Why Labour Must Prevent A Future ‘Hippo Out Of The Hat’ Situation By Ikechukwu Onyeadi

I have been a member of the Labour party for long enough. Even when the party was hit by a wave of mass-decampings, especially amongst the younger members, I stayed.

I stayed because I know I am a socialist through and through.

I stayed because I had faith that a true socialist would someday come along and present a platform radical enough to warrant a chance with the disenchanted electorate.

Over the years I have watched Labour slowly turn away from what it is; a movement for workers. It suddenly became so engrossed in infiltrating traditional Tory regions that it forgot to properly represent workers.

Of course, Education and wealth are universal aspirations, but when we have Labour politicians that come from Oxbridge-educated, very wealthy, ‘never-worked-ever’, Reese-Mogg type backgrounds; preaching socialism, then the white van, traditional working-class Labour voter cannot help but view them with suspicion.

When Ed Miliband came up with those brilliant, brilliant policies in the run up to the 2015 General Election, voters simply did not trust him in his £1000 suits. I remember one of the numerous polls held in 2014, summarised by Peter Kellner and published in the Guardian by Mathew Goodwin and Caitlin Milazzo on July 7, 2014, pointing out that although polls showed that The Labour Party was on course to win the 2015 General Election; the major obstacle to that happening was Ed Miliband himself. His image as a ‘posh boy’ just failed to convince anyone, including traditional Labour voters.

The subsequent wipe out of the Labour Party in Scotland and the Tory party’s 328-seat majority win, one that was brilliantly described by Boris Johnson as David Cameron “pulling the most colossal rabbit out of the hat” served to buttress the point made by the pollster.

For Tory Politicians, it seems that the ‘posher’ one is, the more likely they are to advance politically.

For Labour, the electorate seem as though they would like a ‘no-bullshitting’, regular but very ‘street saavy Joe’ that one is highly likely to run into at the local chippy in Swancombe every Friday evening.

That is why, for the Labour party, image should be everything.  

To digress a little from the central discussion here, in the past the Labour Party have used positive inclusion techniques to encourage people from underrepresented backgrounds such as women and ethnic minorities to stand as Labour candidates. Perhaps this approach could be used to encourage today’s disenchanted youth to run for office, thereby injecting more charisma and vigour into the whole electoral debate. If one looked around Labour CLPs in the Southeast these days, they are chuck-full of people who were teenagers when Elizabeth was crowned Queen and who-no matter how hard they try, simply do not understand the world as it is today.

It would perhaps be wiser that those who will decide our future have sound knowledge on Technology in this country and the role of Artificial Intelligence in the future of our species. An idea of who Bixby is would be a great start!

What Jeremy Corbyn brought to The Labour party is nothing short of the breath of fresh air that this country has so badly yearned for since the heartless conservative Government took an axe to social service funds and benefits.

His policies so far seem to be coming straight from the mouths of regular people who go to work every day and go through all the challenges of living in today’s cash-strapped Britain. His policy on nationalising the rail network is direly needed to control the unreliability we have come to expect from the rail network.

His insistence that austerity is just a fiscal choice and not necessity is very economically sound.

A perfect scenario would be to imagine that banks imposed daily withdrawal caps of £200 on its customers because it simply refuses to borrow money to do business, although that option is readily available to it.

Mr Corbyn thus presents as the perfect candidate, with the perfect credentials and the perfect image. The young love him, the old women think he is adorable and his policies agree with any true socialist that believes in a more even system of wealth “redistribution”. His policies also agree with most people in this country who have seen their quality of life deteriorate steeply since the conservatives came into power in 2010 and desperately want something different.

However, we risk another ‘Tory Rabbit’, nay, a ‘Hippo’ this time because Theresa May does not enjoy even half the support that David Cameron did during his premiership, being pulled out of the next General Election Hat!

The reason for my prediction is The Labour Party’s stance, or lack of, on door-step issues. On Brexit. We know we will vote with The Government to make Brexit a reality, according to the wishes of the majority of The British Electorate during the referendum, but we have no clear red lines.

In the negotiations following Britain’s vote to leave the EU, British politicians should band together and present one front, just like the EU 27 is doing. The different opinions and the UK politicians who preach even greater doom than Michel Barnier, create the cracks that The EU is now exploiting.

It is right for Jeremy to whip the Parliamentary Labour Party into supporting The Government on Brexit.

Perhaps this delay on defining a stance on the single market has helped The EU with establishing both the ammunition and the high ground. It is however encouraging that Jeremy seems now to be clear on his stance with leaving the Single Market, despite criticism from Pro- European Labour MPs.

On Immigration, Labour has no clear policies either. The concerns on the doorstep that uncontrolled Immigration suppresses wages, is changing the dynamics in many cities and is pushing the NHS to breaking point, are all very valid and very evidence-based.

The fact that a European National living in Britain can bring their non-EU family members to join them in Britain with no requirements other than exercising treaty rights but British citizens looking to bring their family members to join them in Britain are subjected to requirements on earnings is simply ridiculous, no matter what one’s political affiliations are.

In addition to Jeremy Corbyn, what the Labour Party needs is re-orientation for its Politicians. We desperately need to move with the times. No matter what one’s principles are, we need to become a winning party again.

Jeremy can have all the best policies but if the Tories are willing to get their hands ‘dirty’ by discussing and addressing the real issues on the doorsteps, whilst Labour continues to abstain from these discussions; they will pull every animal species in London Zoo out of all foreseeable General Election Hats.

I suggest that the re-orientation start from ward level.

Let us try something radical.

Let us-only for one season try to use positive inclusion techniques to council seats to encourage under 40s, especially women under 25.

In doing so we would invariably draw a lot of young people into politics and they will supply fresh ideas to deal with the issues facing us right now.

My young neighbours in my street worry about the fact that the last time anyone saw a street cleaner around our street was 9 months ago! They are grateful for the playground that Tan Dhesi fought for many years ago but are now particularly worried for their children’s safety since some juvenile delinquents have decided to use the playground as a racetrack for their noisy Motorbikes.

They wonder if our Labour Councillors even care as no one ever sees them at the doorstep. They never write their constituents to update them on what they are fighting for and usually make important decisions without consulting everyone in their wards. If we want to win, we must change.

National Labour has labelled Gravesham an “unwinnable” seat or something along those lines but I see this borough as very winnable.

We are not able to win because the reality is that outside London, when people are given the opportunity to choose between a Labour party that is stuck on principles that do not reflect the challenges faced by ordinary citizens in today’s Britain, they will vote a Tory. That is because the Tories have managed to stick The Labour party with several tags including that of “The Borrowing” party and so far, we have had the weakest comebacks.

I am no stranger to criticising our policies within The Labour Party and those of the Government for that matter but the essence of criticism is to point out that improvements are required and not a demonstration of disloyalty.

Above all, I want The Labour party to get back to its winning ways with Gravesham as its Crown Jewel.

To do that we must support Jeremy Corbyn.

We must change our strategies.

We must become more radical.

We must represent workers and

We must encourage Jeremy Corbyn’s advisers from a wider range of candidates with young and vibrant British workers who live in today’s reality and not an elite within the party who all own their own homes and have sizable savings which their children will inherit.

By Ikechukwu Onyeadi

** All views are the writer’s own and do not represent the views of The Avenger

Brexit – How UKIP Turned The Reasonable Debate Into A Poisonous Sagittate By Ex UKIP Adviser Sarinder Joshua Duroch

One can clearly be patriotic and hold no animosity to other minority groups in their own social or personal interaction domain.

However, looking deeper into why someone with an educated and socially aware background such as myself, would join a populist movement like UKIP is something that will always raise an eyebrow or question.

The answer is simple, one will approach an issue like Brexit or a fairer immigration policy with good intentions and not have a single apprehension about minority groups and still get caught up in the idiom ‘one is only judged by the company they keep’.

It is true that I excelled in UKIP and became an advisor for the cultural policy and then moving onto the European Parliament I became very involved in scrutinising the EU budget and highlighting the bureaucracy and the costs attached to it. Never was there an element within me that blamed minorities or wanted to pursue the hate campaign on behalf of UKIP or others.

Let’s look at what made me join and subsequently change my school of thought.

Due to my ability to be a powerful public speaker and belief in the ethos of the fairer immigration policy that UKIP was striving to achieve and boost the relationship with the Commonwealth, I became someone that clearly suited the agenda; the hidden agenda was always kept away from the British public and from me. I suppose I was too honest and believed in the message of the fairer immigration policy.

When I got to Brussels and met the other far right parties that were aligned with UKIP in the EFDD group to keep the funding stream ignited.

It became very apparent that UKIP had to change their tune to appease the far-right parties and produce materials that pushed a very anti-Islamic message and from the foot soldiers I saw a wave of anti-Jewish abuse on Tweets that were sent out; I felt very betrayed because each time I raised this issue it was never dealt with. I noticed the ethos that was brewing in relation to relishing from a crisis especially if it related to the refugee crisis.

The dehumanisation of refugees came into effect and for me that was  clearly not the patriotic British stance for me where it was being infiltrated by a nationalistic propaganda machine.

It is true to say that a reasonable argument relating to fairer immigration got corrupted and was allowed to become a race issue; that was not the intention, but it was a product that could be sold to the white working classes.

Thus, creating the uproar of the Enoch Powell speech and glorifying the differences between us and not promoting British cohesion through our patriotism.

This was not the reason why I joined the party and I would like to state that my parents, society and nation brought me up to be better than that.

I was brought up to see the colours of my flag and celebrate our great unity.

I was not brought up to judge people on the colour of their skin or dehumanise them based on their circumstances.

This is exactly what the populist agenda wanted me to do and I could not betray my nation and turn against people based on who they are.  I was watching my own MEPS and colleagues diluting ethnicity with nationality and that clearly was not acceptable for me, my family and nation.

In Brussels, the Belgians and others would engage in conversations with me to examine my views relating to this brand of British populism and they soon realised I was not on the same wavelength as the people I was working with.

It became evident that the white working classes were to be targeted by the far right of Sweden and others within the EFDD group.

I would watch people from the Swedish Democrats attend UKIP conferences and just couldn’t stand the message of hate they were distributing in my nation. UKIP and their partners would talk about how they did not want Britain to become like Sweden and target the white working classes by placing fear into their hearts and minds.

My own countrymen and countrywomen were being corrupted by the personality cult and were encouraged to open their mouths before their minds.

It is meant to be the other way around if one wants to have a sensible debate and analyse the truth. I had colleagues around me who were calling for the return of the British Empire on internet communications and I noticed a very colonial mind-set being implemented into the younger members of the staff base in Brussels. They were encouraged to meet with other people from the Swedish Democrats who already possessed very anti-Jewish and an anti-minorities outlook.

I was watching very intelligent young people becoming corrupted by hate and then idea was always to keep the far right happy, so they do not leave the group and then the EFDD group loses funding.

So, was this appeasement worth it?

The answer is NO!

Now they have been exposed in the press and they have employment prospects that will always have the hate label attached to them.  I always did state that the behaviour of UKIP will not get them seats in the British Parliament.

Will the British public thank UKIP for the Brexit vote by giving them enough votes to get them in Parliament?

Well, that was proven when Nigel Farage couldn’t even win a seat in his own country.

The Tories allowed them to make a mess of the immigration debate and snatched the victory making UKIP look totally inept.

The white working classes were not meant to be educated on the positives and negatives of Brexit.

The message was always immigration, immigration and more immigration.

Fear was placed in the hearts and minds of the white working classes always through social media and most of all the famous Breaking Point poster.

They used Christian Britain as their mantra, when I presented the case that Jesus Christ himself was a refugee they had no answer.

Obviously, I converted my faith and became a Christian, Roman Catholic back in 2010.

My theological education baffled them because according to them I was just another Asian that they had a stereotypical vision of; they were soon proven wrong because I was and still am a British patriot who does not allow hate to make me thought process distorted.

So, what was the agenda?

It is simple to comprehend. The populist movements simply acted as a conduit for the far right. Everybody on the far right loved them because they were doing all the work for them in a ‘very legal manner’. It came down to the ethics and morals for one to take a stance; I was the one who took the stance in the end.

It truly is worrying how much the white working classes were used, nothing was ever proposed to boost their literacy skills or employability prospects. Statistics were ignored relating to creating better labour market conditions for the white working classes and minority ethnic groups. They were simply there to pursue the message of hate and sadly, if that meant that they engaged in hate propaganda or even worse engage in racial violence that clearly suited the populist agenda.

The message became a laterigrade and so did policy, laterigrade to the point where the white working classes were watching the situation and didn’t realise that the hate machine was moving in a sideways manner like a crab.

The snapping claws were very near but by that time they personality cult had captured the trust of our countrymen, women and youth.

Once they were all captured in the claws of hate there was very little they could do apart from follow the message of hate and act as the couriers for the politicians who were clearly earning a sound amount of money and didn’t really care what happened to the white working classes.

However, they were the people’s army, they were labelled as the custodians of the revolution.

Did they get medals for their efforts?

Did they get a personal visit and a promise of a new job from UKIP and Nigel Farage?

No, they got nothing apart from the image we now have from foreign nations as being the instigators of hate. It is sad to see my nation’s people being used in such a manner; they are worth so much more than this.

Yes, it is acceptable to vote to leave the EU and it is acceptable for people to vote to remain.

I myself was a Brexit voter, but my intention was not to corrupt the argument but to see they equilibrium in its fairest form relating to EU immigration and non-EU immigration.

What changed?

Well it is obvious, focus on immigration of colour and you have the ticket to victory, that was the populist mindset of UKIP and their far-right friends. I became very aware of this and it was sickening to see how many of us were clearly fooled when we got to Brussels.

The cauldron of hate became so hot that it was like the scene out of Macbeth when the witches were adding venomous ingredients and sealing the fate for Macbeth. It became obvious by watching the pistons of the hate engine that ‘fair was foul, and foul was fair’.

I am glad I went to Brussels and saw for myself the true image of the party that always claimed that they were not racist.

Well, that soon came to an end when I was called an Untermensch (Nazi word meaning sub human and fit for extermination) by a Swedish Democrat and nobody did anything about it; all to save the lucrative funding.

Well, even your closest friends abandon you when you complain and stand up for your right to be recognised as a human and take a stance against hate.

Was it purely money or was it that my own party agreed with the statement?

A Belgian friend of mine told me that silence is cooperation.

I learned a lot from him, most Belgian and Swedish friends were in awe of me exposing the antics of UKIP. I did it for my country and I did not want to see my nation being dragged through the mud and then presented as a dry-cleaned garment.

My nation’s youth was being corrupted by hate and all they could see was the immigrant, the danger of this was the rise of hate.

Just picture the scene where I could have been attacked by some innocent youth who clearly saw me as the problem.

My Britishness would have been placed on the back burner and my colour would have been the only thing the potential attacker would have seen. Is this fair to do to a young person?

Destroying their employment prospects and creating revenge attacks out of something that enabled politicians to sit back and relish in joy.

That was the intention, let the white working classes do the dirty work for us, we will sit back and earn the Euros.

That was the mindset of the politicians who were pursuing this hate, as long as they got the political victory that is all that mattered to them.

My conclusion is simple. I encourage the nation to focus of on our success and not to dilute ethnicity with nationality. I hope one day we will all love Britain and Hate Racism; the question is how do we do it?

Well, it is not so difficult, do not allow the personality cult to overtake your lives and research everything. Pay attention to politics and become astute and equipped to vote with intellect and not allow oneself to become the fuel that lines the pockets of politicians and enables them to use and abuse you at the expense of your initial intention to love your nation and the people that make it great.

We can all hold disagreements but there is a way of presenting the argument for yourself, your nation and your immediate society. Create debate and healthy discussion and not hate to suit someone else’s agenda.

Be free and independent in thought and aim to build a Britain that is tolerant in thought but firm on reality.

Speak about immigration from a perspective of functionality and feasibility, people will listen to that and you will become more informed.

Spreading hate will only allow anger to breed anger; we will all be the losers and will lose sight of what we  want our nation to be; peaceful and engaging is the intention, not anger and hate.  

I am free now and I am no longer part of UKIP or any other populist party. I earned the wages of sin in Brussels and soon realised that this is not the way forward. On my return to the U.K I was hailed by many as a man of dignity and principle.

My children, who are fourth generation Great British citizens can pass the message onto the next generation and that is never to humiliate the nation and stand by our charitable and sensible nature rather than adhere to the politics of populism and hate.

Sarinder Joshua Duroch author of ‘Enoch, I am a British Indian’

The Bitter Betrayal Of the Working Classes By The Populists and The Far Right By Sarinder Joshua Duroch

People are always adamant that pure hatred comes from the far right; most of the time they are correct because it comes in the form of violence and pre-mediated criminal activity.

Let’s take a step back and look at the behaviour of the ‘70s and the National Front.

Enoch Powell made his Birmingham speech in 1968 and by the early ‘70s there was a huge rise in nationalistic behaviour in our nation. What was the conduit one may ask?

It is simple, the conduit was a form of populism and placing political expediency before the stability and well-being of our nation.

It was not only pure selfishness on the part of certain mainstream politicians but also talk of civil war and unrest. Using derogatory words in the Birmingham speech to describe black and ethnic minority communities was only fuelling the far right.

Enoch, made the speech and it became known as the ‘Rivers of Blood’ speech.

It caused uproar in this nation and he ended up having to resort to the politics of Northern Ireland after his expulsion from the Conservative party.

As a Conservative and well educated man, are we now assuming that this famous and well-read politician had something to do with the far-right?

The point that I am making here is that he clearly acted as the ignition that lit the fire of hatred that resulted in the working class rebelling against the minorities of this nation. We only need to recall how the working-class London dockers marched in complete unison and in favour of Enoch Powell, what message were they taking homes to their families after work?

Is it not evident that their children had fear in their hearts and minds because of the speech that was not reasonable in any way relating to promoting a cohesive and peaceful United Kingdom?

The dockers are a classic example of who the speech was aimed at, we only need to look at how there was a massive surge in recruitment to the National Front.

What did the National Front achieve?

They achieved not much, they managed to recruit a lot of young white working class men and turned them into robots of hate with no individual school of thought and in most cases profiting from their misfortune relating to academia and family life.

We all know that the new housing regeneration created very little in the way of amenities and the nation was blighted by strikes and our nation was known as the ‘sick man of Europe’.

What did the mainstream politicians do at the time to bring calm to the turbulent seas?

Not much is the answer if you were the victim of racist attacks and waking up in the morning to see the letters ‘N.F’ graffitied onto your front door or having to watch your parents being spat at and attacked.

Well, from my ethnic minority, Indian Sub-Continent third generation perspective; the white working class lost out immensely.

The National Front did nothing to help them in any way apart from use them and allow them to get criminal records and in many cases prison sentences. They became unemployable and unapproachable to mainstream society and became isolated.

What did that give them? It gave them difficulties in being able to function in society and become accepted in their communities but it harmed the white working classes in many other ways.

Whilst the young recruits to the National Front believed that they were winning ground by beating people up and terrorising communities. The people they hated and targeted, purely based on race, were preparing their children to contribute towards the U.K in a very positive manner, most people who were expelled from Uganda were of Indian origin and were British citizens.

They possessed a wealth of education and most of all a business acumen that was second to none. First generation Indian Sub-Continent parents took the abuse in their shops and the foundries of the Midlands knowing that they had a secret weapon at their disposal.

That weapon was a weapon of peace known as education, the parents fuelled their children with the ethos of education and the children became very successful in schools and commerce.

Where did that leave the white working class young people that followed the National Front?

The answer to this is clear, their minds were corrupted and their victims excelled to a new level where they became the custodians of grasping the opportunity.

The same opportunity was there for the white working class young people, did the National Front want them to access the opportunity and become competitors in the global educational market? The answer to this is no, one only needs to read my earlier statement to analyse the destruction of independent school of thought.

The National Front and other violent groups only let down the white working class youth by using them as mules and battle axes.

Once they had no use for them they were sent to the dungeons of long term unemployment and forgotten about.

Whilst this was happening to the white working classes the National Front and others would move onto the next stage of corrupting minds by convincing people that the Asians are taking all the jobs; well is it not obvious that employers would want to recruit the best educated and better equipped candidate. Or should the employer accept the ill-informed student of the National Front that would do more damage to the business by refusing to serve black and Asian origin customers?

Obviously, the National Front had no future plans for the youths that they attracted. All the National Front created was a new generation of young people that subscribed to the ideology of hatred and national socialism.

What did they really achieve?

Did they crush the ethnic minorities spirit and desire to excel in education and commerce?

If anything, the parents of the children who were of Asian origin only created a new generation of well-educated people whose will they could not smash.

What did carpet bombing achieve for the Luftwaffe; totally nothing in the end and the same can be said for the far right; achieving nothing but destruction and there was no compensation for the lives that they destroyed for both the white and ethnic minority working classes, especially where they used violence and in some cases murdered people who were racially inferior to their mind-set.

There were no wages for their torture and that applies to both white young people and ethnic minorities.

So, who was the winner out of all of this?

The populist movements only criticised Enoch Powell for silencing the debate on immigration for over forty years and made it once again acceptable to blame immigration of colour for all the problems in the U.K.

They knew fine well that there was a wave of immigration coming from Eastern Europe in 2004, however immigration that is not of visible ethnic origin cannot easily be counted whilst walking down the street. Populists capitalised on this and realised that it was time to get back into business and it is obvious from the later day antics of UKIP, EDL and Britain First it became acceptable to use hate propaganda and disguise it as reality and acceptable to talk about immigration.

I agree, it is acceptable to talk about immigration but not in a manner that has been manufactured in the factory of hate and only accepts batteries that are fuelled by causing destabilisation for our society by using methods that distances third and fourth generation British nationals from the white working classes.

It is obvious that populism and the blame factor always seems to be the embryonic recruitment stages of the most vulnerable in our society.

It extracts what it wants and leaves a society that is totally blind to reality.

Let me make this point, the white working classes must be equipped to make informative decisions. They need to be resilient to the indicators and initial stages of the hate machine igniting its pistons and picking up speed. We need to be diverse but not allow this tolerance to be abused by any group of people regardless of ethnicity.

If the white working classes can be informed and ready to take on the incoming challenge of combatting hate they will excel and even be the ambassadors of a more harmonious Great Britain, this can only be good for our nation in attracting new investors and increasing our good reputation abroad.

Nobody wants to be associated with a land of hate, nobody wants to live under fear and most certainly nobody wants their children to become dysfunctional through the exhaust fumes that the hate machine produces.

We all want a peaceful nation, we all want to live together in peace and most of all we want to Love Britain and Hate Racism.

It is our land, our home and most of all our people.

We love all the components that make a nation, a nation will always be more than just its economy because people make the economy and to make us attractive to the world for investment and trade we cannot any longer subscribe to the indoctrination of hate.

Sarinder Joshua Duroch

Author of ‘Enoch I am a British Indian’.

Follow the link for his first article for The Avenger

https://theavengeruk.com/2017/12/20/i-am-a-former-ukip-adviser-i-left-and-joined-labour-and-these-are-the-reasons-why-by-sarinder-joshua-duroch/

I Am A Former UKIP Adviser. I Left And Joined Labour And These Are The Reasons Why… By Sarinder Joshua Duroch

From Nigel’s clutches to Jeremy’s trusting embrace.

We asked Avenger readers that voted for Brexit to submit a question to Sarinder. This is the question we chose:

Question:

Why would you leave UKIP for labour when at the time they were against us leaving the EU?

One of the main reasons we wanted to leave was immigration and labour was against cutting down on immigration numbers.

I used to vote UKIP until conservatives offered a vote on the referendum. As they were the only major party offering us the vote. So to me UKIP served their purpose to get us out of Europe.

Answer:

The fact remains that UKIP has clearly diminished off the face of British politics. The causes for this is evident in policy formation and implementation, there was no doubt their impact on the Brexit result is blatant for all to see with the personality cult of Nigel Farage and the full flow of the populist debate in action.

One may ask why I moved to the Labour party, I moved because even though 47 Labour Members of Parliament voted against igniting Article 50 there was no serious maliciousness or dehumanisation of foreigners or destabilising of communities. If one asks why the sudden shift or complete change of mind, I ask the question, ‘Was I really different to the many working-class voters that were disillusioned with Labour because of the Blair and Campbell years?’ The answer is yes, I was.

However, since Jeremy has become the leader and the faith that he has restored in a brand of socialism that I agree with, it is safe to believe that this Labour party under the leadership of Corbyn is far more plausible and credible than that of what we were subjected to under Blair and Campbell. Under so much pressure he stood his ground and lead the party to a resurrection in the last election. Even Owen Smith had to admit that he was wrong about Jeremy Corbyn; people change in politics don’t they just!

Yes, it is a fact, I was an adviser to the UKIP party, but I wasn’t willing to engage with the far right of European politics for UKIP and their group expansion with the EFDD group. The desecration of our British and Commonwealth war dead was something that I certainly was not willing to do by engaging with political parties that were involved in national socialising.

There was no way on this God’s green Earth that I was willing to dehumanise not only refugees but also those who believed in a fairer and more equal society. Earning the wages of sin in Brussels was something I was not willing to do, especially when one is convinced to believe that associating oneself with holocaust deniers and parties such as the Swedish Democrats with their Islamophobic and anti-Jewish agenda is only a marriage of convenience to keep the group together and to get EU funding.

One soon discovered that EU Parliamentary funding to the tune of nearly 6 million Euros depended on such political associations. The intention of UKIP and their friends in Parliament was to create a Far Right Pan European Alliance, I have to say that being associated with this school of thought is clearly abhorrent.

The question relating to Labour being pro EU and the historic issues that the EU has caused within the creation of causing divisions in British politics is immense. Two well known Members of Parliament, Enoch Powell and Tony Benn both had serious concerns about the EU and greater cohesion with Europe. We don’t have a constitution in the U.K like most EU nations and the Common Agricultural policy suited the French a lot more than it did us British. The closer harmonisation of standardising everything in law and principle was also something that was not applicable to this nation. So, one can ask about Labour’s credentials, but it is obvious that most Labour Members of Parliament voted for Article 50.

They had to there was no other option, would they have taken us out of the EU initially; I don’t believe they would have initially but eventually the immigration debate was something they couldn’t have kept on avoiding.

So why did I join, I come from a working-class background and Jeremy Corbyn and his plausible nature and old school values were far better than the years of spin that I and many others were subjected to. UKIP had failed me and others especially with the far-right connections they were creating and developing at speed, they were also blowing the trumpet and playing the tune that their far-right friends in Europe wanted them to do so.

Would I continue to be part of the rhetoric of someone else’s political agenda; certainly not.

Yes, UKIP certainly changed a lot and the threat of populism in its embryonic stages is still there, it starts with a plausible argument and people will follow the debate. They offered us an option to tackle political correctness and question immigration in the early days without the silhouette of the Rivers of Blood speech.

However, from the embryonic stages it developed into a monster that was out of control and it lead to the Brexit campaign only being a conduit to irrigate, plough and harvest hatred into our society.  

Labour always implemented immigration rules, it wasn’t an open-door immigration policy to non-EU nationals under a Labour government in fact under Labour the rules were stringent. This is the argument about EU immigration, what has the present government done about EU immigration; the answer is nothing in reality. One can say the same about Labour because it was bound by Article 45 of the Lisbon Treaty. Where the Labour government imposed, and controlled immigration was on non-EU nations and that had an impact and very strong element of unfairness towards our Commonwealth. The Conservatives did the same, this shows us the problems that both parties had with continuing membership of the EU.

The main issue was and still is immigration and Article 45, however the mess that we are in now due to the Conservatives not having a Brexit plan is clearly visible for all to see.

Sarinder Joshua Duroch left UKIP in 2016. Please follow these links to read his articles about what he experienced and what led him to leave UKIP.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/nigel-farage-saw-picture-drowned-8193892

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/as-a-british-indian-and-ukip-adviser-i-believed-in-brexit-but-what-its-done-to-the-country-has-a7127461.html

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3366656/SEBASTIAN-SHAKESPEARE-Nazi-bully-row-threatens-5-6million-funding-Ukip.html

Are The Tories Really This Desperate? By Lisa Mulholland

‘Desperate times call for desperate measures’ as the saying goes, but just how low can you go? It seems the Tories have no bottom limit. And no shame. And no moral compass.

Yes the Tories have brought Anne Marie Morris back into the fold, and not just the fold, but she is now Conservative whip.

You know, the Tory MP who received a slap on the wrist for casually using a racist phrase ” N***** in the woodpile” during a meeting to discuss Brexit. The Tories are so desperate for votes that they have to rely on her to make up the numbers (let’s not forget the £1 billion vote gap filler deal made with the DUP).

It is the year 2017 and yet here I am about to try and define why Anne Marie Morris, the Conservative MP for Newton Abbott needed more than a suspension for her ” N***** in the woodpile” comment while discussing Brexit during a meeting.

This is a phrase that I have never heard before now and a quick search reveals it is a term used to describe when ‘Something is not quite right’.

Taken from Wikipedia “A n****** in the woodpile or fence is a figure of speech” originating in 19th Century America to describe fugitive slaves to mean “some fact of considerable importance that is not disclosed or that something suspicious or wrong”.

Could Morris not have just said that she felt that something was amiss, or that something did not add up?

Did she really need to use this phrase with slavery connotations to illustrate her point?

It is one thing for a nasty racist thug (that isn’t a member of the Conservative Party) to say that word, even in private, disgusting and outrageous that would be too. But it is quite another more serious matter for a Minister of Parliament to do so, and so publicly too.

As an MP, she has been elected to represent thousands of people in her constituency at the highest level in the United Kingdom. She has sat in Parliament, since she was elected in 2010 and in doing so she has been given the enormous right and more importantly, responsibility to vote on matters that concern the British public and be part of the policy making process.

As a Minister, she can vote on Bills that, after a series of processes and votes can eventually become British Law, whilst sitting in a grand building steeped in hundreds of years of history.

A place where numerous laws have been debated, voted on and became part of our British history.

The most prominent in my mind is the Race Relations Act of 1965 that made it illegal to discriminate against someone based on their race.

This law would have gone through many different stages before being granted Royal Assent to become British Law. Those debates and conversations would have taken place in the very room that she sits in.

Anne Marie Morris was just 8 years old when the law finally came to pass. So where has she been hiding for the past 52 years?

What shocks me even more is her party’s response to this. Yes, Theresa May has suspended her. But since that suspension other MPs, media and supporters jumped to her defence. And now bringing her back in to the fold. Did she think we would forget?

The Spectator, in their article entitled “A vicious reaction to a very bad word” talks about Morris’ comments and called it an ‘outdated idiom’.

Yes, over 100 years out of date and apparently died out by about 1930.

That is of course if you aren’t a member of the Conservative party. Because on closer inspection and research, this we only have to go back to 2008 when Lord Dixon- Smith, a Conservative Party Minister under David Cameron used the exact same phrase.
According to The Telegraph he was said to have used the phrase, when forced to apologise he admitted, that “the unfortunate phrase had “slipped out without my thinking”, and added: “It was common parlance when I was younger, put it that way”.

Treating Morris as though she is a naughty child who doesn’t know what she is saying and just to be chastised is not acceptable. She is a 60-year-old, Oxford educated woman who chose a career in Politics.

I dread to think what she says in private if she thinks it is acceptable to state this publicly because N word is more than just a word.

It is a concept that encompasses 500 years of white rule. It is a vulgar term that is very rarely ever used these days. It has no place in our society even when stemming from the lowest forms of insult, or so I thought.

Theresa May has made a mockery of the last 52 years where we have had a law that is designed to protect the British people from racism (including all the acts and statutes that have been passed in recent years to strengthen that law) and she seems to have forgotten that this actually means something.

I wonder what depths she will sink to next to cling on to ‘power’?

Brexit- It’s Not Set In Stone By Helen Hill

By Helen Hill.

Yesterday, Lord Kerr, the author of the infamous “Article 50” made some big headlines when he made a speech that many of us were more than a little surprised by. He said he wanted the British people to know that just because Article 50 has been written and submitted; triggering a British exit from the EU 2 years from the date of submission, that actually, it does not mean we have to leave!

Now I am sure that many of you are as surprised as I was by this revelation because whilst I knew the referendum result was not legally binding, I was under the impression that once the result had been accepted by the Government and Article 50 had been submitted – there was no going back – it was signed, sealed and delivered so to speak and we had to be out of the EU within 2 years of that date.

Lord Kerr explained that actually we can revoke Article 50 at any point and simply change our minds! 

He added that the 2 year time scale we have all come to view as a deadline is also not set in stone and that we are entitled to extend this period, if we so wish. He added that he had felt compelled to come forward, as the author of the document, to address many of the misconceptions that the public seemed to be under, he said he simply felt that the British public had a right to know that we have not made an irreversible decision and that with all of the new evidence that has come to light that if we decide we have made the wrong decision we still have the option to remain.

I
feel that it was honourable of Lord Kerr to come out and inform the public of where they stood because given the revelations since the election about how our exit from the European Union is forecast to negatively impact us in terms of jobs, the economy, the cost of living and travel, people may well want to reconsider. 

The campaign was fought and won on lies spun from the battle bus about money that does not exist and ill information about immigration alongside a patriotic rhetoric of how we could “Make Britain Great Again” when in fact all that has come to light so far is how much worse off our country will be as a direct result of our exit. 

Add to that the fact that those who have been sent to negotiate the terms of our exit are doing a terrible job of it and the fact that we are now looking at the type of hard “No Deal” Brexit that nobody, including the leave campaign wanted, and it is easy to see why Lord Kerr felt he needed to speak out. 

I think it is wonderful that the British people now know that they still have a choice, but I also think we have to be very careful not to undermine democracy – after all a vote was cast and the results were accepted. 

Yet at the same time the election was not won by huge margin, just a couple of percent in fact and had the voters been better informed about the realities rather than the rhetoric that was proven the very next morning to be lies, it is very possible that the vote would have swung the other way. 

We all know people who voted Brexit who now regret it and feel like they were conned into it by lying politicians and a media with their own hidden agenda. 

I think it would be undemocratic to stop the process now and simply revoke Article 50 but I do believe that once the negotiations are over and people know in clear and certain terms exactly what Brexit will mean for them, they should be consulted on whether they accept the terms of it and then make a final, well informed decision based upon cold had facts and figures, not political spin.