|
|
This page is for your comments.email them to info@ukipyeovil.org.uk or post them to us at PO Box 2711, Yeovil, BA22 9XT
____________________________________________________________________________
Dear Sir
Listening to the news tonight I was horrified to hear the ungentlemanly and unstatesmanlike comments made by Mr Cameron about your party members ["fruitcakes and closet racists" - ed]. I voted for you at the last election having always previously been a Conservative.
His comments have reinforced my belief that I did the right thing. None of the main parties have tackled the issues that need to be addressed, like law and order, immigration, European disengagement punitive taxation and pensions.
Harry Hunt Alterhay house Combe St Nicholas
____________________________________________________________________________
Brian Sedgemore is the Labour MP for Hackney South & Shoreditch. He gave this speech to the House of Commons on 23 February 2005 during the parliamentary debate on the new anti-terrorism bill:
As this will almost certainly be my last speech in Parliament, I shall try hard not to upset anyone. However, our debate here tonight is a grim reminder of how the Prime Minister and
the Home Secretary are betraying some of Labour's most cherished beliefs. Not content with tossing aside the ideas and ideals that inspire and inform ideology, they seem to be giving up on values too. Liberty, without which democracy has no meaning, and the rule of law, without which state power cannot be contained, look to Parliament for their protection, but this Parliament, sad to say, is failing the nation badly.
It is not just the Government but backbench members who are to blame. It seems that in situations such as this, politics become incompatible with conscience, principle, decency and self-respect. Regrettably, in such situations, the desire for power and position predominates.
As we move towards a system of justice that found favour with the South African Government at the time of apartheid and which parallels Burmese justice today, if Honorable Members will pardon the oxymoron, I am reminded that our fathers fought and died for liberty - my own father literally - believing that these things should not happen here, and we would never allow them to happen here. But now we know better. The unthinkable, the unimaginable, is happening here. In their defence, the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary say that they are behaving tyrannically and trying to make nonsense of the House of Lords' decision in A and Others as appellants v. the Home Secretary as respondent because they are frightened, and that the rest of us would be frightened too if only we knew what they will not tell us. They preach the politics of fear and ask us to support political incarceration on demand and punishment without trial.
Sad to say, I do not trust the judgment of either our thespian Prime Minister or our Home Secretary, especially given the latter's performance at the Dispatch Box yesterday. It did not take Home Office civil servants or the secret police long to put poison in his water, did it? Paper No. 1, entitled International Terrorism: the Threat, which the Home Secretary produced yesterday and I have read, is a putrid document if it is intended to justify the measure.
Indeed, the Home Secretary dripped out bits of it and it sounded no better as he spoke than it read. Why does he insult the House? Why cannot he produce a better argument than that?
How on earth did a Labour Government get to the point of creating what was described in the House of Lords hearing as a "gulag" at Belmarsh? I remind my hon. Friends that a gulag is a black hole into which people are forcibly directed without hope of ever getting out. Despite savage criticisms by nine Law Lords in 250 paragraphs, all of which I have read and understood, about the creation of the gulag, I have heard not one word of apology from the Prime Minister or the Home Secretary. Worse, I have heard no word of apology from those Back Benchers who voted to establish the gulag.
Have we all, individually and collectively, no shame? I suppose that once one has shown contempt for liberty by voting against it in the Lobby, it becomes easier to do it a second time and after that, a third time. Thus even Members of Parliament who claim to believe in human rights vote to destroy them.
Many Members have gone nap on the matter. They voted: first, to abolish trial by jury in less serious cases; secondly, to abolish trial by jury in more serious cases; thirdly, to approve an unlawful war; fourthly, to create a gulag at Belmarsh; and fifthly, to lock up innocent people in their homes. It is truly terrifying to imagine what those Members of Parliament will vote for next. I can describe all that only as new Labour's descent into hell, which is not a
place where I want to be.
I hope that - but doubt whether - ethical principles and liberal thought will triumph tonight over the lazy minds and disengaged consciences that make Labour's Whips Office look so ridiculous and our Parliament so unprincipled.
It is a foul calumny that we do today. Not since the Act of Settlement 1701 has Parliament usurped the powers of the judiciary and allowed the Executive to lock up people without trial in times of peace.
May the Government be damned for it.
___________________________________________________________________
If anyone suggest that a vote for UKIP is a wasted vote I suggest this response:
On the contrary a vote for any of the "big 3" is a wasted vote because the UK Parliament will have virtually no powers left if any of these forms the Government. It doesn't matter what UK politicians say about Health, Educations, pensions etc if they have given away all their powers to the unelected corrupt regime in Brussels. A vote for UKIP is a vote to keep Westminster as the Government of the UK.
____________________________________________________________________________
Some people say that UKIP is anti Europe. I say actually UKIP is the only pro Europe party because we want the peoples of Europe to be in democracies, governed by leaders that they can get rid of when they like, whereas the other main parties want europeans to be governed by the undemocratic EU Commission which is a self-perpetuating oligarchy.
____________________________________________________________________________
We are often accused of being a single issue party despite the fact that we produce a full manifesto for every election. But few voters read all the manifestos. I suggest we focus on one key issue. All the other parties want to spend more on public services but don't want to increase taxes to pay for it. They are trapped by this. Only UKIP can promise to spend an extra £40,000,000,000 a year on schools, hospitals, pensions and reduce Council Tax etc without any increase in taxes by using the savings from leaving the EU
_____________________________________________________________________________
|
|
|
