Posts Tagged ‘government’



Today, as many of us as are able to are attending rallies to celebrate our famous victory on June 23rd two years ago.

Today is also a good time to reflect on what happens when the majority of voters think “job done” and go back home. As we know, Brexit isn’t ‘done’ – and as some of us know and as many others are beginning to recognise, winning Brexit and defeating the EU is becoming more and more urgent because Brussels, the Establishment Parties and the MSM have been undermining the most important pillar of a democratic society: Freedom of Speech, thanks to EU legislation.

First, here is the letter sent by Paul Oakley, UKIP General Secretary, to Inspector Yaxley of the Met Police:


Lexdrum House, King Charles Business Park, Newton Abbot, Devon TQ12 6UT

By email only: [email protected]

13 June 2018

Dear Inspector Yaxley

UKIP are writing with reference to the parliamentary hustings which were held at the Salvation Army Hall in Catford on the evening of 12 June 2018 to which we seek your urgent response.

As you know, Lewisham Police were informed in advance of the likely threat to that event by far- left activists. Indeed, there was a significant police presence there. In a startling decision, your officers permitted the protestors to congregate right at the entrance to the hall where they threatened, harassed and assaulted members of the public who were lawfully attending the hustings. No attempt was made was made to move those people away or, as far as I could see, to arrest any of the demonstrators who had committed criminal offences in clear sight of police.

Further, far-left activists within the hall itself went on to disrupt the speeches of the candidates at the meeting. Although there were police officers inside the building, these people were allowed to carry on disturbing the proceedings without any intervention or ejection.

Astonishingly, an operational decision was instead made that your officers would line up to block access by members of the public to the event.

As a direct consequence of the involvement of Lewisham Police, the event was cancelled. Had your officers acted in a proper manner and within their powers this would not have been the case and locals would have been able to experience what should have been an informative aspect of an important parliamentary election.

Accordingly, we look forward to receiving your full explanation for the bewildering failure by your officers to police this event in anything approaching an adequate manner. Further, kindly confirm the number of arrests which were made.

Please note that both this letter and your reply, or lack thereof, are not to be considered either private or confidential.

Yours sincerely

Paul Oakley UKIP General Secretary


Interfering with Freedom of Speech and our other democratic right – Freedom of Association – is a clear attack on the fundamental basis of our democratic society.  The disruption of the Lewisham Parliamentary Hustings on June 12th shows how that is done – with the ‘demonstrators’ and the state in the form of the Police colluding to hinder Parliamentary candidates to have their say and be heard, to deny voters their right to hear what candidates have to say.

Nothing shows the contempt Labour has for their clientele, the ‘little people’, more than the weasel words of the Mayor of London in answer to David Kurten AM at the Assembly in the video clip in an article here. Nothing shows the poisonous atmosphere of our political discourse more than the ‘excuse’ of the candidates of both the main Parties not to attend because they didn’t want to give ‘the oxygen of publicity’ to the ‘far right’ candidate Anne Marie Waters. Above all, their contempt cannot be demonstrated more clearly than by the fact that they allowed the mob to rule, by allowing the police to stop the Hustings and disperse the audience rather than disperse the mob – a mob organised by the same Party whose candidate disdained to attend – see this latest article in Kipper Central.

Do remember, on this day, that the ‘hate speech’ legislation comes straight from Brussels.

Do remember, on this day, that our government and the Whitehall Establishment are still implementing EU Legislation and will do so unless they are forced to accede to a clean Brexit, to us leaving without any of the ‘conditions’ Brussels is putting on the table with impunity, without any challenge by government and establishment.

We cannot, must not ‘go home’ again – our job is not done.

We do want to achieve Brexit – and to achieve Brexit we must fight for Freedom of Speech. We do not want those who label opponents as racists, fascists, and hateful to determine whom we can listen to. Above all, we do not want to see the police and worse, EUROGENDFOR, determine who can and cannot have their say.

The fight is not over, it continues – it has to continue!

As we said two years ago, winning the Referendum is not the end – it is perhaps the end of the beginning.

Let us not squander our victory!


The post BREXIT – LEWISHAM: THE BATTLE CONTINUES appeared first on UKIP Daily | UKIP News | UKIP Debate.

Making a 21st century constitution: the rules we have established for democracies are now outdated

Democratic constitutions are unfit for purpose, with governments facing increased pressures from populists and distrust from citizens. The only way to truly solve these problems is through reform, argues Frank Vibert. He draws on his new book on the topic and sets out the ways in which constitutions should be revitalised.

Democracies are struggling in many parts of the world. Explanations of why this is happening often focus on economics. The 2008 international financial crisis shook confidence in market economies. Job markets seem much less secure. In my new book ‘Making a 21st Century Constitution’ I put forward a different explanation. In my view, constitutions are the problem. The frameworks of bodies and rules they have established for democracies are now outdated in fundamental ways. They do not provide the support that democracies need in today’s world.

There is a basic difference between these two types of explanation. If economics is the cause, then democratic discontents should disappear as economic recovery takes hold. If it is constitutions that are the problem, there will be continuing dysfunction. The discontents will not disappear until the framework of rules under which democracies operate are changed. In his last ‘State of the Union’ address, former President Obama stated that we should look critically at flaws in the system rather than at the flawed people it produces for political office. I agree.

There is no generally accepted approach to constitutional analysis. But, since the time of the American Founding Fathers, assumptions about human behaviour and its imperfections have been central. The work of behavioural economists and social psychologists illuminates individual and group behaviour in three areas of great importance for the way in which we think about constitutions in today’s world.

Privacy and the Private realm

The first area relates to privacy. In today’s world we trade and exchange our privacy. We value privacy. At the same time, when we use our mobile phones and the internet we allow our identity to be authenticated and our behaviour to be predicted. We do so because of the sheer convenience we derive from the mobile and its apps.

This world is very different from defining the private in terms of an inviolable physical space, such as an 18th century homestead, or a 20th century home. Yet it is this older conception of the private that underlies the idea of democratic consent to a constitution. According to this old concept we stand in our private space and give our consent to rules that define what is to be public and agree on the powers that are to be transferred to and belong in the public realm.

There are two ways of reacting to this change. The first is to downgrade the importance of consent. The second is to place a new weight on bodies and rules that aim keep the basic importance of consent alive.

Generally speaking, since the second half of the 20th century, both constitutional theory and practice have followed the first of these routes. The idea that we should give our consent has become less important than the idea that we should identify with the content of constitutions. We are invited to identify with their content by statements of aspirations and, above all, by lengthy recitals of rights. In my analysis I conclude by reaffirming the basic importance of consent.

Social Diversity

A second area where assumptions about human behaviour are crucial concerns modern day social diversity. Traditionally, deep social diversity has been seen in terms of minorities that need protection against a prevailing majority and where the minority or minorities could often be defined in territorial terms. However, in modern societies most of us encounter deep social diversity in shared urban settings, shared service provision and in shared work places. The social fabric of London is the prime example.

Some people welcome social diversity and choose to live in cities such as London because of the stimulus they provide and for the innovation they can encourage. But social psychologists also warn about the defensive thinking and behaviour that individuals and groups can adopt when their established ways of viewing the world are challenged. Many of the crucial differences cut across ethnic and religious divides and are, for example, about attitudes towards the appropriate social roles of men and women, or about attitudes to authority.

We expect constitutions to be able to encourage cooperative behaviour and social ‘togetherness’. The contemporary challenge is about how to achieve this in shared settings when all groups, regardless of size, may react defensively to defend their own values. In this context my book discusses how constitutions can support democratic politics in playing a socially adaptive role so that people are prepared to modify their values in order to find an acceptable ‘better there’. I refer to this as a ‘transvaluational ‘role.

Rationality in politics

It would be nice to believe that we are all reasonable people, with well-considered preferences and priorities, open to reasoned arguments and ready to be persuaded to change our views when presented with a well-reasoned argument. But social psychologists suggest that what we consider ‘reasonable’ depends on the context. Politics is about shortcut reasoning reflecting a world of information overload where we do not want to spend too much time on politics. It is associative reasoning. We pay attention to the views of those with whom we connect in our social world, including our social media connections. It is ‘diagnostic’ reasoning. We assume that what is good for our friends and associates is also good for us. We pay attention to the messenger, the person or group who brings me a viewpoint, without spending time on going into the detailed content or implications of what is being said.

The drawbacks are that we pay attention mainly to the views of those we agree with and there is also a gulf established between the more deductive forms of reasoning essential in public policy making. An important task of a modern constitution is therefore to help make people more attentive to wider sources of information and views – the information from the social and natural sciences and the views of those with whom we do not agree.

Institutional economics

There are other features of the contemporary setting where the analysis in my book draws on institutional economics for insights. Two important areas concern the role of intermediaries and the role of benchmarking.

Benchmarking and the role of rights

In our world of information overload, we increasingly resort to benchmarks to guide our decision taking. We may choose schools for our kids based on the grading of inspectors, or a university based on nationally- or internationally-produced ratings, or choose a book on the basis of the awarding of prizes, or download music based on standings in charts we follow.

In the book I analyse this increased reliance on benchmarking by looking at a sector where they have become increasingly pervasive – the financial sector.

Benchmarking in constitutional terms takes the form of an ever-increasing reliance on declarations of rights. They direct our attention to what is most relevant in complex ethical choices. Unfortunately, as with other forms of benchmarking, they are subject to over-production, to the narrowing of claims, to manipulation, and to moral hazard. My book warns against the over-extension of the role of rights beyond mainly procedural rights. Over-reliance disguises the more difficult task of getting institutions correctly specified.

Directness and the role of intermediaries

In today’s world we expect markets to be responsive to our demands in very immediate ways. We are all familiar with the disruption to old forms of delivery in high street retailing, banking and other fields as we all order online. Institutional economics suggests that we need to look behind this directness of the marketplace in order to identify the intermediaries involved – the web service providers, the data collectors, distributers and processors, the payments and delivery systems.

Much the same reliance on new intermediaries is occurring in non- market sectors such as in the provision of government services where specialist bodies are proliferating. However, we do not experience the growth of longer and more dispersed chains of specialist bodies in government in the form of a higher degree of democratic immediacy and responsiveness. On the contrary, each of the key attributes of democratic government – the broad inclusiveness it offers, the scope it gives for voter feedback to those with authority, and voter input into the formation of policy priorities, seem weakened rather than strengthened. Elites and those who know how to deal with the intermediaries seem to have gained advantage.

One way of responding to this situation is to look at constitutions as chains of intermediation themselves. They provide for interventions at the beginning of the chain, where they can re-establish directness of communication, in the middle where they can provide for new types of representation, such as a body that scrutinises inter-generational fairness, and at the end of the chain where they can provide for oversight without being dependent, in the way constitutional courts are, on the referral of individual cases.


Constitutional analysis seems a long way from the real world and a long way too from the noise of day-to-day politics. Yet we should care about constitutional design. Constitutional failure brings a human cost. Design has been following past models from past times. We are now in a different world. We need to rethink.


Note: the above draws on the author’s new book ‘Making a 21st Century Constitution: Playing Fair in Modern Democracies‘, published by Elgar in June 2018.

About the Author

Frank Vibert is Senior Visiting Fellow in the Dept. of Government LSE. He has been a Senior Advisor in the World Bank  and Senior Visiting Fellow at UNU/WIDER in Helsinki. He was Director of the European Policy Forum, an independent Think Tank based in London, before coming to the LSE in 2008.  He is the author of a number of books on regulatory and constitutional topics.


All articles posted on this blog give the views of the author(s), and not the position of LSE British Politics and Policy, nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science. Featured image credit: Pixabay (Public Domain).

A Question of Perspective

A Question of Perspective

I remember sitting outside a pub in England, around about the turn of the last century give or take a year or two. I was chatting to a youngish couple about their finances, and they were telling me that in spite of them both having professional jobs, they were having difficulty making ends meet, every month around two hundred pounds would be added to their credit cards.

At the time this conversation took place, the economy was starting to boom again, people that were in the negative equity housing trap of the last recession were suddenly in the money again, we were told that the economy was doing so well, the good times were back. This it seems to me, is a question of perspective, the banks, estate agents and stock market spivs were doing fine, everybody else was struggling to make ends meet as price rises outstripped their salaries.

That genius Chancellor and Prime-Minister Gordon Brown (sic), proudly announced that he had abolished boom and bust and at the time of the 2008 financial crises, printed seven hundred billion pounds out of thin air.

Tony Blair told us that everybody had the right to go to university, today we have an horrendous graduate unemployment rate: this couldn’t have been originally to disguise unemployment could it?

When the Brits were bled dry: never mind; the government to protect the security of the banks, could always sell our housing stock off to overseas investors and immigrants. Today the ever-increasing gap between income and the multiples needed to purchase a home are a testament to the pent-up inflation in the system.

Another inflation indicator is the strength of the New Zealand dollar, a tiny little country economically and yet the pound continues its dive against its currency. It isn’t that the New Zealand dollar is getting stronger, it’s that the pound is getting weaker, more and more worthless.

The most vulnerable in society, the pensioners on fixed incomes are already paying the price for perhaps the biggest financial heist in history, the first of many.

The economic illusion created since the last financial crisis is coming to an end, the sole purpose of this illusion was to drag every last person into debt, to bleed them dry before the plug is pulled.

As usual at such times, as was the case after the Great Depression, war is the usual solution. War is a great distraction from the evil deeds of bankers and politicians, justifies further money printing, enables vast profits from weapons sales and other things. The next step is for the banks to set up shop elsewhere and the whole process repeats.

This is the system in which we live, a false democracy where politicians are the pimps and debt collectors for the Central Banks, this is who they represent, not us the people.

Donald Trump has been a thorn in the side of the bankers and globalists, Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton were desperate to demonise Vladimir Putin and Russia as was our Prime-Minister Theresa May. North Korea was the next candidate for war, but Trump is bringing us peace.

The real reason that Russia was a target for the globalists is that Putin has made the Russian Central Bank independent of the Rothschild banking system, see here:

Putin Bans Rothschilds From Russia

There are many articles about this on the Internet, you can do your own research. Many have predicted that with the collapse of the Western banking system, particularly in the United States, the world reserve currency will move to China. Already the new Petroyuan is rapidly gaining ground with many dollar-indebted countries preparing to trade for commodities in Yuan.

There is some speculation, however, that China will follow the Russians and break away from the Rothschild banking system and Trump will facilitate this. If this is the case, prepare for fireworks.

There is another cloud on the horizon”

Closure of mosques in Austria may lead to ‘war between cross & crescent’ – Erdogan

You don’t have to be a mastermind to work this one out, a totally incompatible and hostile culture has been allowed by successive British governments to invade our country. During the second world war, Germans living in Britain were interned for security reasons: do you think we will be able to intern millions of Muslims when war breaks out? Of course not, as Enoch Powell predicted, our streets will become a bloodbath.

Successive LibLabCon governments then, far from representing the people they were elected to represent, represent the banking system first and foremost, their objective is to bleed you dry and then send your children out to be killed and maimed on the world’s battlefields.

As Gerard Batten said several times during the recent Tommy Robinson protest: “our government is the enemy of the people.”

Not just our current government but successive governments, lib, Lab or Con.

Gerard Batten is the first political leader that I have heard state this, to openly articulate the truth and it is why I now have confidence in Gerard as the leader of UKIP.

UKIP is still the only political party that has a chance to confront our very evil government, as Muslims pour into our country and breed like rabbits, as our women and children are groomed and raped, it seems like the globalists are determined to have their pound of flesh.

Theresa May’s government have shown their utter contempt for the British people they were supposedly elected to represent, they are betraying us on Brexit to keep us tied to the globalist regime, a regime that is hell-bent on our destruction as a race and as a nation.

The post A Question of Perspective appeared first on UKIP Daily | UKIP News | UKIP Debate.



This article is re-published from ‘Free Nations’ with kind permission by the author.

In a recent fit of Russophobia Theresa May accused Russia of being an enemy seeking to undermine western values. In response Konstantin Kosachev, of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, said her “mistake is that this conflict is not ideological and there will be no ‘triumph of Western values’ this time, as no one is fighting them here.”

But Kosachev was wrong. The Clintons, Obama, Merkel, May and Blair have presided over a society governed by economic Marxism (state control and the destruction of private property) and Gramscian cultural communism (the destruction of family values and Christian sexual morality) so Russia is indeed fighting modern western Governments’ “values” – but nevertheless defending the values of those governments’ peoples.

While Russia has embraced the values for which we fought and won the Second World War and the Cold War, our Governments have now rejected those values and created a morally distorted, economically bankrupt, democratically alienated world where decadent pseudo elites and supranational corporate power dominate our peoples.


The twin attacks by economic and social Marxism on western capitalism and democracy sought:

  1. To destroy personal capital and property and the rule of law as created by precedent in favour of state power, state property with the law dictated by the communist party, unchallenged by voters or free elections.
  2. To undermine families, communities, nations and Christianity by debasing marriage, attacking the responsible role of fathers, promoting “alternative” forms of marriage and sexuality and “educating” children in those sexualities from an early age. To destroy the bourgeois notion of “democracy” and the role of Christianity – the latter being diluted by the infusion of other religions regardless of their belief systems.

This decadent, morally distorted “Conservative” government is doing all these things.


There has been a massive reduction in taxes on big business (already cash rich and subsidised by inflation on quoted company shares). But the government has imposed higher taxes on individuals, negative returns on their savings and an attack on “buy to let” – which is one of the few ways the individual can invest – and counter inflation.

After the bank bail outs of 2008-9 the UK national debt was £800bn and after 7 years of Tory Government the national debt is £1800bn and still rising by about £50bn a year.

One of the principles of conservatism is personal property ownership (provided it is fairly earned and responsibly owned) as a source of social stability, savings and family independence. Communism sees these “bourgeois” characteristics, the continuity of family and community life as “reactionary” and so seeks to centralise and nationalise property. “Property is theft” they say. In fact property – open to challenge in a free market – means social responsibility and government means theft.


There are many ways of taking property from responsible individuals. Indeed the more responsible they are the easier it is to burden them with regulation, tax the owners and confiscate the property. The sheer weight of the laws on business, taxes and regulations under this Conservative Government is horrendous.

If you buy property you pay up to 12% stamp duty (not long ago stamp duty was 1%). When you own a shop or commercial property business rates are payable EVEN WHEN IT IS EMPTY and you are making a loss. Even the previous Labour Government allowed property to be empty for 12 months until business rates were payable (rightly assuming no owner actually WANTED to keep his property empty!) But this Marxist Conservative government reduced that to 3 months and kept on raising business rates.

A property owner in Sunderland lost his tenant, had to continue to pay the large business rates, was forced to sell his home to pay them and died an early death. The UK has the highest levels of business rates in the advanced economies – and the North of England the highest levels of suicides in Britain.

I myself as an investor in my local community found my income fall 50% but my taxes went up by 50%. I found no Tory Minister who knew what they were doing. They were more concerned with subsidising big business through negative interest rates and ever lower corporation tax while community investors were crippled by “Conservative” taxes.

You might have held a property for many years, invested in it, survived the crippling taxes and then you try to sell it. Then this Marxist Government cripples you with “capital gains” tax which, being unindexed for inflation, is payable even when there is no real gain at all. It therefore amounts to straight confiscation of property.


As Government business rates and the Government-caused-recession destroyed the High Street, “charities” (whose directors are well paid while they only pay taxpayer subsidised rates and exploit volunteer shop workers) were the only buyers of the properties of bankrupted investors – until local government joined in the fun and started buying up high street properties. State failure always leads to state profit and the rise of Marxist economics. Not every communist system needs to be planned – it arises naturally out of the failures of politicians like the present Conservative government.

Stay tuned for parts 2-4 of this article, which will be published in UKIP Daily over the coming days.


Powered by WordPress | Designed by: index backlink | Thanks to insanity workout, car insurance and cyber security