 17 finalists and it was suggested that the judges should only bother reading the efforts of the predetermined submissions.
Perhaps I am being a little too harsh, but I did read every submission published and they were weak and unworkable and ill informed thus astonishingly lightweight for matter of such gravitas.
You may by all means track down the chosen ones via The IEA’s web site and judge for yourself but when compared with the submission I believe to have been the best I would contend there was no competition and even Roger Bootle’s effort was lame in the extreme.
It would seem the prize itself has sunk without trace as when you make a Google Search of the issue the media have largely ignored it, no doubt having reached the same conclusion I have here proffered. Further The IEA themselves seem embarrassed by their own apparent dishonesty and have seemingly, having been caught out, dropped the matter like a hot potato in the hope their apparent corruption is overlooked and will not damage their income stream from gullible donors!
IF my conclusion is in some way flawed then perhaps The IEA would care to explain why they, having squandered £100K of donor’s money on their lightweight and unworkable winner have failed to take the matter forward!
The Brexit Prize & The IEA Brings Itself Into Disrepute as it seems to have not bothered reading entries that were not by their predetermined inside track planned winners – issuing misleading statements to ensure serious writers were put at a disadvantage to ensure their chosen candidates became the winners!
The pompous arrogance and the utter hubris of the organisation and its pre-determined winners just make a farce of the prize – whoever they had chosen to win!
.
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
.
Brexit: the IEA chairman speaks
Richard North, 08/04/2014 I spent most of yesterday corresponding with Philip Booth of the IEA, trying to ascertain from him why the Brexit prize competitors were given a set of very explicit instructions, while their submissions appear to have been judged on very different and hitherto undeclared criteria.
I tested my correspondence out on a few friends, just as a check, to make sure I wans’t being too hard. Although it was evident I am angry, the tone was described as “measured”. Amongst other things, I had wanted to know why the rules had also been changed so that a new short-list of six had been created, after the submission deadline.
The particular interest for the competitors not shortlisted (and there are a number of us thus concerned), is that the IEA is making a public statement that there are at least six better submissions than ours. For me – I would not presume to speak for the others – I regard that as “professionally damaging”. And it was not something any of us signed up for.
Anyhow, as the exchanges multiplied through the day, it was evident that I was getting nowhere. Eventually, in the early evening, I brought the exchange to a halt, without having achieved anything at all, not the slightest concession, nor scintilla of understanding.
The thing about these exchanges, though, is while you are getting the polite brush-off, you rarely get an inkling of what they are really thinking. But, while Booth had asked for a private exchange, he was in fact copying in colleagues and sundry others. At his end, the exchange was anything but private – it was being broadcast throughout the IEA. They might just as well have put it on the Tannoy.
Then I received yet another e-mail, one with the same header used for the Booth correspondence, but from a different address, one [then] unknown to me. The writer, incidentally, had copied his reply to two others (text published below).
The e-mail, it turns out, was from professor emeritus David Myddelton of Cranfield University, educated at Eton and Harvard Business School. His cv (top) says he has been chairman of the IEA since 2001. Although he is a reasonably frequent speaker on the “eurosceptic” circuit, he is obviously no great fan of yours truly, although I cannot think of anything specific I’ve done to offend him.
Nevertheless, thanking Booth for sending our correspondence to him, he grandly declared that: “Richard North’s attitude is disappointing”. Then says the professor emeritus, a man who obviously must know about such things: “He has written on this and similar topics so much that I cannot believe he spent a huge amount of time on his entry”.
So, this is the first stage of the standard denigration technique: “North” can’t have spent much time on his submission so [implied] it was probably crap anyway.
Then the boot goes in. My “measured” tone reminds the revered professor “of my ten-year-old grand-daughter – who likes to boast that she did very well on an exam, before the results indicate that she scored, say, 10/40!” Does this run in the family? One can only wonder.
But, from his careful and measured study of the evidence, there comes the learned professor’s considered view of the entire issue: “It is not North’s failure to be judged to have finished in the top six entries that might hurt his ‘professional reputation'”, declares the great professor, “but his petulant and bad-tempered response to the result”. He should have bent over and taken his punishment, is the sub-text.
Then the knife goes in, making it clear they are not actually going to address any of the points “North” makes. Oh no! Says Myddelton: “I hope you and Mark [Littlewood, IEA director general], and indeed anyone else connected with the Brexit Prize, will manage to avoid a public spat with Richard North”.
“There would seem to be nothing to be gained”, Myddleton adds, “and potentially quite a bit to be lost”. We would not, after all, want to concede that he might have a point, so let’s not give him any opportunities, is the sub-text here. We couldn’t possibly have him be seen to be right.
A little time later, though, I got another e-mail, from the same professor Myddelton: Dear Richard,
I copied you in by mistake on my recent e-mail to Philip Booth and Mark Littlewood about the Brexit Prize. Sorry about that.
I should perhaps add that my role as Chairman of the IEA Trustees is non-executive, and I’ve had no part in the organisation of the Brexit prize.
All the best,
David Well, cheers Dave! I actually spent over 700 hours on researching and writing the submission, with personal visits to both Norway and Iceland, where I interviewed senior politicians, trade representatives and others, to give first-hand information to go into the report.
But, Dave, you are also dismissing a huge amount of time put forward by EU Referendum readers, and the huge help given by The Boiling Frog and others, who were also just as keen to have a fair competition, those whom you have now so casually insulted. But that doesn’t matter – they’re only plebs who didn’t go to Eton.
Despite that, I then wrote to him about the submission of which he had been so dismissive: “You will not have read it of course”, I ventured. These very clever people never do … they have the wonderful gift of divining the quality of such things without needing to read them. Thus, I observed: “You are undoubtedly far too clever and grand and could not be expected to soil your magnificent brain with such material”. And we couldn’t have him actually learning anything.
“However”, I added, “I must really thank you for such an illustrative example of what the other half think of us plebs. I am sure my readers are going hugely to enjoy your perceptive analysis”.
I will upload the correspondence with Booth, and post a link tomorrow, for those of you who want to read the earlier exchange. But isn’t it refreshing when the mask slips and you find out what they really think about you, and what they are really saying! For all their airs and graces and their fine words, the truth will out. But how sad, the message is always the same: “know thine place, pleb!”
Whatever did we do before the internet, and learned professors who press the wrong buttons? But whatever made me think I was ever going to get a fair deal from the IEA?
Past UKIP Chairman’s Excoriating Comment on UKIP! By no means the first such denunciation of UKIP by past executives of Farage’s Party!
.
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
.
Hi,you may well find the comments of a past Chairman of UKIP of interest:
Niall is absolutely correct in stating that UKIP should have produced an entry for the Brexit competition.
UKIP let every member down when it failed to do anything of note to fight the Lisbon Treaty.Indeed Farage is on record as stating in the NEC meeting that the Conservatives should be left to deal with it ! Neither did it produce a competent petition to trigger a debate in Parliament on a referendum,that was left to Nikki Sincalir and others and to the Express.
So sadly this lack of action by the party is par for the course.It cannot simply leave action to party members on an ad hoc basis .The whole point of a party is to organise the membership,provide leadership ,produce useful ideas and strategies and accurate written work.Doesn`t seem to be happening does it?
To view the original as posted on the internet CLICK HERE
& to quote from the same thread on the UKIP controlled thread the comments of a past UKIP Wales Chairman, Chairman of UKIP’s Cheltenham branch and ex UKIP Head Office manager:
Finishing most posts with ‘UKIP is not fit for purpose’ is a strapline that is worth repeating until it sinks in.
I do paste other’s articles and the substance and questions that need addressing are in them.
UKIP is at best standing still, by any serious analysis, and what little it is said to be achieving, on the edges of our politics, would have been achieved back in 2007 when UKIP had the same membership as today.
Now take the absolute failure of UKIP MEPs. Of 13 elected in 2009 we have only 8 left which is now 9 with the addition of the Tory Helmer.
So 5 have left or been ‘got rid of’ so if that is your definition of success it sums you up!
Then of the 8 UKIP MEP’s left who ever hears of Dartmouth,Bufton,Clark or Colman?
Finally add NO official UKIP Brexit entry and you know FKEU I’m absolutely right – UKIP is NOT fit for purpose!
For those who have had the pleasure of not noting FKEU you will find he is one of the more unpleasant and damaging, to UKIP, trolls, who shelter their sneering and dishonest misrepresentations in a false identity; similar to such as SteveUKIP, Hartlepool and others who are too ashamed to put their name to their sabotage of UKIP’s efforts to appear principled, responsible and ethical (they are not alone!)
.
for almost 25 years I have been seeking out some organisation of repute that has, or is devising, an EU Exit & Survival Strategy.
For the best part of that time I had hoped that UKIP m,ight act responsibly and draw up the details of such a plan and the strategic points and tactical steps required but sadly despite some 15 years of highlighting their structural inadequacies, leadership ineptitude and profound lack of gravitas or intellectual rigour they have failed on all counts to both represent the best interests of the Leave-The-EU movement they CLAIM to represent and have been followers rather than leaderrs!
To this day UKIP has manifestly displayed a lack of strate gic planning, an absence of tactical plans and absolutely no signs or any kind of an Exit & Survival Strategy and no evidence of making any steps towards such a policy/plan – being reliant rather on opportunistic self interest abjectly failing to educate the public on the issues or for that matter themselves and their members and supporters!
At last someone is thinking:.
IEA Brexit Prize
Scenario
A referendum has resulted in an “Out” vote and Her Majesty’s Government has triggered Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty. What measures does the UK need to take in the following two years, domestically (within the UK), vis-a-vis the remaining EU and internationally, in order to promote a free and prosperous economy?
Background
An “Out” vote in a British referendum would be a major historic geo-political and economic event, perhaps even comparable with the fall of the Berlin Wall and the subsequent collapse of the Soviet Union and re-unification of Germany. It is time, therefore, that the UK explores the process of withdrawal and its economic and political consequences. This competition is designed to examine the process of withdrawal and, more importantly, how the UK might fit into the fresh geo-political and economic landscape that would follow.
Entry Requirements
Against this background, competitors are invited to compose a Blueprint for Britain outside the EU, covering the process of withdrawal from the EU and the post-exit repositioning of the UK in the global trading and governance systems, covering, inter alia:
The legal and constitutional process necessary for the UK to leave the EU and set up, if desired, alternative international relationships. This would include not just the process within the EU itself but the changes to UK law and regulation that would be desirable or necessary.
Negotiation of the UK’s post-EU-exit position to settle the UK’s relationships with the remaining EU and other interested parties and, crucially, with the rest of the world, in respect of trade, supranational governance, immigration, the environment, financial regulation, defence etc.
Submissions are invited from individuals, groups of individuals, academia and corporate bodies such as consultancy firms, law firms, accounting firms, think-tanks and investment banks. Initial submissions will be around 2,000 words. The competition’s initial judging panel will then invite the authors of around twenty of those entries to make full submissions of between 10,000 and 20,000 words within a further four months.
Judging Panel
Nigel Lawson (Chairman), The Rt Hon Lord Lawson of Blaby, former Chancellor of the Exchequer
David Starkey, British constitutional historian and a Fellow of the Society of Antiquaries of London
Prof. Philip Booth (Facilitator), Institute of Economic Affairs and Cass Business School
Roger Bootle, founder of Capital Economics, a Specialist Adviser to the House of Commons Treasury Committee and an Honorary Fellow of the Institute of Actuaries
Tim Frost, a governor of the LSE and director of Markit and Cairn Capital
Gisela Stuart, MP for Birmingham Edgbaston and editor of The House Magazine
Prof. Martin Ricketts, Professor of Economic Organisation at the University of Buckingham
Ruth Lea, Non-Executive Director of the Arbuthnot Banking Group
Dr. Stephen Davies, Institute of Economic Affairs
Prizes
Cash prizes will be awarded to the first, second and third best entries, as judged by the competition’s final judging panel. First prize is €100,000, second prize is €10,000 and third prize is €5,000. There will a special prize of €5,000 for the best entry from an individual aged 30 or under. The winning entries will be published by the IEA.
Timeline
16th July 2013 – Brexit Prize announced
16th September 2013, 4pm – Deadline for initial submissions
End October 2013 – Selection of 20 best initial submissions announced
Early February 2014 – Deadline for final submissions
March 2014 – Winner announced
For media enquiries, please contact Ruth Porter: 0207 799 8920 / 07751 717 781
For general enquiries and to request an entry number please contact Amelia Abplanalp: brexit@iea.org.uk / 020 7799 8900. Please indicate if you will be in the under 31 category.
To download full information and remit, click here.