Saturday, 10 June 2017

Result for the Populist Party in Lewisham West and Penge
I received 50 votes.
The seat went to Labour once more with a majority of 23,162
Labour's total vote was 35,411 66.6 % (+16.0% on last time)
I wish to thank all those who voted for me as well as my signatories who gave me the opportunity to put the party's case. I'd also like to give special thanks to those within the Populist Party who leafleted, often in hot or wet conditions, to provide me with the extra 40 above the ten signatories.
This will be the last time this seat is contested, for it will divided 3 ways (mainly between Peckham and Beckenham at the next election). I am pleased that it was a fairly fought election with no acrimony or aggression from the opposition, and that I was treated with courtesy at the count itself.
Thanks to all,
Russell

Tuesday, 6 June 2017

Vote Populist tomorrow if you live in the Lewisham West and Penge constituency. 

We are the only party standing that offers a protectionist Brexit and British armed neutrality. 

True independence from leaving both the EU and NATO, and ensuring that British workers' jobs are protected from wage suppression caused by immigration and imported goods. 

Friday, 19 May 2017

The Populist Party is fielding a candidate in Lewisham West and Penge at this General Election. The party leader, Russell White, is standing to promote the ideals of Populism in the constituency.

https://www.facebook.com/votepopulist2017/


Sunday, 16 April 2017

There's a theory about a "critical mass". If a certain % of UKIP members start again within the Populists, then at some point there will be a tipping point where as many as half could defect. 

The effect of this on UKIP would be to leave it without the rank and file, who would become important members of the PP, rather than cannon fodder for UKIP under a leadership that barely represents their views beyond Brexit... The PP would then carry the torch of Populism passed by UKIP and the remnants of UKIP would broker a merger with the Tories.
UKIP says...
"Reports are coming out of Chechnya, about the arrests, imprisonment, torture and in some cases murder of gay men. Paul Nuttall, the UKIP leader has condemned the actions of the Putin backed warlord Ramzan Kadyrov,"
"If these reports are true, and it looks like they are, then the Government must protest in the strongest manner.
"Just because the warlord of this Islamic fiefdom is an ally of Putin should not blind us to the horrific abuse of human rights being perpetrated.
"Putin claims to oppose Isis and its blend of fundamentalism in Syria but seems to be impervious to decency. He has the power to stop this inhumanity. The Government should demand that he does."

--------- Why is Paul Nuttall getting involved in this?

1) Putin is fighting for traditional values, yet our own political class and media pushes an agenda which goes way beyond homosexual equality under the law.
2) Why is what happens in Chechnya (to homosexuals or indeed anyone else) a matter for UKIP to comment upon? UKIP supposedly prides itself upon being against the human rights lobby that expects us to intervene in every abuse across the world (usually with disastrous results!) but in practice is a globalist hand wringing liberal party like the old gang!

Saturday, 8 April 2017

            Mr Gold and Mr Green

Here's a story about two men, Mr Gold and Mr Green. 

Mr Gold is what is known as a materialist. He has shares in the stock exchange. When he sells them it does not matter to him if workers lose their jobs, as long as he can make a tidy profit. 

Mr Gold is also a rogue landlord. He overcharges and maintains his property to the lowest standard the law will allow. And when he feels the need for more profit he puts up the rent and evicts the previous tenants - to him it's simply "business". 

Mr Gold likes the free market; he believes business should employ people at the lowest rate possible, with local workers being sacked to be replaced either by workers in Far East sweatshops or by robots and self-service machines. He supports the privatisation of the NHS and of education. After all, his family uses private education and health, so why pay twice? Yes, why indeed, he thinks, so he is happy to see cuts to public transport, as he has a car (foreign made) and as long as the roads are maintained it matters not if those unable to drive have a bus service. 

Mr Gold hasn't many friends, but he has many contacts through business, with whom he networks, when playing golf or bridge. 

He's the man on the council who approves plans to demolish historic buildings so his business contacts can build low quality flats in their place (to rent to us - at a cost!). He's the one who wants to build on the green belt and rip up planning laws. He claims to want to provide homes for the low wage immigrants that he employs - but we know better... 

Mr Gold is unapologetic. When asked about buying British, about national loyalty he simply shrugs his shoulders and says he's a "citizen of the world". He claims that English workers need to match the wages of the low paid immigrants he employs if they wish to be competitive... 

He claims that he cannot get English workers  because "they are lazy", and that they should be "grateful" for their meagre wages. I am sure we've all met, seen or heard a Mr Gold in our lives.....


Mr Green, on the other hand, is quite different. He supports conservation of old buildings, and the countryside. He says it is our birthright and our heritage, to be preserved for future generations. 

Naturally Mr Green was upset when Mr Gold's planning committee passed plans to destroy the local nature reserve and build executive homes in its place. Mr Green opposes open borders, to prevent further squeezing of the housing stock. He says immigration is used by developers to create an excuse to make the government give over more land for them to build upon so they can make big bucks

Mr Green is also in business, but unlike Mr Gold, his is small scale and local - he sells bicycles. It offers him a decent enough living, but not a fortune. He has enough to get by. He is popular with those in the local pub who admire his decency and good humour. He's also in the local cycling club, but he does own a car which he uses when not cycling. He's happy enough to pay for public transport though, even if he uses it rarely. Mr Green thinks of others' needs, not just his own. 

Mr Green is a localist. If he can he'll use the local butcher or grocer because he wants the little man to survive against the superstores owned by the likes of Mr Gold. 

Mr Green is concerned about local workers losing their jobs due to globalisation. Mr Gold would call him a socialist, but he's not, nor is he a bleeding heart liberal. He simply wants to see fair play and a chance for everyone to have a slice of the national cake. He worries about loss of our national identity and he voted to leave the EU. 

Mr Green wants money that's earned here to stay here, rather than being sent abroad to be spent in a foreign High Street, so our shops and industry can prosper. But Mr Gold sees money transfer as a good way to make an easy profit. As long as he makes money he doesn't care where the capital is heading. 

Well, that's the story of two very different fictional men. We hope you liked it. We also hope that you are like Mr Green and not like Mr Gold in your way of thinking. 

Now, if Mr Green were real he'd be joining the Populist Party to fight against all of the false values held by Mr Gold......

Will you? 












Further thoughts on the strike upon Syria.... 

We could be looking at WW3, between NATO/Israel and the Muslim World, as a war with Islamic State will no doubt wake up "sleeper" sympathisers in all nations with significant Muslim populations. It would mean an end to the phoney "war on terrorism" and the start of a REAL war, with conscription. This will be another Vietnam.

And if that occurs, we CANNOT assume victory, because Western governments have no intention of interning "potential" enemy aliens, on the grounds that "not all Muslims are terrorists". Well, I have news for them. In WW2 not all Germans living here were Nazis (in fact many were Jews) yet we still interned them, just in case. And the absence of an intricate enemy spy network within our borders helped us win. But today, a war with the Islamic State would fail, because even if Trump and May nuked ISIS to smithereens in THEIR borders we will still have ISIS backers roaming around with impunity within OUR borders.

And all this would mean nothing if a) we were neutral b) We had not allowed Muslim and Jewish mass immigration over the past few centuries to create lobby groups pulling us into arguments that were not our business!!!