The types of UKIP activists and politicians

UKIP is a raggedy concoction of the dregs and peripherals of society.  Its activists, councillors, MPs, MEPs, parliamentary and council candidates, and chairpersons of various propaganda subgroups are easily categorised by a finite list of types.

1) Tory careerists

Only a few MPs in the Tory party are able to acquire senior positions that lead to political celebrity and visibility, that subsequently lead to lucrative post-political career consultancy posts.  If a careerist wants to make the most dosh out of her or his election as an MP then occasional garbled nonsense from the backbenches is insufficient.


Reckless and Carswell had made little impact as Tory MPs; both were lost within the twitching blob several rows behind Cameron.  Reckless’ main claim to fame was his inability to open a door due to drunkenness.  In UKIP, both are out front, grinning stupidly next to Farage as if he and they have farted simultaneously, slobbering media jostling around them.  Since sliding over to UKIP Reckless and Carswell have commented extensively and randomly on a variety of issues, receiving exponentially more coverage of their unthought, inconsistent, incoherent, contradictory drivel than they would have done as background facelessness in the Tory ranks.  To them, it is irrelevant what they are saying, or, indeed, whether what they say matches any UKIP policy, if such exist; all that matters is that they are now visible as political celebrities.

Some councillors have also moved to UKIP, usually because they were unable to get any power from the Tory party group on the council.

2) Bitter old gits

Adrift in an ever-changing world, rejected by most of humanity, flaccid, confused, debilitated by lumbago, coughing-up phlegm, worried by modern clothing, angered by the intellect of others, these bitter, twisted, paranoid, frothing old gits need to blame.  Blaming themselves or the inequities of the capitalist system are unacceptable options for these anti-revolutionaries.  It must be the ‘other’ who is blamed, whether the other is foreign, darker-skinned, gay, young, muslim, unemployed or any other spuriously pigeon-holed section of society.


UKIP welcomes such anti-social twerps like a handkerchief welcoming a coughing fit.  “Come join us.  You are at home here.  We understand your angst.”  Some of these teeth-grinders get elected.

3) Slimy young opportunists

To pursue a career in politics one can work assiduously through a party mechanism, rely on one’s intelligence and insight to enhance society with a new revolutionary option, or be an opportunist slimeball who grabs onto any passing stupidity.  UKIP is the ideal vehicle for the third option.

Young Independence (YI), UKIP’s youth chapter, is peopled with identikit charmless little salesmen and marketing men who forego any pretence of political knowledge, of sense, of coherence and of self-awareness.  They promote the party like a cash-only dealer selling some dodgy goods that he knows nothing about and doesn’t care whether they work.  YI members’ focus is the relentlessness of the marketing of UKIP.  Analysis, debate, consistency and responsibility are not required.  They spout the same garbled mantras daily, and shamelessly deny every criticism of UKIP regardless of the criticism’s truth.


Very few of these charlatans will remain in politics for long.  Careers in the sale of imaginary bonds and derivatives await some of them, the rest will try to sell used turds as a foodstuff.

4) Vaudeville

A diminishing section of UKIP as the party seeks to cast off the more openly eccentric ones whose actions and monologues have a tendency to lead to unhelpful media attention.  Godfrey Bloom’s nasty sexism and an assault on broadcaster Michael Crick led to his (semi-) expulsion, but there are still plenty of sideshows to keep people entertained.


By UKIP logic, at the home of the SAS in Hereford it makes sense to have a parliamentary candidate who was a member of the SAS.  Nigel Ely, however, is more famous for being arrested by police because he stole part of Saddam Hussein’s buttock.  Winston McKenzie is a never-ending source of bafflement to the sentient public.  He has flitted from party to party seeking political celebrity, settling at UKIP as he satisfies the party’s need for a pretence at diversity.  His tour de force was a hastily arranged and even more quickly cancelled carnival in Croydon.  No-one informed the steel band that the event was for UKIP; when they found out they refused to play.  Enfield North is the constituency in London that will have the pleasure of Neville Watson as a candidate.  Watson is upbeat; on his website he exclaims: “The longer I live, the more I have come to realise the impact of attitude on my life. Attitude, to me, is more important than facts. It is more important than say or do. It is more important than appearance, giftedness, or skill because the past, than education, than facts, it is more important than circumstances, than failures, than success, than what other people think or say or do. It is more important than appearance, giftedness, or skill because….”  He typed all that in upper case and there are two more paragraphs.  Tom Fowdy, YI chairman for Wearside and council election candidate, shares Watson’s evangelicalism and his preference for quantity over quality regarding written opinions.  Fowdy’s blogs about UKIP go on forever without ever making any point, without ever revealing even a smidgeon of political understanding and infused with a grumbling air of indignation that anyone could ever disagree, so much so that he almost always concludes that he and UKIP are victims.

5) My mate is a dodgy lawyer

Many people have encountered the aggressive attempt at shutdown from UKIPs where one of them threatens legal action, that is, a threat to sue, that is, a threat to extract monies.  These threats almost always follow a critical but accurate comment about UKIP or about one of its activists, because the commented upon fact is something that UKIP would like not to be exposed and debated.


Prospective parliamentary candidate for Stockton North, Mandy Boylett, lost the plot completely when an opponent for election stated, rightfully so, that he would make clear, during the electioneering, UKIP’s partnership with a Holocaust-denying political party in the EU parliament .  (I discussed this episode in Ukip, Smears And Facts: A Case Study.)  Veterinary  surgeon Ryan Waters takes his head out of a cow’s arse regularly to bang on about how much he hates Islam and also to repeat his dumb mantra “prove it” whenever anyone dares to quote an exact fact about UKIP, but any mild criticism of him gets a threat.


The appalling behaviour of Councillors Richard Hilton and Peter Reeve is described in Ukip’s Mockery Of Free Speech.  Donna Edmunds, pictured above with her best mate Roger Helmer, the apologist for rape, thinks that if anyone mentions Helmer’s published comments about rape then it’s time for a lawyer to get involved.

The types of UKIP activists and politicians

Charlie Hebdo: A Gift To The Opportunists

The public response to the fatal attack on the offices of the satirical comic book Charlie Hebdo in Paris on 7th January has been a heartening assertion of the necessity for free speech and, in particular, the freedom to satirise establishment entities and people alongside a determination to disassociate the actions of the attackers from the religion they claim inspires them.  The reaction from the public has been the same as the reaction in Australia after the deaths of two hostages at a coffee shop in Sydney (Sydney siege) in December last year and the same as the reaction in Canada after the death of a security guard close to the Canadian parliament in Ottawa in October last year.

The positive and intelligent behaviour of people in response to such acts does not appeal to the agendarist puppets in government, in the media, in the business of “national security” and in tailored propaganda think-tanks.  An array of unsurprising faces, some of whom are pictured below, has jumped at the opportunity for them to promote anti-Islam rhetoric in order to use it as either a tactic of distraction to shift the direction of blame, or to use it as a spurious excuse to further reduce civil liberties and attack freedom, or to just be a bigot.



Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu recalled his deceitful and disgusting address at the UN in September 2014 wherein he tried to justify Israel’s carpet-bombing of civilians in Gaza as being the same as the war against ISIS.  (Netanyahu UN speech).  He repeated his description of Hamas, the elected authority in Gaza, as “terrorist fanatics” and made clear his claim that Israel’s terrorism against Gaza was the same as fighting the assailants who carried out the attack in Paris.  (Netanyahu Paris comments).  Thus, Netanyahu is using the deaths of the Hebdo cartoonists as tools to reverse legitimise the deliberate targeting of civilians and infrastructure in Gaza.

National security versus freedom

Fans of greater intrusions into freedom via stronger “security” legislation are popular among the most illiberal politicians.  Canada’s prime minister Stephen Harper intends to “tighten anti-terrorist measures at home, promising a broader range of legislated powers for security forces to identify potential terror threats, to boost powers of detention, arrest, and other actions where necessary.” (Harper comments).  His justification for these new “powers” is “the international jihadist movement has declared war on any country like ourselves that values freedom, openness and tolerance.”  Australia’s prime minister Tony Abbott was less detailed about what changes he wants; “we have to strengthen our security intelligence services” was his only comment, but his analysis of the assailants in Paris echoed his Canadian counterpart (and political ally): “These are people who hate us, not because of anything we have done, but because of who we are and how we live.” (Abbott comments).

In Britain, Conservative MP David Davies has attacked access to basic human rights, including the right to asylum, even when facing severe penalty, including possible death, if the claimant is returned forcibly to his country of origin.  His comments, including an incident he recalls when working as a special constable – are such appointments not vetted? – are plainly stupid and despicable, and to use the attack in Paris as an excuse to spout such drivel is disgusting.  (David Davies comments).  He blithely opines that “there must be huge numbers of people in Britain who have been members of extremist Islamic organisations.”  This is an elected MP speaking!  His opposition to basic human rights is enhanced by his desire that “we should state that anyone suspected of links with any militant Islamist organisations should be prevented from entry under any circumstance into Britain.”

Andrew Parker, the Director General of MI5, claimed that the terrorist threat has “evolved significantly,” “a group of core al-Qaida terrorists in Syria is planning mass casualty attacks against the West” and “we still face more complex and ambitious plots,” alongside a boast that “spies have foiled four terrorist plots against the UK in the past year that would have certainly resulted in deaths.”  None of these claims can be verified but Parker’s motivation is revealed, after further pseudo-dramatic portents of doom, by the ominous request that “we need to be able to access communications and obtain relevant data on those people when we have good reason to do so.” (Parker comments).

Some people just don’t like Muslims

Whether as a distraction technique to create an enemy to divert attention from the real enemy, the financial gangsters of the City Of London and Wall Street, or as simple rancid bigotry, many grotesques have spewed forth their bile against Islam.  French racist Marine Le Pen said “the absolute rejection of Islamic fundamentalism must be proclaimed loudly and clearly.”  So, not enough for her that violent attacks are stopped but strong commitment to the Islamic faith is also to be denied.  She then suggests a return of the death penalty in France, which would certainly deter the suicide bombers I suppose.  (Le Pen comments).  UKIP’s lead drunkard Nigel Farage blamed “really rather gross policy of multiculturalism” for the creation of “a fifth column living within these countries.”  He described Islam as “a deeply unpleasant and anti-Christian heritage culture” and concluded that “we come from countries with Christian culture and Christian constitutions and we’ve got to start standing up for that.”  Farage’s arrogant anti-Muslim rant was supported by racist website Brietbart’s chief troll and coward James Delingpole, who, with his usual Nick Griffin-like political stance and similar thuggery praised Farage’s filth as “honest and principled” and stated that what Farage said “has the benefit of being entirely true.” (Delingpole/Farage comments).  UKIP’s culture spokesperson – not an oxymoron, apparently – Peter Whittle states that the Paris attack is against “our values.”  In a tweet wherein he condemns the attack he is methodical enough to remember to add a UKIP hashtag; perhaps, one of the values that Whittle wishes to protect is one where mass murder is a good opportunity to promote your political party.  (Whittle comments).

Rupert Murdoch’s Fox news had a huge circle jerk of appalling anti-Islam ejaculations.  Steve Emerson was so disappointed that many world leaders didn’t stoop to his preferred language when describing the assailants in Paris; Emerson is so keen for the word Islam to be used.  He then chose to describe every Muslim group that doesn’t cower under the US or Saudi boot as a terrorist group, including the Muslim Brotherhood and Hamas. (Emerson comments).  Emerson’s job appears to solely consist of presenting a fraudulent representation of Islam.  Shannon Bream’s main concern was that, if the terrorists are wearing ski masks, how can the colour of their skin be determined to see if they “look like typical bad guys?”  (Bream comments).  Eric Bolling lamented the scaling down of racial profiling during police stop and frisk, (Bolling comments), and Fox’s “military expert” – I think Fox has a different definition of the word expert – Tom McInerney riled against political correctness, agreed with Emerson’s view that the word Islam isn’t used often enough when describing terrorism and said that the “Arab world and the Muslim world” should be held “accountable.” (McInerney comments).  McInerney also would like to see a lot less democracy and a lot more military dictatorships like Egypt.

David Aaronovitch’s motivation for anything he says or writes is always elusive.  In a rambling article in the Times, (Aaronovitch screenshot), he appears to be constructing an excuse for anti-Islam prejudice of the type enjoyed by Marine Le Pen, and expressing disappointment that over the last few decades people haven’t been ruder to Muslims.  I assume he gets paid by the word.

Back at Breitbart, Robert Davi, an actor in Hollywood films but also a right-wing ranter – the Ted Nugent of acting, cannot contain his joy that the slaughter of innocent French cartoonists and a police officer has given him another burst of energy to climax over his keyboard in a frenzied diatribe at Islam.  “We all know that the Jews, Christians, and the West are under attack,” Davi proclaims, he has “been writing about the danger of not calling things what they are for years” and he has “continually written about how important it is for our immigrant population to assimilate,” to the Borg, presumably.  “I have spoken about the danger of closing Guantanamo Bay, about how New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio stopped the surveillance of mosques in New York” he says, thus using the attack in Paris as justification for the illegal detention at Guantanamo Bay and for harassment of Muslims as they pray.  Davi’s utterances read like a parody of a deranged Fox News talking head, but it isn’t a parody.  He concludes by praising the military dictator Sisi who stole power in Egypt recently from an elected president.  Egypt is, of course, a big customer for the US arms trade.  (Davi comments).


As I write this two of the attackers of the cartoonists’ office have taken hostages after a confrontation with police and there is a possibility of further deaths.  It is a truly horrific incident, and not the first, or the last, of its kind.  The opportunists, lying in wait in their respective gutters, always reveal their true intentions at a time like this.  It is important not to forget what they think.

Charlie Hebdo: A Gift To The Opportunists

Prince Andrew: The Return Of Annus Horribilis?

An accusation of illegal sexual activity has been made against Prince Andrew in a US court.  The validity of the accusation and what may be a consequence of it are unknown at present.  However, what is clear is the voraciousness of the appetite of both public and media to devour the few snippets of information, and the gleefulness of the disdain against him and, subsequently, against his family and its institution.

The scale, swiftness and carefreeness of the condemnation of Prince Andrew results partly from an abhorrence of abuse of minors and partly from his standing as the most unlikeable royal due to some questionable personal and business associations, but the primary reason for the ease with which he has been vilified and ridiculed is merely that an opportunity has arisen to have a go at the royal family as an institution of British elitism.

The queen’s jubilee celebrating sixty years as monarch, a royal wedding, a royal birth and another pending have allowed an air of positivity and public support to dominate the perception of how the British people feel about an unelected, hereditary head of state.  This contrasts sharply with the 1980s and 1990s when a seemingly endless merry-go-round of affairs, divorces and embarrassments occurred, with one year described by the queen as an ‘annus horribilis’ during a speech in 1992, and the most popular royal, Princess Diana, died in a car crash in 1997.

The apparent rapprochement between the monarchy and the public in the 2010s has a foundation of shifting sand and is as leaky as Windsor Castle roof.  The jubilee party was fun, a wedding in a very old abbey looked nice, although some observers were more distracted by a bridesmaid’s backside, and babies are cute aren’t they?  But, the queen’s husband is still an unpleasant racist, the heir to the throne is still a bit weird and his treatment of his first wife as just a baby-maker still grates with her fan base, one of her grandsons is the epitome of a vacant hooray henry, there are various abandoned ex-wives and ex-husbands around with a continuing capacity to cause bother, and there is Prince Andrew, a man who has never felt to need to vet his friends and business partners.  The change from the earlier decades is minimal.

Alongside the absence of admiration for the royal family itself is the acute hardship faced by many in Britain and the prospect of further decline in the health service, education, the economy and indeed the entire infrastructure of the country, and also the increasing lack of faith in the existing establishment, a lack caused by the abuseful smash-and-grab gangsterism of the government since 2010.  All of the above discourages an acceptance of an arbitrarily appointed head of state held in higher esteem than the general public.  Fewer and fewer people can comprehend the point of a monarch, and more and more are inclined toward outright hostility and animosity toward the monarchy.  Thus, when an opportunity arises, the attack is immediate, large and uncomprimising.


Prince Andrew: The Return Of Annus Horribilis?

Steven Gerrard: An Appreciation

(Update: Gerrard retired from playing football on 24th November 2016)
(Update (March 7th 2021): Gerrard won the Scottish Premiership title today as manager of Rangers FC, the club’s first trophy)

Steven Gerrard will leave Liverpool FC at the end of the current season (2014/15) and join a team in the US league.  The decision to leave is entirely financial: Liverpool, and any other European club, is unwilling to pay Gerrard the salary of a full-time professional in exchange for a few free kicks and penalties whereas several US clubs are willing to pay him hugely for his name, image and income-generating celebrity status, regardless of whether he is able to make a worthwhile contribution on the pitch.  Thus, a sensible move for Gerrard to further enhance his pension plan.


At Liverpool, he is revered by the team’s fans.  It would be churlish to mock this adoration because, over a long career, he has achieved a handful of noteworthy performances that have helped the team grasp a few cup successes.  One has only to go back ten years for an outstanding contribution he made in Liverpool’s sole major success during his career, in the champions league.  Quite rightly, primarily for his longevity, he is held in as high esteem at Liverpool as, say, Matt Le Tissier is at Southampton, Shola Ameobi is at Newcastle or Tony Hibbert is at Everton.


One of Gerrard’s most admirable qualities as a footballer he is perseverance in the face of failure.  No matter how many fifty-yard humps went way beyond the striker Gerrard kept doing it until one landed in the vicinity of a team mate.  No matter how many seasons passed by with Liverpool unable to recapture the table-topping successes of previous decades Gerrard continued to express hope that he could one day hold the premier league trophy aloft.  No matter how many times England limped around directionlessly under his alleged leadership as captain Gerrard continued to pull pseudo-passionate faces and clench his fist.

Contributions to the game

Gerrard helped to develop many of the necessary attributes required for the modern English footballer’s image.  On the field Gerrard always knew when a TV camera was likely to be zoomed-in on his face and so he had a stock angry or passionate look ready to spuriously emphasise his “leadership” and off the field in interviews he was relentless in his self-presentation as a serious motivated thoughtful person.  It cannot be disputed that both of the above acts were successful because his absence of on-field leadership has received little criticism and, equally, most observers, including media, ex-players and fans, have been deterred from realising that Gerrard is a bit thick.  One of his most enduring gifts to English football is his evolution of the dive.  The theatrical dives accompanied by grasping of a body part and screams have never been wholly successful in England, but Gerrard kept the dive as simple as possible: Both feet raised close to the defender and flumping onto the ground.  It worked well.


Although Gerrard played like an old-fashioned footballer, his consciousness of image has been very modern, and so he is likely to fit in well in the USA.  He could become as big an ambassador for English football in the US as Jason Statham is for English acting or as James Corden is for English comedy.

Steven Gerrard: An Appreciation