There's a theory about a "critical mass". If a certain % of UKIP members start again within the Populists, then at some point there will be a tipping point where as many as half could defect. 

The effect of this on UKIP would be to leave it without the rank and file, who would become important members of the PP, rather than cannon fodder for UKIP under a leadership that barely represents their views beyond Brexit... The PP would then carry the torch of Populism passed by UKIP and the remnants of UKIP would broker a merger with the Tories.

UKIP says...

"Reports are coming out of Chechnya, about the arrests, imprisonment, torture and in some cases murder of gay men. Paul Nuttall, the UKIP leader has condemned the actions of the Putin backed warlord Ramzan Kadyrov,"

"If these reports are true, and it looks like they are, then the Government must protest in the strongest manner.

"Just because the warlord of this Islamic fiefdom is an ally of Putin should not blind us to the horrific abuse of human rights being perpetrated.

"Putin claims to oppose Isis and its blend of fundamentalism in Syria but seems to be impervious to decency. He has the power to stop this inhumanity. The Government should demand that he does."

--------- Why is Paul Nuttall getting involved in this?

1) Putin is fighting for traditional values, yet our own political class and media pushes an agenda which goes way beyond homosexual equality under the law.

2) Why is what happens in Chechnya (to homosexuals or indeed anyone else) a matter for UKIP to comment upon? UKIP supposedly prides itself upon being against the human rights lobby that expects us to intervene in every abuse across the world (usually with disastrous results!) but in practice is a globalist hand wringing liberal party like the old gang!

            Mr Gold and Mr Green

Here's a story about two men, Mr Gold and Mr Green. 

Mr Gold is what is known as a materialist. He has shares in the stock exchange. When he sells them it does not matter to him if workers lose their jobs, as long as he can make a tidy profit. 

Mr Gold is also a rogue landlord. He overcharges and maintains his property to the lowest standard the law will allow. And when he feels the need for more profit he puts up the rent and evicts the previous tenants - to him it's simply "business". 

Mr Gold likes the free market; he believes business should employ people at the lowest rate possible, with local workers being sacked to be replaced either by workers in Far East sweatshops or by robots and self-service machines. He supports the privatisation of the NHS and of education. After all, his family uses private education and health, so why pay twice? Yes, why indeed, he thinks, so he is happy to see cuts to public transport, as he has a car (foreign made) and as long as the roads are maintained it matters not if those unable to drive have a bus service. 

Mr Gold hasn't many friends, but he has many contacts through business, with whom he networks, when playing golf or bridge. 

He's the man on the council who approves plans to demolish historic buildings so his business contacts can build low quality flats in their place (to rent to us - at a cost!). He's the one who wants to build on the green belt and rip up planning laws. He claims to want to provide homes for the low wage immigrants that he employs - but we know better... 

Mr Gold is unapologetic. When asked about buying British, about national loyalty he simply shrugs his shoulders and says he's a "citizen of the world". He claims that English workers need to match the wages of the low paid immigrants he employs if they wish to be competitive... 

He claims that he cannot get English workers  because "they are lazy", and that they should be "grateful" for their meagre wages. I am sure we've all met, seen or heard a Mr Gold in our lives.....

Mr Green, on the other hand, is quite different. He supports conservation of old buildings, and the countryside. He says it is our birthright and our heritage, to be preserved for future generations. 

Naturally Mr Green was upset when Mr Gold's planning committee passed plans to destroy the local nature reserve and build executive homes in its place. Mr Green opposes open borders, to prevent further squeezing of the housing stock. He says immigration is used by developers to create an excuse to make the government give over more land for them to build upon so they can make big bucks. 

Mr Green is also in business, but unlike Mr Gold, his is small scale and local - he sells bicycles. It offers him a decent enough living, but not a fortune. He has enough to get by. He is popular with those in the local pub who admire his decency and good humour. He's also in the local cycling club, but he does own a car which he uses when not cycling. He's happy enough to pay for public transport though, even if he uses it rarely. Mr Green thinks of others' needs, not just his own. 

Mr Green is a localist. If he can he'll use the local butcher or grocer because he wants the little man to survive against the superstores owned by the likes of Mr Gold. 

Mr Green is concerned about local workers losing their jobs due to globalisation. Mr Gold would call him a socialist, but he's not, nor is he a bleeding heart liberal. He simply wants to see fair play and a chance for everyone to have a slice of the national cake. He worries about loss of our national identity and he voted to leave the EU. 

Mr Green wants money that's earned here to stay here, rather than being sent abroad to be spent in a foreign High Street, so our shops and industry can prosper. But Mr Gold sees money transfer as a good way to make an easy profit. As long as he makes money he doesn't care where the capital is heading. 

Well, that's the story of two very different fictional men. We hope you liked it. We also hope that you are like Mr Green and not like Mr Gold in your way of thinking. 

Now, if Mr Green were real he'd be joining the Populist Party to fight against all of the false values held by Mr Gold......

Will you? 

Further thoughts on the strike upon Syria.... 

We could be looking at WW3, between NATO/Israel and the Muslim World, as a war with Islamic State will no doubt wake up "sleeper" sympathisers in all nations with significant Muslim populations. It would mean an end to the phoney "war on terrorism" and the start of a REAL war, with conscription. This will be another Vietnam.

And if that occurs, we CANNOT assume victory, because Western governments have no intention of interning "potential" enemy aliens, on the grounds that "not all Muslims are terrorists". Well, I have news for them. In WW2 not all Germans living here were Nazis (in fact many were Jews) yet we still interned them, just in case. And the absence of an intricate enemy spy network within our borders helped us win. But today, a war with the Islamic State would fail, because even if Trump and May nuked ISIS to smithereens in THEIR borders we will still have ISIS backers roaming around with impunity within OUR borders.

And all this would mean nothing if a) we were neutral b) We had not allowed Muslim and Jewish mass immigration over the past few centuries to create lobby groups pulling us into arguments that were not our business!!!  

Isn't changing policy on Assad as a result of images of people attacked by chemical weapons the same as changing policy on refugees as a result of seeing an image of young Alan Kurdi dead on the beach after drowning in the Mediterranean Sea?

One image caused a "refugee crisis" whereby huge numbers of Syrians (and others claiming to be Syrians) engulfed Europe.

One "attack by Assad" (probably not by him) and Trump U-Turns, with possible collapse of Syria so it falls to ISIS entirely.  What security threat does Assad pose to the West, to NATO? None.

Think back. In times past the media was limited. Fewer televisions, less media propaganda, less bleeding heart liberalism, more isolationism. Yes, it could be hard-hearted, even lacking compassion, but without a barrage of film clips narrated by simpering voice actors showing starving kids in Africa, or showing bombed out places we'd never heard of in the Middle East did we think about these events?

No, we thought about our own country, its needs and its future.

And that's exactly what our leaders need to be doing now. Ignore the media clamour to police the world......

List 1 : Old "Tory Patriotism" ........

Believes that the EU is "run by Germany"

Believe that patriotism is mainly about waving the flag and supporting the Monarchy, rather than about people of all economic statuses.

Supports Israel against Islam on the grounds that it is the "only democracy in the region"

Blindly supports the U.S. in foreign policy

Still thinks that the Upper Middle Classes are traditionalist, despite growing liberalism amongst the graduate class

Does not really believe that Britain can stand on its own, hence it supports global free trade

Believes that the elite are best suited to run Britain and therefore opposes most referenda.

Thinks we can still police the world in our post-imperial age

Sees sport as an expression of national strength

Reveres the British Empire, but regards "nationalism" as a dirty word

Thinks that human success is based upon ownership, power and money

Sees the green belt as land to be built upon

Admires Margaret Thatcher's stance on the miners

Blames the French for "sending their illegal immigrants over to England".

Supports economic Darwinism - if small shops cannot compete against supermarkets they should close. Opposes subsidies for struggling industries

Condemns benefit scroungers yet sees tax evaders as "entrepreneurs"

Allows monopoly capitalism and the concentration of power and ownership in the hands a the few on the grounds that intervention in the economy is "socialist", yet cannot see the similarity between this and state socialism.

Blames the immigrants for living here, but does not accept the role of big business for their residence in this country. Also falls for the lie that British worker does not wish to take on the jobs.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Or List 2 Populist patriotism? .........

Believes that the EU is run by a supranational elite which extends far beyond Germany, and that ordinary Germans have no more power than ordinary Britons.

Believe that patriotism is largely about ordinary people and their part in building our nation.

Does not support Israel on the grounds that it is nothing to do with us, and that it stokes tensions between us and the Arab world, with whom we previously had good relations.

Seeks to sever the "special relationship" with the US so the UK is not a satellite state. .

Believes Britain can and should stand alone, with a policy of Protectionism

Thinks we can cannot (and should not) police the world in our post imperial age.

Believes that the masses are best suited to run Britain and therefore supports most referenda.

Sees sport as primarily an expression of teamwork and physical activity.

Respects the British Empire, but understands that true nationalism respects every nation's right to national independence.

Thinks that human success is based upon character, personal standing and the way one conducts oneself

Sees the green belt as land to be conserved.

Condemns Margaret Thatcher for closing the mines and making us more dependent upon overseas fuel.

Understands the French for wanting to deport their illegal immigrants, even if it is over to England. Blaming the French for having the resolve to deport them is based upon envy.

Opposes economic Darwinism - if small shops cannot compete against supermarkets they should be assisted to survive by the government. Supply subsidies for struggling industries.

Sees tax evaders as "parasites", who are no better than benefit scroungers.

Opposes monopoly capitalism and the concentration of power and ownership in the hands a the few on the grounds that it is the same outcome as the policy of state socialism.

Understands the reasons for immigrants wishing to live here and opposes their presence in large numbers, but blames big business for their residence in this country. Also opposes the lie that British worker does not wish to take on the jobs.

===================================================================

If you mainly prefer the forward thinking Populist patriotism in list 2 then join us today: 

https://www.facebook.com/VOXPopulist/photos/a.1404667989798075.1073741830.1404056673192540/1815159538748916/?type=3&theater

Populist Party, 11 Greensleeves Avenue, Broadstone, Dorset, BH18 8BJ. £10 membership

Ken Livingstone is now the victim of the same PC bigots he always supported when they were venting their spleen on his political opponents. -----Ken Livingstone is accused of lying about an agreement between Nazi Germany and Zionist German Jews signed on 25 August 1933 - yet here it is .....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haavara_Agreement

So, is the issue that he is anti-Semitic or is it about him bringing a historical fact to peoples' attention (certainly it was news to me) that certain people wanted to keep covered up (for reasons unknown)? 

Isn't the Labour Party treading on thin ice by denying the Haavara Agreement? 

Did not George Orwell warn us of the consequences of denying history?

.......those opposing the reinstatement of the admittedly ghastly Red Ken into the Labour Party are a pretty grim bunch themselves.....

They include:

Rachael Maskell (Re immigration: She is quoted as saying "20,000 is not enough and 30,000 is not enough' and that "We will keep going until we hit our saturation point because what does it matter if we have to wait another week for a hospital visit? Or if our class sizes, are slightly bigger? Or if, our city is slightly fuller? What does it matter, if things are slightly more challening? If we have to pay a little bit more in to the system?")

Yvette Cooper, who back in 2015, Cooper was one of a number of politicians and celebrities who volunteered to take refugees into their home:

Wes Streeting (former Head of Education at Stonewall, where he led their Education for All campaign to tackle "homophobia" in schools)

Chi Onwurah (publicly supported Owen Smith's calls on a rerun of the referendum on the UK's EU membership)

Louise Ellman (She voted "very strongly for" the Iraq War, "very strongly against" an investigation into that war... Ellman is a member of Labour Friends of Israel. )

Keir Starmer (formerly held a consultancy position with the law firm (Mishcon de Reya LLP) that acted for Gina Miller in bringing legal proceedings against the Secretary of State for Exiting the European Union

Gavin Shuker (Shuker has been a critic of right-wing nationalist groups such as Britain First, the English Defence League (EDL) and Liberty GB, condemning what he calls their repeated "targeting" of Luton. He has drawn attention to the high costs of policing demonstrations by the EDL, and has spoken at rallies opposing the EDL’s presence in Luton.)

Barry Gardiner (In February 2017, The Times revealed that Gardiner received £182,284 in disclosed cash donations from Christine Lee & Co since September 2015, which acts as the chief legal adviser to the Chinese embassy. Before this, his constituency party received cash donations from Christine Lee & Co of £22,500 between 2009 and 2015. The paper also revealed that part of this money was used to fund the employment of Daniel Wilkes (son of the firm's founder) in his parliamentary offices. Alistair Graham, former chair of the Committee on Standards in Public Life, called the situation as "bizarre" and said "there are clearly questions to be answered")

----- The Labour Party is rotten to the core, whether it is the Islam apologists like Corbyn and Livingstone, or the Cultural liberal Israel Lobby like those above. Note that some of the 41 MPs are Jewish and will inevitably dispute the decision. Others have resigned as Shadow Cabinet members during the tenure of the hopeless Corbyn, so have an axe to grind regardless of Livingstone.

----- There is nothing to choose between the two wings. Essentially neither supports the indigenous British (who are largely not Muslim or Jewish, and have no interest in whether Israel exists or not, but simply wish to see no more British soldiers' blood spilled in the Middle East whether supporting Israel or trying to set up NATO puppet regimes in Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Egypt etc)