Anne Marie Waters: British politics is forged in the crucibles of the big battalions.

Above Anne Marie Waters meeting members of Leeds UKIP on 29th March 2017.
In recent times there has been much talked about “artificial intelligence” or “AI”. There has also been talk about the merging or the development of an “interface” between human and artificial intelligence. Of course one benefit the technologists would claim of becoming in effect a cyborg (Should that be “Cyberman?” – Ed.) is that one’s memory would never fail. That one could remember everything with absolute precision and timing. That would probably be much more of a curse than a blessing!
However, your Editor would very much like a very temporary possession of an infallible memory so he could give you Dear Reader the name of the college lecturer who applied the phrase, “forged in the crucibles” to his own adaptation; “British politics is forged in the crucibles of the big battalions.”
He was a Labour Party member and in defending the First Past the Post system commented to us students that the two main parties were themselves coalitions and British politics worked – and worked well in his estimation – by two sets of political coalitions: One on the left (Labour) and one on the right (Conservative). Thus two versions of “consensus” were achieved: a left consensus and a right consensus with the electorate going to the polls to deliver one of them a majority that would enable “strong and stable government”.
He went on to criticise the continental systems that used proportional representation as unstable and inferior to the British system.
At the time, I deeply disagreed. My father’s family were a “political” Cornish family and there was a strong family tradition of Liberalism. This in the days before the Liberal Party thought it a jolly good idea of handing the government of the nation over to a foreign power!
Both of us (the lecturer whose name I can’t remember) and the teenage me however were both missing a very important point: a political system (it’s method of election, and structure of government/legislature) cannot be judged in isolation. It MUST be judged in the relation to the society it seeks to govern/represent.
When the lecturer made his comments to us students, it was at the start of the 1970s. The make-up of British society has changed radically since. There are issues and tensions that simply were not there, at least to anything like the prominence they are now.
At this point we turn to the central subject of today’s article: Anne Marie Waters.
The first thing to mention is that Anne Marie Waters has a strong presence online:
GOTO: http://forbritain.uk/
GOTO: https://www.facebook.com/amwaters0/
GOTO: https://twitter.com/amdwaters
GOTO: http://www.shariawatch.org.uk/
GOTO: http://www.annemariewaters.org/latest-blogs/
What is also clear is this: Anne Marie Waters candidacy is proving to be divisive.
Jonathan Arnott has signalled he could quit party if Anne Marie Waters becomes leader.
GOTO: http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/ukip-mep-jonathan-arnott-signals-13296205
Naturally, UKIP’s opponents have taken a strong position on Ms Waters.
GOTO: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/jul/02/ukip-members-anne-marie-waters-anti-islam-far-right-fears
Ms Waters candidate history with UKIP is as follows:
She contested the 2014 Lambeth Council in the Clapham Common ward where she finished in 9th place.
At the 2015 general election she stood as the candidate in Lewisham East, finishing in third place with 9.1% of the vote. During the campaign, she was reported that she called for an end to immigration from majority Muslim countries, mass deportations and mosque closures.
She was initially chosen to stand in the London Assembly election, 2016, but was de-selected when her role in Pegida UK became public. She was permitted to stand for UKIP in the Essex County Council election, 2017 but failed to be elected.
She was again chosen to be the candidate for Lewisham East in the 2017 general election but was de-selected after Paul Nuttall described her views as “way above and beyond party policy.”
Since becoming a member of UKIP, Anne Marie Waters has been dogged by the issue of extremism. This is because UKIP itself has been is and will continue to be dogged by the issue of extremism. To a great extent UKIP has invited this on itself.
This is because UKIP asks those becoming members to declare the following: “I am not and have never been a member of the British National Party, National Front, British Freedom Party, British People’s Party, English Defence League, Britain First or the UK First Party.”
By contrast, the Labour Party merely insists on the following: “By applying to become a member of the Labour Party you agree to accept and conform to the constitution, programme, principles and policy of the Party. If applicable, be a member of a trade union, hold your membership at the address where you reside and if eligible be registered as an elector at that address. You also confirm that you are not a member of any other registered political party (save the Co-operative party); and you are not a member of any organisation incompatible with membership of the Labour Party.”
To a great extent, UKIP’s declaration is an attempt to mitigate or answer the criticism that comes it’s way as it wants to advertise the fact that it is not an extremist party. The problem with this policy is that it deservedly or undeservedly draws attention to something that UKIP does not want attention drawn to, namely the views of some of it’s members.
It has clearly failed to deflect criticism however since Ms Waters was able to become a UKIP member. The other problem with the declaration is that at it’s heart it is based on this concept:
That UKIP does not want to have members who hold views that are not liked by it’s opponents. By having it, UKIP have conceded the argument on extremism to those such as “Hope Not Hate”. They are saying to Hope Not Hate, “You see, we are not extremists.” To which “Hope Not Hate” simply uses it’s trade union funded resources to continuously trawl for UKIP members making politically incorrect remarks and then publishes them saying, “Yes you are!”
When UKIP members make their decision on who to vote for in the upcoming election they ought to take a medium to long term view, not of UKIP’s future but the UK’s future. Importantly – and this is something that UKIP members will find incredibly difficult to do – is to put the Brexit issue to one side!
You see, due to the success of UKIP and it’s then leader Nigel Farage, Brexit is an issue of the here and now!
It is hoped that after the rapid succession of party leaders, UKIP’s new leader should be in post for some considerable time. Whoever is elected UKIP’s leader, the mainstream media will immediately start predicting or speculating how long the new leader will be in post!
Thus, whoever they are, UKIP’s new leader must look beyond Brexit. On the subject of Brexit however, the new leader must understand the essentials which are:
– they are not going to become Prime Minister.
– it is very unlikely that they will be elected to Parliament in a byelection.
– UKIP’s desired Brexit will not take place.
– the UK will be in the transitional arrangement after 29th March 2019.
– the UK MIGHT move from the transitional arrangement into EFTA+EEA membership (Flexcit)
– Brexit MIGHT be aborted following a second Brexit referendum held BEFORE 29th March 2019. In which case they will be leading the fight to Leave the EU.
– the UK MIGHT move from the transitional arrangement back into the EU following a second Brexit referendum held AFTER 29th March 2019 and be faced with joining the Eurozone.
– there will be no UK MEPs after 29th March 2019.
Looking beyond Brexit means looking at the state of domestic UK politics for the next two decades. What we see occurring in the UK today is something the political elite have dreaded. There is a three word phrase to describe this dread: Sectarian identity politics.
British politicians have been scarred with the memories of the politics of Ireland since the 18th century.
The problem with Ms Waters for those such as Mr Arnott is that Ms Waters seems prepared to stick her hand into the hornet’s nest that is modern UK identity politics. Inevitably, she is going to get stung! Any UKIP member that follows her example is going to get stung also!
Mr Arnott is taking the safe and comfortable option, an option taken by most mainstream UK politicians – avoiding the many issues raised by the rapidly changing UK demographic.
There are very serious issues that will become increasingly pressing as time goes by.
Fundamentally the source of the problem is this: Sectarian identity politics ONLY occurs when there are two or more distinct sections of a community. In Ireland it has traditionally been “Unionist” and Nationalist”. In England of the 21st Century it is becoming Islamist and Libertarian Secularist. Note we have not described this as a difference or argument between Islam and Christianity. At the moment, the lid is being kept on sectarian identity politics by many on the left. This is because of the very large numbers of Labour Party members who are Islamic. The Labour Party is a party riven by an impossibly deep division. They have many members who are conservative Muslims and they have many members who espouse the LBGT agenda.
This is unsustainable.
Thus it is the case that the authorities take a very firm attitude towards those conservative Muslims who speak out against the LBGT agenda and similarly take a very firm attitude towards those such as Ms Waters who criticises the restrictions conservative Islam places on women and conservative Islam’s views on the LBGT agenda.
This is because the authorities are determined to “keep the lid on things!” They do not want people like Ms Waters who make waves and stir the pot.
So to those UKIP members thinking of voting in the upcoming leadership election a question they should ask themselves is this:
Do they want a leader who addresses the growing issue of sectarian identity politics in mainland Great Britain or one who puts it to one side.
If you do not want to come to the attention of your neighbours or find yourself having to explain your politics to others and you simply want a quiet life, and do not want to be seen as a member of a “far right” and “extremist” political party, then voting for Ms Waters is a VERY bad idea!