The Labour leader’s interview unveiled him as someone who largely agrees with the Conservatives and is pro-immigration

Labour’s recent success in the polls indicates that Ed Miliband could well become Prime Minister in 2015. But in an interview on BBC Radio 4′s Today programme last week, the Labour leader gave Britain every reason why he and his party doesn’t deserve to lead the country.

Miliband is not honest about Labour’s policy on the EU

The BBC’s James Naughtie asked Miliband three times “would you like to see a looser EU or a tighter one”, and twice the Labour leader said “we’re moving towards a more flexible Europe” – this gives the British public no idea as to Labour’s European policy.

Miliband agrees with the Conservatives

Twice during the interview, Ed Miliband showed how a vote for Labour is just the same as voting for the Conservatives. At 4 minutes and 57 seconds into the interview the Labour leader said “I think Lord Heseltine [Conservative] put it very well…” before saying at 7 minutes 16 seconds “[Cameron] and I voted in October 2011 on the same side against an in/out [EU] referendum“.

Miliband is strongly in favour of Romanian and Bulgarian migration

The Labour leader was then asked what he’d do about migration from Romania and Bulgaria due to begin on the 1st January next year. His answer? Nothing. He admits he’s powerless to do anything about it, but he then goes a step further and shows the type of irresponsible policy which is in fact alive and well in the Labour Party at 12 minutes 16 seconds:”

“My vision is a multi-ethnic diverse Britain“

So if immigration is an important issue to you and you think the numbers coming here is already out of control, a vote for Labour is merely a vote for more immigration and less border control.

Note: Timings are approximate for Miliband’s quotes

Britain’s population has rocketed, largely due to immigration in the last ten years

There has been much recent comment on the future of Britain’s most cherished countryside – the ‘Green Belt’. It was reported in the Daily Telegraph that swathes of the countryside would need to be chopped up for large housebuilding projects – but the politicians didn’t come clean at first as to why these developments were needed.A week later, we get the truth from the Planning Minister Nick Boles who was reported in the Daily Mail as saying that migrants count for almost half of housing demand and that 100,000 new homes will have to be built to accomodate them. The irony came when he made the comment, “We can’t go on like this” – which is precisely what the Government will do when Romania and Bulgaria join the EU and ultimately gain unlimited access to Britain on New Year’s Day next year.

The figures from the Planning Minister have let the cat out of the bag. Taking figures from the 2011 Census, most homes (35%) have two people living in them. So if we make the crude assumption that all 100,000 new homes will be needed for Romanian and Bulgarian migrants, we can assume that 200,000 will cross Britain’s borders in the New Year. But still this estimate isn’t accurate enough. Taking figures from this report, we can see that migrants generally live in larger households, averaging 3.34 people per household. This means we should expect 334,000 migrants to the UK just from those two countries alone. But according to one MP, we should expect more…

Phillip Hollobone was reported in the Daily Mail this week as saying we should expect as many as just under half a million migrants to flock here from Romania and Bulgaria once our border controls disappear on 1st January next year.

Just as migrants will flock to the UK, voters are flocking to UKIP, and it’s no surprise. We believe in:

- Regaining control of our borders

- Protecting Britain’s Green Belt, vigorously conserving our countryside

- Return to democracy, allowing referenda for large housing developments

These are just a few elements of UKIP’s housing policy. Find out more by clicking here.

None of the existing Parliamentary parties are capable of dealing with the question of the EU

The Conservatives have been at it for a long time – banging on about ‘repatriating’ powers back from Brussels and they’re at it again today. What they haven’t been doing at all is being entirely honest with the British people about how it will be achieved.Even as long ago as 1997, Conservative MP Michael Howard spoke of ‘repatriating powers’. Not much has changed in 16 years! They’re still talking…

But how can powers be clawed back from Brussels and will this ever be a reality? One needs to look here at an answer provided by the President of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso in 2005.

It lays out that repatriation of powers can only be achieved by:

- Withdrawing from the EU or…

- Renegotiating the treaties of the EU in agreement with “each and every member state“, and “every Member State” would have to agree.

Is David Cameron the man to essentially re-write the rules of Europe? Is he strong enough to do this for Britain? The slump in support for the Conservatives would suggest he is not and that the British people do not trust him.

As UKIP party leader Nigel Farage tweeted yesterday: “The excuses for his failure to repatriate powers have started even before he’s made his speech”.

The Government is worried that unlimited EU migration could lead to more pressure on housing stocks

Following yesterdays piece on how migration from Romania and Bulgaria will haunt the Conservatives throughout 2013, concerns are mounting on the burden on local services and communities.One of the key worries is over housing for the extra migrants and whether it will result in major housebuilding programmes across the UK. That’s before the burden on the NHS, schools and the welfare system are discussed…

UKIP policy on the subject is simple: First, stop unlimited mass immigration from the EU. Second, it’s time to make use of the vast number of homes laying empty across the UK.

According to the Government’s own figures there are currently 710,000 empty homes in the UK, 259,000 of those have been empty for six months or more. At the current rate of housebuilding in the UK, making use of those long-term empty homes is the equivalent of two and half years new housebuilding in the UK, immediately alleviating the need for rapid new housing developments.

Sadly, the Home Secretary has admitted she is powerless to stop migration from Romania and Bulgaria beginning on 1st January next year and the Government will doubtless do little to utilise empty housing.

Whether they like it or not, throughout 2013, Britain’s politicians have an elephant in the room. It’s an elephant no politician wants to sensibly talk about…

Just like Eric Pickles, the Communities Minister who got in his own pickle yesterday on the Daily Politics show. It all surrounds the relaxation of ‘transitional arrangements’ applied when Romania and Bulgaria joined the EU in 2007. In short, whilst the two countries may have joined the European Union, some countries including the UK put in a restriction effectively blocking the migration of Romanians and Bulgarians.

Cast your mind back to the expansion of the EU in 2004. Government officials estimated only ‘tens of thousands’ would migrate to the UK. In fact, hundreds of thousands did. the The graph towards the bottom of this BBC article on the 2011 Census demonstrates this fact perfectly using Polish nationals as an example.

So when Eric Pickles refuses to discuss the figures he has been shown, is it because he thinks the estimates are too low? Too high? About right?! He wouldn’t say yesterday and no Conservative politician will say anything concrete on this all year. They don’t want to talk about it.

The fact is, to the regular guy down the pub, the looming migration boom from Romania and Bulgaria is of grave concern. By failing to talk about it, Conservative politicians yet again hand the trump card to UKIP. Just ask the Conservatives own Lord Ashcroft, who last month said: “For those drawn to it, UKIP’s primary attraction is that it will say things that need to be said but others are scared to say.” Eric Pickles is certainly too scared, but he’s not the only one – Theresa May is at it too, although perhaps she’s a little more honest than Pickles.

Only in November, the Home Secretary admitted to the Daily Telegraph she was powerless, impotent to stop thousands of Romanians and Bulgarians flocking to the UK. There it is, cold as today’s snow that Britain is not in full control of it’s destiny having handed it over to the Eurocrats.

Are we right to be concerned about the migration, or will just a few hundred pass through Britain’s borders from 1st January 2014? For the answers, we need to look at the data, the reasons why Romanians and Bulgarians will indeed flock to the UK. This unofficial piece provides interesting financial data.

So for now, David Cameron will make false and empty promises on an EU referendum, Theresa May will tell us she’s powerless and Eric Pickles will refuse to discuss figures.

The Year of the Snake may begin next month, but for the Conservatives it’s going to be the Year of the Elephant in the room.

]]> http://www.indhome.com/2013/01/elephant-room-migration-romania-bulgaria/feed/ 0 http://www.indhome.com/2012/12/2483/ http://www.indhome.com/2012/12/2483/#comments Sun, 02 Dec 2012 09:00:55 +0000 Editor http://www.indhome.com/?p=2483 Britain needs to be a player in the world, and the world is a better place when Britain takes an active role. We have an armed forces other states can only dream of, and a foreign service whose skills have been refined over centuries

This is important because foreign and defence policies matter. You can’t just pretend the outside world doesn’t exist, or have some naively assumed, if you leave others alone you’ll be left alone. Poverty in Jamaica means more drugs on the streets of Birmingham. Ethnic tensions in the Balkans mean more refugees in Newcastle. Tariffs in Japan being car plants being closed in Essex. What happens in the world effects you, directly, every day. Britain can influence those events, or sit back and be in the receiving end of whatever others decide. We can be the hammer, or we can be the anvil.

Yet our hammer, our military and diplomatic clout, is woefully lacking. The MoD and Foreign Office are no longer fit for purpose. Decades of declining ambitions, watering down remits and military emasculation have made these once proud institutions look like children wearing their parent’s clothes.

The MoD now governs your military machine by employing 1 Civil Servant for every 2 people in uniform. To put that in context, civilian arm of the Israeli military employs just 400 people, compared to over 80,000 in the British Ministry of Defence. The MoD is vastly over resourced for the role it actually performs. For historical context, Britain raised, transported, fed, equipped, paid and housed 500,000 to fight Napoleon, all with a staff of less than 20 officers based in Horse Guards.

The only reason we even need a civilian branch of the military is to buy shiny things to better enable the serving men and women to better able kill people and break things. Forget lofty goals of spreading freedom, departmental mission statements and generally beige corporate-speak; the British military is there to kill people and break things in far places away places so we can still affordably drive our cars and buy cheap plastic toys from China in Argos.

Which brings  us on to the Foreign & Commonwealth Office. As those students of history will tell you, the FCO used to stand for the Foreign & Colonial Office. Way back when, Britain had to govern, in one form or another, a quarter of the globe. Viceroy’s, Governor Generals, local princes, warlords and even local ‘fixers’ were employed to keep Albion on top of the pile.  As one would expect this required rather a lot of paperwork. In 1900 47,948 people were employed in London to govern an empire. In 2012 nearly 13,000 are employed to govern a handful of tiny islands too poor to look after themselves. Surely, somewhere, there is some overhead?

To make matters worse, even with this small army of staff, Britain’s international influence is decreasing. Brazil has more foreign missions in Africa than we do. What few new diplomats we have are being financed by mortgaging the £2 billion worth of assets we have in the FCO’s foreign property portfolio.

Though admirals and ambassadors will be loathed to admit it, they are merely different facets of the same objective; to defend, promote and encourage British interests overseas. Whether we do that through soft loans to a tyrant, or carpet bombing the presidential compound of that said same tyrant a month later (think of Lybia), the desired result is the same. Why don’t we, therefore, merge the MoD and FCO into a new Ministry of National Interest & Engagement?

MoNIE, as it would be known, makes a disturbing amount of sense. For a start, there’s the financial saving; IT, PR, Payroll, HR, Asset Management, Facilities Management, Fleet Management, could all be pooled.

Secondly, policy harmonisation could be far more readily achieved. No longer would you have defence chiefs announcing joint war games with another power while the foreign office is prepping plans to boot them out of the next round of trade talks for human rights abuses. Our allies and enemies would know where they stood, and know that they were dealing with the same people and same set of policies.

Thirdly, intelligence and expertise could be shared across the policy planning board without the inevitable petty interdepartmental rivalries. All institutions and organisations have an in-built tendency to hoard knowledge and keep secrets, even from their ‘own side’. The Germany Army didn’t tell the German Navy they were about to mobilize in 1914, and the FBI went as far as to burn their intelligence records on Latin America rather than hand them over to the CIA. And even with the best will in the world, some intelligence falls between the cracks, some skills and insights are lost simply because the holder works in the wrong building.

Remove the misty eyed history, institutionalized inertia, and a typically British stubborn refusal to reform, and ask yourself; what’s really stopping the merger?

This article was originally  published on The Backbencher and can be found here

Lee Jenkins is Hounslow born and raised, now residing in the wilds of Bolton.
Socially liberal, fiscally conservative, International politics and military affairs are his passion.
He is unapologectic about his advocacy of zero-sum power politics. ‘It’s better to be the hammer than the anvil.’ He tweets at @Lee_T_Jenkins

Firstly he attacks UKIP’s polling performances. 14% in Corby is deemed not good enough, the reason is that it doesn’t meet the expectations of the party (no link or explanation is given for how he knows the party’s expectation). He goes on to mention Nigel Farage’s 2010 performance, conveniently forgetting to add that most of the electorate thought he had died in a plane crash. Really it was incredible he scored so highly, it shows UKIP’s strength that people will vote for a dead man if you put a purple rosette on him.

Wager mentions the London Assembly Race, ignoring that an administrative cock up meant UKIP’s name did not appear on the ballot paper. He also outright lies, claiming UKIP’s Mayoral candidate scored below 1%. It was in fact 2%. Ahead of, not behind, the BNP, Respect and the Christian People’s Alliance, equally the assembly elections, despite not being called UKIP, the party increased its vote share to 4.5% up 2.6 points from the 2008 that he has to turn to out and out lies is an indictment of what little there is to attack UKIP on.

Wager’s second point is that UKIP is too linked to Nigel Farage. Wager ignores the fact that UKIP is increasing its vote share at local elections (14-15% in 2012), picking up local Councillors up and down the country (indeed it now controls Ramsey council) as well as having its first MLA and narrowly missing out on Welsh Assembly members. He also fails to account for the other impressive performers in UKIP: Paul Nuttall the deputy leader who has appeared on Question Time and gets a strong personal vote in Bootle, his local patch, Professor Tim Congdon, economics expert who the Government has turned to for assistance in these tough economic times, Godfrey Bloom, UKIPs Yorkshire MEP who scored highly in the PCC elections; Steven Woolfe NEC member, city of London spokesman and PCC candidate for Greater Manchester, Jane Collins, UKIPs second highest performing candidate in a parliamentary by election in Bradford, topped only by Margot Parker, the Corby candidate. Gawain Towler, UKIPs jovial and eminently likeable press officer, Steven Crowther the party’s Chairman, and not to mention Cllrs Lisa Duffy (mayor of Ramsey) and Peter Reeve who have huge personal votes in Cambridgeshire and who act as the party’s elections gurus, Lord Alexander Hesketh and Lord Stevens, former Tory heavyweights who have staked all their considerable political capital on UKIP. Not to mention the plethora of young talent the party has – Alexandra Swann who appears regularly on TV and in print, Harry Aldridge the Chairman, who graces many political organisations with his speeches. Arnie Craven, Yes to AV’s go to man in the north, as well as a leader in the Yes 2 Mayors campaign, Sanya Jeet Thandi, a seasoned UKIP performer, Matthew Smith, the party’s youngest PCC candidate and former Tory elections expert from Norfolk, who is set to dominate Yarmouth council elections next year.

I could go on, there are many more names known in local and national newsrooms, as well as in Westminster. It suits the argument of the anti UKIP brigade to claim that the party is a one man band, but sadly for them it doesn’t stand up.

The next point on the list is that the impact of UKIP has been exaggerated. Wager doesn’t even mention the fact that the difference in over 20 seats (enough for a majority) between the Labour win and the Tory 2nd place was less than the UKIP vote. Here he has, unknowingly, stumped on a point. Studies have shown that UKIP take heavily from both Tories and Labour, the Tories should be no more worried about the UKIP rise than Labour. The impact of UKIP hasn’t been exaggerated, its been misunderstood. UKIP are taking from all the old parties because they are so similar, because for all their pretence of disagreement they all want to turn Britain grey but differ on the exact shade. Wager is right, the Tories shouldn’t be obsessing over UKIP, all the parties should.

The final point is the most risible. Pointing to a single study about UKIP voters alone (which also shows UKIP take more from Labour than Tory) Wager tries to make claims about UKIP members. All parties have strange and unpleasant voters because there are strange and unpleasant people living in Britain, but those voters do not represent the party itself. The far left, hang em and flog em working class Labour voter is no more representative of the centrist metropolitan Labour party under Ed Multiband than any random UKIP voter is representative of UKIP. It is members and leading members that count. The most comprehensive survey of UKIP General Election candidates by the University of Leicester shows that UKIP is a party that, far from being on the nutty fringes, poses a serious challenge to the three party oligopoly in Westminster.

However, despite being easily able to refute Wager’s half truths (and in some cases such as our mayoral and assembly results actual lies) about UKIP, I love it every time such an article appears. Despite UKIP having the best manifesto and the campaigning talent to back it up there is one factor more than any that helps them rise. That is other parties underestimating and misunderstanding them. Every time a Labour supporter labels UKIP a Tory splitter group it makes me glad they won’t be acting to stop the flow of their voters to UKIP. When Tories label us an EU pressure group I know they wont be stopping the many voters and members who leave them, and join UKIP for its common sense policies on crime, on tax, on the economy and on jobs. When Lib Dems attack and smear UKIP I am reassured that they wont stop the members who leave in disgust, and come to UKIP for our strong stance on civil liberties and democracy.

So Mr Wager, really I should be thanking you for your early Christmas present. Keep up the good work.

This article was originally published at The Backbencher and can be found here

Olly Neville is the Chief Editor of Indhome, he is the YI Social Media Director and the Chairman of Friends of Palestine in UKIP. He is a committed Libertarian and has worked on the Ron Paul 2012 campaign in Nevada, he is regularly described as ‘embarrassingly off message’ by UKIP HQ

Referendum Anxiety

Dear friends, as a dedicated UKIP’per these words may seem strange coming from my pen (as it were), but I greatly dread a referendum on the EU.

Not because I don’t want to get out of the European Union, far from it.

I firmly believe that not enough preparation has been done to ensure that we are ready for it.

We must have our post-exit plans written down in black and white. We must have our proposals costed and analysed in advance.

When the referendum is announced, we must have dozens of representatives at all levels, in parish councils, in local councils, in both the House of Commons and House of Lords and in Brussels, all ready to make the case for withdrawal.

We must have local regional and national fighting funds squirreled away or we will be outspent at every turn by Europhiles and those with vested interests that depend on the EU’s continued existence.

All our members must have answers to the questions people will ask, and be ready and able to allay their concern about exit.

Most of all, we must prepare a response to business leaders who will fear loss of trade if we leave the EU.

It is for this reason that I propose that we commit (if we leave the EU) to put our first year’s EU subscriptions into a transition fund that would be used to help British companies make the transition from being in the EU to being an independent nation and to help them attract trade and tourism to the UK.

Finally, I would suggest that all right-thinking Eurosceptic parties and organisations donate a portion of their money and energies to the production of a DVD; to be delivered to the voters of Britain.

In 1997, The referendum party delivered a videotape to five million households warning about the dangers of the European Union. This was a remarkable achievement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Referendum_Party

However, if Eurosceptics could pool their money into a single fund, we could fund a DVD featuring MPs and MEPs from the Conservatives, UKIP and even Eurosceptic Labour that would go out to ten million homes, and we could use youtube, new media and a TV spot to reach the rest of the public.

Only then I feel, will the British public have the information required to make an informed decision. And thus informed, I believe they will choose to leave the European Union, for the British people are a brave and independent people, who do not like to be taken for fools.

How did this happen? The theory goes that extremist parties prosper in extreme situations. Just look at the terrifying rise of Golden Dawn in Greece. Although Britain
is in nowhere near the state the Greece is, there should be fertile ground for a proper socialist party to emerge, especially since Labour have tied themselves to the centre ground. So why isn’t there one?

A major factor is that Britain has changed since the 1970’s. For a start we are older. There are more over-65’s than under-16’s in the UK, and older people tend to be more conservative. Given that old people have an excellent record of voting, this is bad news for the Left. Secondly, labour intensive industry has declined and the age of millions of unionized blue collar workers is at an end. The union movement is now reduced to a public sector rump. Private sector unions have all but disappeared, and those that remain are a far cry from the fire breathing shop stewards of yesteryear. Immigration has played a role too. Whereas thirty years ago people tended to identify themselves by class, today they are more likely to define themselves by their ethnicity, especially in the big cities which used to be the bastions of left wing support. In addition, many who come to this country do so to keep their heads down and work hard to make a better life for themselves. Smashing the Establishment is hardly high up on their to-do list.

The world has also changed. It’s hard for us to see it now, but there was a time when the Socialist model of a planned economy was a real alternative to Free Markets. The Soviet Union not only propped up its East European vassals and a scattering of socialist outposts in the Third World, it provided inspiration and tangible support for the British Left.
When the Soviet Union imploded, its socialist allies collapsed quicker than a house of cards in hurricane. The British Left were discredited by association. Today China, Vietnam and even Cuba are adopting capitalist aspects into their economies, embracing the Free Market and allowing their citizens the choices and disposable income that were deprived to the citizens of the Eastern Bloc

The Far Left themselves have to take the bulk of the blame however. Firstly, they are terrible communicators. Using phrases like proletariat, means of production and dialectic are a sure fire way to alienate your average voter. That’s just not how people talk. Those phrases have no resonance outside socialist circles. An especially unattractive trait among some socialists is the arrogant assumption that they already know what’s good for people, so don’t need to bother engaging with voters on their term. Rather than listen to what peoples concerns are, too many socialists will TELL people what their concerns should be.

This leads onto the second point. The Far Left talk to themselves, a lot. All parties and ideologies are guilty of this to some extent. It’s human nature to enjoy speaking to people you agree with. It’s validating. But for the Far Left it’s almost all they do. I don’t know if it’s because there are so many varieties of Leftist (more on that later) or if it’s because they prefer it to facing the real world. The internet has only served to exacerbate this habit. The web is swarming with chat rooms, forums blogs where Leftists can pick over the minutiae of the effects post-modern radical feminism has on unionizing the Belgian biscuit industry…….I’m only semi joking with that too.

Linked to the previous point, the Far Left love nothing more than a good split! Marxists, Anarchists, Trotskyites, Leninists, Collectivists, Syndicalists, Respect, SolFed and the TUSC. They spend at least as much time arguing with each other as they do trying to ‘smash’ capitalism. As well as the inevitable clash of personalities that all political movements have, the principle cause of division among the hard Left seems to be an endless game of “MY socialism is better than YOUR socialism”. In addition, previously unified local groups can be torn apart by completely irrelevant topics. For example at university I saw a reasonable enough debate on organising support for strikes derailed after a side debate started on whether Israel should retreat to it’s 1967 borders or become a federal republic incorporating Gaza and the West Bank. You couldn’t make it up.

When we look at the riots in Greece and Spain, we should take comfort in the knowledge that the British Far Left, for the time being at least, remain in the self-imposed exile of their echo chambers.

This article was originally published at The Backbencher and can be found here

Lee Jenkins is Hounslow born and raised, now residing in the wilds of Bolton.
Socially liberal, fiscally conservative, International politics and military affairs are his passion.
He is unapologectic about his advocacy of zero-sum power politics. ‘It’s better to be the hammer than the anvil.’

He tweets at @Lee_T_Jenkins

Olly Neville – Candidate for YI Chairman

I am standing backed by our Chairman Harry Aldridge on a platform to continue and improve on the great foundations he has laid for us.

Young Independence must not become CF, a gagged, centrally controlled organisation  used as leaflet fodder. As I noted in my speech at the YI hustings many defectors from the Tories to YI are doing so because the freedom our members have to express their views and be treated as valued members of the party, not just as campaign drones, useful during elections then ignored the rest of the time.

When I set out my manifesto I wanted to have a plan and vision that would enable YI to fulfil all its potential. When Harry announced he was standing down he said he felt no longer in touch with the  growing University presence of YI, and wanted someone with more experience to take his place. As the only candidate who started a UKIP university society I know how hard it is tackling Union bureaucracy. I will create a dedicated Universities officer to both help societies tackle this and to help them get speakers from the main party to their events.

Winning membership on campus’ is difficult with a range of other options on offer, it is vital we do not kill off our fledgling University presences by making our societies too boring or centrally controlled.

I have laid out how when as Social Media Director I was able to build a community online, increasing our twitter presence by 1700 follows and doubling the reach of our Facebook page. Chairman however is a different job, and I believe I have the qualities, seriousness, and common sense to run YI in a dignified and proper manner.

I do not want to see YI become a tool of the main party, for leafleting only, run by bigwigs  via proxy. For this reason I did not seek any backing from big party figures,  preferring to trust my peers in YI. I didn’t want flashy backers, but preferred to be endorsed by those who have been long time members of YI and know the issues we face and what we need to do to meet them.

I believe the regions of YI are important, I have laid out what I would do as Chairman to encourage regional growth so we can have flexibility, as well as making sure all new members have a local first point of contact  I also believe that social activities in all aprts of the country not just London are key to firing up our membership, bringing in new and fringe members, and achieving our full potential

Before you vote I’d ask you to read my manifesto and ask yourself if you share my vision of YI as more than just a main party campaigning tool.

For more information visit my website ollyneville2012.blogspot.co.uk, visit my Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/OllyForYI or email me at Olly4YI@gmail.com

Gareth Shanks Candidate for Elections officer

Political party membership is less than 1% of the county’s population, with the majority of members being middle aged men. Young people who join a political party do so because they want change.

The main purpose of a political party is to win elections and YI needs to play a part in the ever growing, professionalizing and adapting UKIP, the UKIP of the future, the UKIP that’s going have an electoral breakthrough. I believe YI can be at the very forefront of this breakthrough, but as Lao Tzu, an ancient Chinese philosopher puts it:

“The journey of a thousand miles begins with one step.”

That first step is your local council ward. That is where we as a party will start to build up support for national elections and through having a large amount of YI members we can work together and stand candidates in as many wards across the nation as possible. Only that way will we ever get near having UKIP members in the House of Commons.

We as a party, but most importantly as a youth wing need to look outwards, not in; we need to be focusing on external elections, on improving our results in council elections, building inroads and support in new areas, sowing the seeds which will one day lead to the formation of UKIP strongholds.

I have worked with Jonathan Arnott on his PCC campaign, done countless days of leafleting and campaigning, both for UKIP campaigns and for the Doncaster mayoral referendum, furthermore I have organized political debates for my 6^th form, as well as organizing and running a YI election action day for the Rotherham by-election. I believe I have enough experience from within my region of Yorkshire to hold this post as well as more than enough enthusiasm!

Things I will bring to Young Independence:

Help and motivate YI members to become more involved in elections at every level.

Concentrate on local elections as these are the key to building up local support for National and EU elections.

To give individuals who may not have a local branch the ability to stand for local councils via supplying an election pack containing leaflet designs, advice and support for the election.

Having a YI regional head in charge of campaigning for that area.

Rob Comley Candidate for Events Officer

Being the YI Events Officer is about getting as many people from all over the UK involved in YI events as possible, merging the YI gap around the country and having at least an annual event in all three thirds of the country.

I am an easy-going student, currently studying Politics at Greenwich, where I have founded a UKIP student society. I can communicate well with a vast-range of social groups and have a great amount of experience in fundraising events, as well as having links in the entertainment industry. At Local level  I am currently in the process of becoming the secretary of UKIP Bexley, and will happily work my socks off to get things done locally. I also plan to talk to 6th formers in 2013 to get them interested in politics and hopefully to secure their first vote before they sleepwalk into a life of voting Lib/Lab/Con.
If elected I would ensure that more YI social events up and down the country are arranged, and set in place three event regions – the north, south and midlands – ensuring more opportunities to get involved all over the UK. This will not only spread the word of UKIP and attract more supporters, but also get members socialising and bonding with each other.

I will look into organising a YI weekend away, something which some have already shown an interest in, arrange campaign and training days and arrange fundraising events, for example, parties, cabaret shows and sporting events, not only to raise money but also to get YI and UKIP into the local and national media, gaining valuable media attention.

I pledge to travel across the country to attend events I set up, no matter what region they are held in! I am planning on helping out in the election campaign in Rotherham and would certainly put the hours of travel in for YI aswell.

Socialising should not just be about politics. We all know what we stand for and each others views. It should be about bonding, getting to know one another and above all, having fun!

I want to work with the hard working founders of the newly established University Societies to get the members involved in events in their areas, as well as helping them to create their own! it is important that this hard working, faithful members are rewarded.

It is also vital that the advertising of social events is improved greatly. Members across the country should know well in advance when there is an event in another region. This is also down to communication and I shall fix this problem by coming up with a more reliable way to get information to members, as well as setting up a Social Events newsletter to be sent out to members by email and getting an events calender set up on the website.

I hope you give me a chance to be your social events officer. Let’s get YI members socialising – uniting for a stronger Young Independence!

Jack Duffin Secretary

I have a combination of skills and experiences that would be beneficial for the role of Young Independence secretary. I have been involved in several committees in the past and the skills I have developed are good organisation, effective communication and
time-management. I would use these skills to take the minutes during the meetings and keep the YI membership informed. I believe this is really important as it an accurate record of proceedings and should reflect suggestions and decisions made, making the committee both accountable and keeping the people they represent, informed of proceedings, action and forthcoming dates. I also have the
enthusiasm, experience and passion for development; this is essential for supporting the committee and policies in a secretarial capacity. Since the 2012 autumn party conference I have set up YI London, so that YI members across the capital can meet
socially, as well as using it during the election time so we can work together and organise campaigning days across London. At the same time I have started Brunel University YI Society. I am very committed to the party and have been selected as the UKIP candidate for the Uxbridge South ard in the Hillingdon Council elections of 2014, as well as working towards being a parliamentary candidate in 2015.
I believe we need to continue the great work done in the past by YI, to continue raising its profile and assisting the growth of the organisation to make sure that YI and UKIP become an even stronger voice in British politics. Something I would love to see is a YI conference allowing us to come together, share information and ideas, and strengthen our say on the direction of the party.
If elected, in addition to my secretarial role, I will help facilitate the creation of a YI conference to achieve this goal.
Please vote Jack Duffin for YI Secretary