Lord Pearson plays the Islam card to win leadership of Ukip
Millionaire campaigner against immigration sees off four rivals to head party
Digg
del.icio.us
Facebook
Reddit
Google
Stumble Upon
Fark
Newsvine
YahooBuzz
Bebo
Twitter
Independent Minds
enlarge
A millionaire peer was elected leader of the UK Independence Party yesterday after putting "the growing threat of Islamism" and curbing immigration at the heart of his campaign.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch, who defected from the Conservatives two years ago, comfortably beat four rivals to assume command of the anti-European Union party.
Lord Pearson, one of two Ukip peers, has protested that the "political class" is complacent about Islamism and claimed that some of "our people" were "strangers in our own land". The 67-year-old former insurance broker invited the right-wing Dutch politician Geert Wilders in February to screen a controversial film about radical Islam. He has called for a zero net increase in immigration, arguing that the issue was the main concern for many voters.
Lord Pearson has backed the idea of electoral pacts with Eurosceptic Conservatives at the next election and is calling for a Swiss-style system of local referendums which he says would hand "power to the people".
He takes over from Nigel Farage, who stood down to concentrate on his attempt to oust the Commons Speaker, John Bercow, from his Buckingham constituency at the general election.
Mr Farage, who will remain leader of Ukip's MEPs, had provoked anger within sections of the party by recently endorsing Lord Pearson as his only "serious, credible" successor.
The peer picked up 4,733 votes, 48 per cent of the ballots cast. The London MEP Gerard Batten received 2,571. Nikki Sinclaire, an MEP for the West Midlands, won 1,214, Mike Nattrass, another West Midlands MEP, received 1,092, and Alan Wood, the party's returning officer, won 315.
Lord Pearson inherits a party in high spirits after receiving 16.5 per cent of the vote – a higher share than Labour – in the European elections in June. It had 13 MEPs elected to Brussels, with representatives from all eight English regions, as well as Wales.
It intends to field 550 candidates at the general election expected in May, but will face a formidable a task in seeing any elected under the first-past-the-post system. Its main hopes rest on Mr Farage's candidacy in Buckingham.
In his acceptance speech, Lord Pearson said his ambition was for the party to do well enough to force a hung parliament. He said: "Of course, we will be majoring on leaving the European Union. We can't control our borders without that, we can't control immigration and we will save billions."
Lord Pearson said: "Ukip is not for sheep, Ukip is not for lemmings. Ukip is for people who think and act for themselves. And it is for people who now for many years have seen through the lies of our political class and our main political parties, particularly in regard to our relationship with the European Union.
"If you want to go on being deceived by the main parties, then stay in them and vote for them. If you don't, the only way forward now is Ukip. It is the only show in town."
He described the Lisbon Treaty as the "last nail in the coffin" of British democracy and claimed that the European Union was now "a country, superior to the vassal states".
An Old Etonian, he founded the insurance brokerage Pearson Webb Springbett, now PWS, in 1964. He was raised to the peerage in 1990, developing hardline anti-EU attitudes when he sat on the Lords EU Select Committee between 1992 and 1996. That experience, he has explained, "led me to become a leading exponent of the case for the UK to leave the European Union".
He had the Tory whip withdrawn in 2004 after he urged voters to support Ukip in the European elections that year and defected three years later.
Mr Farage, who led Ukip for three years, said: "The party has never been stronger and never been more united than it is now."
View all comments that have been posted about this article.
Offensive or abusive comments will be removed and your IP logged and may be used to prevent further submission. In submitting a comment to the site, you agree to be bound by the Independent Minds Terms of Service.
- Print Article
- Email Article
-
Click here for copyright permissions
Copyright 2009 Independent News and Media Limited
Comments
Dense ans unparagraphed blocks of text are unreadable
Voting for any of the mainstream parties, and UKIP is definitely what I'd call mainstream with this appointment, is a wasted vote if you want real change in this country.
This is like a scorched earth policy that will drive membership away and infuriate others. His policy will be welcomed by Labour because they only need on average 27000 to win a seat, whereas the Tories need 48,000. UKIP's policy will delay a change of government and alienate many.
His views on Islam and immigration were helpful .
However he is very careful to distinguish between Islam and those who misuse it.
On immigration policy he is absolutely right. As we know the latest immigration stats showed that though tens of thousands left the country even more came here so our population continues to grow apace
I think that they chose well
They complain, rightly, about the “democratic deficit” of the EU Parliament.
And they are right. Just consider the difference between the EU and Westminster Parliaments.
The commission is the only institution that can propose legislation unlike the (rubber-stamp) Parliament.
This is totally unlike the Westminster Parliament with it’s Private Members Bill.
The commission is not directly accountable to any electorate.
The EU is essentially a complete inversion of democracy as we know it in Britain.
Both the British Parliament and the EU have most of the powers invested in a two chamber system but the roles are actually reversed.
In Britain, the chamber which can propose legislation is directly accountable to the British Public who elect them to that chamber. This is the House of Commons.
The House of Lords cannot propose legislation but can simply pass or delay legislation. It is not directly elected by the British People. New members of the chamber can be created by the government of the day. There are no checks or safeguards to monitor who or why new members are created. New members are often created out of cronyism or simply as a sort of retirement for a politician whose career is coming to an end. Thankfully it has no real power.
In Europe the roles are essentially reversed.
The chamber that is directly elected by the people of Europe, the European Parliament, has no real power. It can approve or reject legislation but cannot initiate it.
The chamber that can propose legislation is the Commission. The members of the Commission are not directly elected by the people of Europe. They are nominated by their respective governments of the day. On what criteria? Well, often…. cronyism or simply as a sort of retirement for a politician whose career is coming to an end!
See what I mean? The principles of accountability in the Westminster Parliament are completely reversed at the European level.
Our government should not be surrendering any more powers to this fledgling totalitarian state.
It should never have signed the Treaty of Lisbon.
And the UKIP should never should have elected a member of the House of Lords to be their leader. It should have gone to Gerard Batten.
There is some evidence that the Treaty of Lisbon will allow the EU Parliament some small powers to initiate legislation. This, however, could be seen as a reward for already signing away so much of our sovereignty; this is an exercise in good cop, bad cop.
Meaning .. you elect Labour, labour will sit in the UK's possition on the commission .. this is no different to the foreign office or the home office. Did you complain that Miliband was not chosen for his possition by us? .. he could be placed on the commission if the PM wanted him there.
The President of the commission is the one that all the fuss is over, he holds alot of power and he is not elected. The Council seems to be trying to sideline the role of a commission president.
The Parliament under the lisbon treaty will gain more powers over legisilation, as will national parliaments. and there are already groups of MEPs set up to propose legislation. Although they must pass it to the commission first. I dont like that personally I would rather have the parliament do it.
There is no evidence that the EU is "totaliterian" governments and representatives are placed on every level of the process. and they also have the final say.
Hestletine spoke about how Thatcher tried to pull away from the EU and found that we are to closely intertwined with them to simply pull back without causing alot of damage to the country.
me, I'm heavily onto Sufism(esoteric Islam), mainly for the poetry
playing the islamist card merely confirms ukip as BNP LITE aone issue party with no constructive policies on health, the economy,defence or anything else just this naive nonsense about coming out of europe which, might be credible if they explained howthe 80%of british jobs that rely on europe would be replacedsaying we can trade with europeas an associate member is plain sillyfull members will trade with full members we are either in or out we need to be in making the eu work for us which the current government has not done enough and a tory party would not do at all
A millionaire peer was elected leader of the UK Independence Party yesterday after putting "the growing threat of Islamism
"The biggest problem with AV is that it is not proportional – indeed, it can be less proportional than FPTP. (It has been calculated that in 1997 Labour’s already huge landslide majority of 169 would has risen to 245 using AV, while the Conservatives’ total would have fallen from 165 to 96.)"
You are now being conned by others who would have you believe that the EU is the cause of all your problems. So remember that the parliamentary democracy with mixed economy now known as the U.K. was built by a bunch of often deceitful & corrupt kings, aristocrats, oligarchs and, finally, politicians pushed reluctantly by the masses along a long & winding road so as to gradually improve the lot of those masses, although much still needs to be done. The EU was set up to replace war-war by jaw-jaw. It is in its infancy but I expect it will develop in the same way as the U.K, along a long & winding road. And just like in the U.K. the politicians & officials are a mixed bunch; some look after number one, others are altruistic. You hear mainly about the first lot. The second lot have done more than you can imagine to improve your lives.
Everything is a trade off. I think a lot of politicians know that the EU will, eventually, turn out to be a good trade off for the majority of voters, but will, by harmonising away their ability to tinker with the economy, give the lie to their claim that they know how to gain a permanent economic advantage over other developed economies. That`s why the Tories, who are not comletely ignorant of economics, are so ambivalent about it. And when they come to power with a minority vote, how democratic will that be? Vote UKIP if you must. My tactical vote goes to the BNP. Anything to get a hung parliament & then PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION.
www.thereligionofpeace.com
How comes it, that a backward, medieval, woman-hating, gay-hating, freedom hating religion that was founded by an illiterate paedophile can gain SO much daily coverage in the press. The press is part of our enlightened societies, and yet it seems to be fascinated with with this anachronistic nonsense. Islam offers NOTHING but backwardness so why we are so entertained by its daily demands, death threats seems beyond me. This religion, do not forget, has recently stoned a 14 year old girl to death for being raped by one of their kind. This is what Islam offers to us. This and barbaric, primitive sharia law.
Pearson should stand up for all freedom - and freedom from religion should be part of that. Islamic card? No just plain truth.
Did you see the way young innocent beautiful children were made into witches by Christian leaders in order for them to make money out of them through their parents?
All religion is as good and as bad as each other. I argue if you want to believe in a higher being - God then you can do that without any religion. As long as you have a moral compass where right outranks wrong then you have no problem.
As for backwards, what about these countries in the west, bailing out banks to the tune of billions and lending corrupt governments like Dubai - billions. You think that's okay at the expense of your taxes and my taxes?
As for woman hating, you have a nerve, in this country we have the highest white teen pregnancy rates than any other country in the world bar USA. You think that is loving a woman, getting her pregnant and then leaving her alone most of the time with a new born, do you think that is respect because that is the majority of Christian culture? This of course is one thing amongst so many other things that happen in this country.
As for gay hating, well Christians, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs etc feel exactly the same way, so what are you saying?
As for freedom hating, well do I need to tell you about why we are having the Iraq war enquiry? Does it amuse you that two world leaders who were Christians took the world to war under false pretences, lies? Do you think that it is freedom that your tax and my tax pays for the death of our soldiers who are in foreign countries only under the pretext of lies and distortion?
Yep I'll happily go with your assumption that the Prophet Mohammed in Islam was illiterate. Was he a Paedophile? It's a brilliant question and should be up for debate so I will. He married a girl who was under age - so it's obvious what happened next.
But he married her because the girls parents gave him permission, and he did so because of tribal rivalry. However should he have had sexual relations with her?
Wait I'll answer it like this. If that was your girl or my girl hypothetically speaking then no way would we ever give her away to an older man, hell no man. Correct?
Never and so what happened then was the course of how things happened to settle disputes and rivalry. It's up to you to read the rest, but let me say something. The Quran is the only book that belongs to Islam. The hadith written by a Muslim Scholar 200 years after the death of the Prophet is based on here-say on what happened to the Prophet in his time from various people who were there at the time or who apparently left notes etc to be passed on for someone to detail them. Are you telling me that you could believe that? Therefore the other big question in Islam comes like this.
Most Muslims believe in the Hadith equally to the Quran yet in the Quran it says that It is the only book. By reading the Quran you read into what it means to be a Muslim although the Quran does not explicitly tell you how to be a Muslim. The Hadith does, but alas it also goes on to be a novel about the Prophets life and details his sexual experiences. I ask you how would that be possible if the Hadith were written after two hundred years of his death? Think, because you and many like you and your aforementioned web address do not debate like I am trying to. Here in lies the problem in Islam that Muslims will not talk about. And which people like you have found a very comfortable loophole to exploit. Was he Paedophile? No he wasn't because there is no other account of him with younger brides because they were not, in fact they were mostly older than him. But he married a girl younger than him and below the age of puberty. That may have been acceptable then and in that culture, but that is not acceptable here and now in 2009. And yes you are right things happen to Muslim kids.
But they also happen to every other kid too which is disgusting and immoral. Now you will kindly agree with me because the last thing I have to say to you is the way I was disgusted at the Catholic Church in Ireland covering up the extensive abuse of young beautiful innocent children.
Get my drift?
However, of all religions Islam remains the biggest threat. It kills more of its own people than any other religion. It is uncompromising. So much so it is making demands that enlightened western civilisation bow dowm to sharia law (as what has recently happened in the UK). 30 years ago, NO ONE in the UK had heard of honour killings. Now these are household words - thanks to Islam and the degradation it brings. Yes, other religions practice this but it is predominantly Islamic and characteristic of a backward understanding of humanity. Also, Mulslims cannot be trusted to serve the country where they reside - they put their religion, even in its extreme forms FIRST, loyalty to country second. There are many instances where muslim service people have murdered their comrades - simply because they disagreed with them.
I get the feeling you are a muslim trying to but a relativist slant on things. That's fine. But this will not work anymore. Just look at:
www.thereligionofpeace.com
for a full update on the daily atocities committed by this barbaric, pernicious believe system. Try relativising the statistics presented there.
Many religions are accepting of gays. In a major recent poll amongst 'British' Muslims 100 percent believed that being gay was a crime. 100% This in statistical terms is unheard of. Normally there is variation, as would be expected with any statistical population. But not with Muslims. This really demonstrated to me how unfit Islam is to be a part of western civilisation. It compromises our integrity by bringing 'caveman' attitudes towards people for WHAT they are. Other religions are progressing towards being moral. Not Islam. It is immoral to the core.
And I would point out that Israel kills a stack load more innocent people every year than these spurious claims of Muslim states.
And correct me but I am sure that China and the US were the top countries that carried out death penalties.
Some 200 or more years ago, the churches in Europe were pretty barbaric, deserters had their backs flayed and the skin nailed to the church doors, churches were by and far one of the biggest slave owners and had the power of life and death over its thralls.
I am pretty sure you made that up. The UK did kill lots of Catholics though.
You are correct however when you state that muslims kill more muslims, but your reason falls short as to why. Muslims are killing muslims because there is an element of hatred within that decent muslims are trying to fight. Those; that people like you ask to rise against terrorists are being killed because they are trying to do the right thing, yet instead of siding with decent muslims who want to live and let live, you put them into a bracket that Islam and Muslims on a whole are immoral and backwards. You are wrong.
All religions have become a threat. I ask you what right had Tony Blair under the guidance of the Christian God take this country to an illegal war? That war has cost billions of tax payers money and has caused extensive damage to people here and in Iraq and Afghanistan. This illegal war has killed innocent people and has led to the coffins of innocent British soldiers coming back home to parents who the Government won't give answers to, let alone the perfect equipment to fight with or the necessary back up of troops when needed.
You cannot lecture me accordingly picking and choosing what fits your justification as to why Islam is far worse than all religions. Again, how does Christianity be a progressive religion for the west, when governments of the west have bought us the people to our knees morally and financially? How can you say to me that Christians are any better than Muslims, when majority of them were mp's and took this country for a spin regarding the mp's expenses? Are you telling me that is moral for Christians to do that?
Is Christianity fit for consumption when our leaders are selling out to a corrupt Europe, loosing and selling out our values and our history along the way? Is it fit for consumption when it shakes hands and embraces Saudi's or the Chinese who abuse human rights? Do you think if Lord Pearson became PM that he would suddenly cut off ties with everyone because he has to stand on a moral judgment? Rubbish he is just another money maker like them all in it for himself or themselves.
Also how pathetic and immoral is it that a few weeks ago the world celebrated the fall of the Berlin wall, yet it turns a blind eye on the wall the Jews build to divide Jews and Palestinians. Do you think that it moral when Christian leaders were self indulging in hypocrisy?
Is it acceptable that a Christian leader in Zimbabwe has got away scott free for the murder and genocide that he has committed in his country?
And how moral is it by the way that the west chose to displace Saddam when it supported him killing and fighting Iranians in the Iran/Iraq war for nearly 8 years? How moral was it when the west supplied arms and gas, that killed innocent Iranians and Iraqi's?
Are you kidding me when you cannot find a balance to this argument? I do not need websites to make my point, everything I have said is the truth because it has happened and some things are still happening. You need to clarify your argument or it unfortunately makes you a bitter Muslim basher - which I have no problem with but then that becomes hypocrisy as aforementioned above. No country needs religion, all you need is a moral compass. But that will never work because every leader, politician, person in power is run by money, institutions, corporations that clouds judgement.
And to top it off they all use there religions to show and manipulate people into believing them that they have everything covered. Blair did it. Bush did it. Muslims do it. Israel does it. China does it. Everyone does it and they are every religion, not only Islam so reply accordingly or please leave thereligionofpeace.com to wallow in it's own rubbish.
By the way. I don't give a flying toss about the palestinians. I know they are important to you - you bring them up in almost every argument. Neither do I care about israel. As far as the israeli - jewish saga goes - they reap what you sow - they deserve each other. It is as simple as that!
www.thereligionofpeace.com
This website states facts (remember those - verifiable statistics) about the nature of Islam. Sorry you find the TRUTH so confronting.
Oh by the way can ANYONE remember what happened on 9/11? Anyone??
Again you are wrong. You are picking and choosing to justify your argument, you are blinded by your hatred, which again I have no problem with, but then you are full of hypocrisy when you cannot bring nobody else onto the table and argue that everyone is as bad as each other. I don't need to spin terrorism. Today my country has the biggest weapons deal with one Saudi Arabia. People know that the Saudi's are not clean, yet this country persists in relations with them because they have money to buy our arms. Remember BAE and Tony Blair in reference to the Saudi's?
Your pursuit of the truth lies in a website which is packed full of lies and is a whitewash. You yourself do not have the means to find a balance to this argument because for the third time you have to tell me to go to a specific web address to find the truth. Your contradict yourself so many times that all religion is irrelevant but you bash Islam (repeating myself again - tut tut) because it is apparent that you hate Islam for obvious reasons.
Once more, I do not need websites or people to tell me how to make my mind up. The truth is out in the real world and if people look hard enough and find some time to work it out, everything is a lie. If Islam according to you is at the fore front so be it - but then so is every other religion which because of your hatred you cannot see. I am sorry for you, you do not need to be sorry for me. I quite happily can justify my comments relating to the outcome of what is happening in the real world. You need to back up your agenda so need your website - good luck - after all democracy and freedom of speech is based on the fact that you are entitled to believe whatever you want to - but then I am entitled to believe what I want to as well - which you are doing a good job of twisting.
Again your pathetic behaviour sums you up in your last line. I remember 9/11. Anyone also remember when the USA used the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden to fight there war against Russia? Do you remember when they armed and financed them to make their ends meet? Of course not because for people like you that never happened.
Oh by the way what about Vietnam? What about the endless crimes this country as an empire committed against the countries it illegally ruled?
What about the ongoing terror in Northern Ireland - what about the Basque fighters? What about Burma? What about the terror and violence in Sri Lanka? What about the treatment of the Dalai Lama and Tibet by China? What about the multitude of human rights abuses and innocent killings across Africa?
Oh I am sorry, this is irrelevant to you because you freely admit you have no time to waste on such subjects. Like I said you are blinded by your one sided view that it is only Islam and Muslims who are to blame. May I also state that Jews are just as important to me than those Palestinians. They suffer too from successive corrupt governments who distort the truth and keep their citizens in check by telling them lies that the only way of containing the Palestinians is by treating them like they have been always treated. Sorry if that unbalances your one sided view of nothingness.
I freely admit that Islam and Muslims need to be discussed. It's amazing though that everything is Islam or Muslims fault and everyone else shoulders no responsibility. For that you are wrong. I do not confront truth, in fact I labour to find it. Unfortunately for you your allegiance to a certain website and it's propaganda is funny and a tragedy at the same time. You'll need more to win this one. Over to you then...
Follow this link to run the test:
http://iq-test.co.uk/#371930