Cosmic rays blamed for global warming


Al Gore, one of the High Priests of Global Warming

The Fundamentalist Church of Global Warming has been repeating its mantra that global warming is a fact, that the rise in temperatures will increase above the trend for which figures are available, that the ice caps will melt and drown most of humanity, and that it is entirely due to vehicles, aircraft and urban consumption.

All strong stuff!!! – backed by a claim that all scientists agree totally with this view.

As the global warming industry gears up to take advantage of this belief, and politicians see new opportunities to raise completely new taxes, where the revenue goes to anything but addressing global warming, it is very difficult for the many scientists who see other realities to be heard.

One important area of research and theory has gone almost unremarked. One exception being an article published in the United Kingdom by the Sunday Telegraph:

By Richard Gray, Science Correspondent, Sunday Telegraph
Last Updated: 1:08am GMT 11/02/2007

Man-made climate change may be happening at a far slower rate than has been claimed, according to controversial new research.

Scientists say that cosmic rays from outer space play a far greater role in changing the Earth’s climate than global warming experts previously thought.

In a book, to be published this week, they claim that fluctuations in the number of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere directly alter the amount of cloud covering the planet.

cosmic rays

How cosmic rays could seed clouds diagram

High levels of cloud cover blankets the Earth and reflects radiated heat from the Sun back out into space, causing the planet to cool.

Henrik Svensmark, a weather scientist at the Danish National Space Centre who led the team behind the research, believes that the planet is experiencing a natural period of low cloud cover due to fewer cosmic rays entering the atmosphere.

This, he says, is responsible for much of the global warming we are experiencing.

He claims carbon dioxide emissions due to human activity are having a smaller impact on climate change than scientists think. If he is correct, it could mean that mankind has more time to reduce our effect on the climate.

The controversial theory comes one week after 2,500 scientists who make up the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change published their fourth report stating that human carbon dioxide emissions would cause temperature rises of up to 4.5 C by the end of the century.

Mr Svensmark claims that the calculations used to make this prediction largely overlooked the effect of cosmic rays on cloud cover and the temperature rise due to human activity may be much smaller.

He said: “It was long thought that clouds were caused by climate change, but now we see that climate change is driven by clouds.

“This has not been taken into account in the models used to work out the effect carbon dioxide has had.

“We may see CO2 is responsible for much less warming than we thought and if this is the case the predictions of warming due to human activity will need to be adjusted.”

Mr Svensmark last week published the first experimental evidence from five years’ research on the influence that cosmic rays have on cloud production in the Proceedings of the Royal Society Journal A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. This week he will also publish a fuller account of his work in a book entitled The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change.

A team of more than 60 scientists from around the world are preparing to conduct a large-scale experiment using a particle accelerator in Geneva, Switzerland, to replicate the effect of cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere.

They hope this will prove whether this deep space radiation is responsible for changing cloud cover. If so, it could force climate scientists to re-evaluate their ideas about how global warming occurs.

Mr Svensmark’s results show that the rays produce electrically charged particles when they hit the atmosphere. He said: “These particles attract water molecules from the air and cause them to clump together until they condense into clouds.”

Mr Svensmark claims that the number of cosmic rays hitting the Earth changes with the magnetic activity around the Sun. During high periods of activity, fewer cosmic rays hit the Earth and so there are less clouds formed, resulting in warming.

Low activity causes more clouds and cools the Earth.

He said: “Evidence from ice cores show this happening long into the past. We have the highest solar activity we have had in at least 1,000 years.

“Humans are having an effect on climate change, but by not including the cosmic ray effect in models it means the results are inaccurate.The size of man’s impact may be much smaller and so the man-made change is happening slower than predicted.”

Some climate change experts have dismissed the claims as “tenuous”. i.e. How dare anyone question our view of what is happening. BSD dictionary entry for “expert”, (eX~spurt),- eX = has been, spurt = a drip under pressure.

Giles Harrison, a cloud specialist at Reading University said that he had carried out research on cosmic rays and their effect on clouds, but believed the impact on climate is much smaller than Mr Svensmark claims.

Mr Harrison said: “I have been looking at cloud data going back 50 years over the UK and found there was a small relationship with cosmic rays. It looks like it creates some additional variability in a natural climate system but this is small.”

But there is a growing number of scientists who believe that the effect may be genuine.

Among them is Prof Bob Bingham, a clouds expert from the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils in Rutherford.

He said: “It is a relatively new idea, but there is some evidence there for this effect on clouds.”

So what does this all mean?

First, and most importantly, it means that not all scientists agree about global warming rates, trends, or causes. Each group may sincerely believe that they have found answers, but this all suggests that a great deal more research is necessary to form an impartial view and that scientists will never agree entirely with each other, because more research produces new theories and supporting data that will then be interpreted by others.

There are a number of factors which, to some extent, contradict each other.

Climate change has always taken place and always will. Man will have some ability to affect change to some degree, but at a much lower level than nature. Urban consumer society will always have a stronger effect than rural subsistence society. Increases in population will have a great effect on how human factors combine. Population increases are influenced most strongly by the creation of wealth, the improvement of health and the average life expectancy.

This means that one way of reducing human impact is to drastically reduce population levels and move from industrial and urban society to rural subsistence societies. Not a popular option amongst wealthy urban communities, or amongst those communities that aspire to become wealthy urban societies.

This was tried in China during the Cultural Revolution but was not a success. China has since adopted a policy that is the direct opposite, where urbanization and industrialization are now the driving forces, dramatically raising the level of wealth in China.

Globalization increases consumption. It encourages the wealthy to buy goods that are transported over long distances and requires increasing use of packaging and preservation techniques to ensure that the goods arrive in an acceptable condition. Ironically, the benefits of globalization are matched by its disadvantages. One option is therefore to place production close to the points of consumption, reducing the need for transportation. This is likely to damage international trade and reduce wealth, leading to a reduction in population levels.

The most extreme global warming fundamentalists see the solution as self-sufficiency. A dream of the urban elite to return to the pleasures of rural tranquility but without any loss of urban lifestyle. That is an option not open to the mass of the world population, for whom subsistence would mean a drastic reduction of lifestyle, increased vulnerability to famine, increased conflict, as people fight over meager resources, and a dramatic reduction in health.

If politicians raise new taxes on the excuse that these will save the planet, the money should be paid into an international fund and used to pay for real solutions to reduce pollution and consumption of resources. An expensive way to attempt to provide solutions with high bureaucratic overheads and potential corruption.

There are no easy or ‘right’ answers.

BSD News Desk

Can UKIP Succeed?

Flag of the United Kingdom

The United Kingdom is heading for major change. Either it becomes divided and submerged in a United States of Europe, or it charts a new course

The birth of a new political party is a challenge and an opportunity. Some new event is required as a trigger. Then there is a period of hard work with little visible sign of success. The greatest challenge is in raising the funds to fight established parties on anything like an equal footing. This is a considerable challenge in any country that does not use some form of proportional representation. Britain is a classic example of major challenge created by a ‘first-past-the-post’ electoral system because the new party has to generate sufficient momentum to win the largest number of votes in each seat that is fought, not taking on one party, but all of the established parties who put out a common message that a vote for the new party is a wasted voted.

Charles Kennedy

The Liberal Democrats under Charles Kennedy were making electoral progress until his alcoholism triggered a palace revolution that saw his resignation

The Liberal Democrats have tried for years to be more than a ‘none-of-the-above party’– and failed!! Some eighty years ago, the British Labour Party managed to both destroy the Liberals as an effective political force, and win enough seats to form a government, aided by the total support of the growing trade union movement. On that occasion, the British Labour Party was exploiting the dissatisfaction generated by the last Liberal Government and the impoverished exchequer that had been exhausted, paying the United States for munitions during the 1914-18 War. A further factor was the nature of total war where all of the population was mobilized and a large portion of the population, that had never travelled more than a few miles from where they were born, were suddenly moved around the battlefields of the world, changing their perception of where they stood in society. Established Parties failed to understand this and a new Party was the beneficiary.


Ramsey MacDonald led the first British Labour Government which disintegrated under him leading to him depending on Conservative votes during the final days of his Government


Sir Oswald Moseley left Ramsey MacDonald and Labour to form his own national socialist Party

When that first Labour government was formed, it was based on a coalition of socialist groups that were unable to work consistently together. One group went off to form the British Fascists under Sir Oswald Moseley. This group eventually failed because of the rise of national socialists in Germany, leading to a World War and a genocide programme that caused widespread revulsion, allowing other socialists to smear any party that described itself as Fascist or national socialist – and any other political party that took a different view from the socialists. In Britain democratic socialists were to fight a continuing war against their communist wing which was yet another form of national socialists dressed up as international socialists.


Clement Attlee led the second British Labour Government, benefitting from a post war mood for change. His Government promised much but delivered rather less

At the end of World War Two, the British Labour Party was again the beneficiary of a national desire for change. It promised much and delivered very little, while squandering the remaining wealth of Britain and the generous aid provided by the United States to help rebuild Europe.

Through much of Europe, proportional representation allowed many new parties to establish niche votes. This created unstable governments, of which Italy was an example of the difficulties any politician faces in forming a working government from a loose coalition of parties that each have strong differences.

The British system was effective as long as one party could command a credible majority of votes, in addition to a credible number of Parliamentary seats. That was only possible as long as a high percentage of the population took the pride in democracy to go out and vote, and where there were only two Parties offering a credible ability to form a government. One of the dubious achievements of the Blair regime was in concentrating on smearing the Conservative Party to the point where the vote collapsed and the electors were turned away from participation. It has now reached the point where the Blair regime commands less than 25% of the potential vote, even including what is believed to be an increasing number of fraudulent votes, made possible through election changes introduced by the Blair regime to reduce the integrity of voting. One judge observed, in sentencing Blair activists, that the new form of absent voting would make a banana republic blush.


Against this background, UKIP was launched as a new party, with the primary objective of first saving the British Pound and then leaving the European Union. In raising the debate on retention of the pound, aided by the disastrous attempts of the Major Government to join the Euro currency zone, UKIP achieved success in its first objective. The second objective was impossible to achieve in the short term because of the need to achieve a majority of Members of Parliament who would vote-in the necessary legislation to take Britain out of the European Union.


The Sinn Fein policy of bullet and ballot has worked well for them but promises violent instability

Until recently, it seemed that the only viable method of breaking any part of the United Kingdom away from the European Union lay with Sinn Fein IRA. This Irish party has the objective of breaking Ulster away from the United Kingdom to create a United Ireland, which will then break away from the EU. In electoral terms, there is no prospect of achieving this because the people of Ulster, by clear majority, wish to remain part of the United Kingdom and the people of the Irish Republic have been very happy to be part of the European Union because they have enjoyed massive EU funding as a major net recipient of tax funds. That is now changing as the EU marches East and needs to divert huge sums to the new East European Member States, reducing the flow of funds to the Irish Republic, where electors are begining to rethink their position on EU Membership. Once the majority of the electors in the Irish Republic come to see the EU as undesirable, Sinn Fein IRA will be able to resume its established and successful policy of bullet and ballot box to unite Ireland and break away from the EU. As has been demonstrated in Ulster, this policy takes decades to produce success and creates death and destruction. Success might be achieved more quickly with the rise of separatist groups within the EU and the long standing co-operation between the IRA and ETA in Spain and France. As the EU continues to over-legislate, the prospects of armed insurrection increase at a time when terrorism around the world is increasing, with terrorists learning to work together globally, even though their only common interest is in creating terror to effect change.

Parties like UKIP are a very much better alternative to thugs from the IRA and ETA, but the big question is – “Can they succeed in time?”

There is also the question of – “What constitutes success?”.

In Britain, UKIP could succeed by triggering a major realignment of political support where an established Party adopts large parts of the UKIP policy without necessarily providing UKIP with seats in Parliament. The alternative would be for UKIP to make a huge and unexpected break through to achieve a majority of seats in the House of Commons, sufficient to implement their policies. At present the latter seems unlikely in the short term and UKIP appears to be a very British phenomena.

However, politics are never that simple and there is now a majority through much of Europe that has been disenfranchised by their own political classes. It may not yet be to the extent where a violent revolution will immediately result, but the growing resentment of taxation without representation creates a major opportunity for Independence Parties to become established in most European Member States. The danger is that time is against a widespread overturning of a political elite that has become accustomed to ignoring the wishes of the people they should be representing.

It is into this environment that UKIP comes as a new political party that could trigger widespread change, not just in the narrow, if vital, matter of the direction of Europe, but in regenerating democracy.


Nigel Farage, MEP, Leader of the UK Independence Party, typifies this new political force in not being an obvious professional politician. This is not necessarily a bad thing because what electors through Europe really need is a new generation of public servants representing the electors’ interests rather than their own vested interested

When Nigel Farage MEP, UK Independence Party Leader, pointed out, during an in-depth interview by veteran political commentator Andrew Neil, his party could achieve electoral success by re-engaging the very large number of voters who have been turned off by the established parties in Britain, he was identifying a return to democratic politics. In its own right, this constitutes a major revolution that would return power to the people.


Seen by many as a caretaket LibDem leader, Ming Campbell is a decent man but has failed to arrest his Party’s slide in support

The Liberal Democrats have demonstrated that they support the status quo of high taxation and the formation of a United States of Europe, where the existing European countries will be broken up in a Balkanisation of Europe. Their major aspiration is to come close to recovering their waning support and a hope that a hung Parliament will allow them to join Labour or the Conservatives in forming a shaky coalition Government. This essentially means maintenance of their policies of the last sixty years.

Without any new challenge, this leaves the Conservatives and Labour to fight it out, which is really a non-contest. Blair may resign during 2007, or be ejected by his Party, but that is unlikely to have any effect on their policies that are for bigger government, higher taxation and moving most of the population onto the public payroll. The Conservatives, in their new guise as Cameron’s Blue Labour, are offering the same policies to the extent that it will make little difference which of the two Parties wins the next General Election.


The European Commission mapmakers are already dividing up the geography into new People’s Republics that are designed to destroy the current national identity of Member States. Interestingly, countries that have voted not to join the EU, or as in the case of Greenland voted to leave 25 years ago, are clearly regarded as being EU real estate. The desire to dominate the world is also clearly demonstrated with the United States of Europe moving its boundaries to the North Americas and Russia. How long will it be before the Eurocrats see Canada, the USA and Russia as satellites or conquests?

Given that the Conservatives and Labour share many common policies, that differ only in small detail, it would make little difference in an independent United Kingdom which Party wins. In the European environment, it makes even less difference because 80% of legislation is determined in Brussels and not in London. This percentage would increase as the European Constitution is forced through and Member States loose control of all but minor aspects of local government.

This leaves much to play for, with any new political Party having the opportunity to offer very different policies. Over the coming months it will be seen if the UK Independence Party can generate the necessary funding to fight on equal terms with the established Parties. For a Party that has largely depended on small donations and membership fees, UKIP appears to be a long way behind the Established Parties which all depend on large donations and secret loans from powerful vested interests. It also remains to be seen whether the news media will provide anything like an equal platform.

Nigel Farage and his Independence Party are providing evidence of growth of support across a broad platform of electoral opinion. Potentially, half of the electorate are disenchanted by the Established Parties. Recent surveys show that 65% of the British electorate now do not consider that they have any affiliation to a political Party. If a significant percentage of this disenfranchised electoral power can be harnessed, the Party winning the uncommitted support would be able to win a clear majority of Parliamentary seats. As the UK Independence Party is already taking votes away from the Established Parties, victory could be much more probable than many political commentators had previously anticipated.

A very interesting period lies ahead for Britain and Europe.


Captain Gatso Denies Letter Bombing


Gatso Tax Camera damage attributed to MAD and Captain Gatso

Captain Gatso and MAD deny any involvement in the spate of letter bombs circulating in Britain.

MAD have been responsible for the destruction of over 700 Gatso tax cameras, using explosives, incendiary devices and shotguns. A generally popular campaign amongst hard pressed and grossly over-taxed British motorists, the MAD bombing campaign has so far not placed any individual in danger, some even claim that they have saved lives by destroying tax cameras that have contributed to increased road accidents.

Police initially assumed that MAD were behind the letter bombs which have cause personal injury and have been potentially lethal. This assumption was made because MAD are a target the police would like to destroy – half the money raised by tax cameras goes directly to the Camera Partnerships that include police. Also, targets of the first bombs were companies involved in anti-motorist taxation schemes, and the DVLA, which collects road tax on all vehicles.

The police are now having to face the possibility that the bombings are the start of a campaign by an individual, or terror group, concerned about civil liberty errosion. One indicator is that DVLA have been involved in selling personal details of motorists to convicted criminals and indiviudals charged with crimes, including violence and extortion. Closer examination of other targets that have received letter bombs shows that these organizations are also involved in the collection and distribution of private information.

Until the culprits are apprehended and brought to court, the possibility exists that this could be the start of a widespread terror campaign, involving larger bombs, eventually resulting in deaths.


The Vanishing Chancellor


Scottish Prime Minister-in-waiting keeps low profile

With Blair announcing his plans to lead Britain for the next ten years inspite of the police investigation closing in on him, now would seem to be an ideal time for the Scottish Prime Minister-in-waiting to effect regime change.

But NO, Gordon Brown is keeping such a low profile even a traffic harming measure speed hump looks mountainous.

Perhaps his reluctance to be seen in public results from his failed putch last year which saw a damaged Blair staggering on and giving every indication that he plans to renage on his promise to resign before September 2007. Then again it might be that opinion polls show the Scottish Prime Minister-in-waiting following Blair down in popularity at an angle that would be supersonic for a diving airplane.


Coming of Age – Independence Party Leader to be Grilled on BBC 24


Nigel Farage Leader Independence Party 

David “the-tosser-within” Cameron, leader of Blue Labour, recently dismissed the UK Independence Party and the media has historically largely ignored this important addition to the British political scene.

That’s all been changing as support drains from Blair’s national socialists and Cameron’s Blue Labour fails to pick up this support which is going in increasing numbers to the Independence Party. Blue Labour/Conservative core votes are starting to drain away to Farage’s Independence Party to add to Cameron’s woes.

Nigel Farage, UK Independence Party Leader, will be appearing on BBC 24’s “Straight Talk” programme on Saturday 10th February at 10.30AM.

This wide-ranging interview with Andrew Neil will last twenty-five minutes. The programme will be repeated later the same day at 10.30PM.

An experienced newspaper editor and broadcaster, Andrew Neil has a reputation for fair but probing in-depth interviews. A good performance by Farage will not only enhance the reputation of his party, but would be the first of a growing number of interviews by an increasingly engaged media.

One of the top questions in coming months will be “How safe is it to vote for the Independence Party?” With a British General Election still up to two years away, this may be enough time for the Independence Party to gain sufficient exposure to win at least a significant number of Westminster seats.


Strasbourg Newsletter: Brussels edition January/February 2007

The Independence Party Sock it to the Eurocrats

The key moment last week came at the end of Graham Booth’s excellent speech about international trade,


We have to deal with the WTO through one man [Peter Mandelson] who represents no less than 27 nations. He has no popular mandate and, in the light of his record in British politics, would not have been chosen to run a village fete. I don’t want an EU representative to speak for my country at the WTO – I want a representative of Her Majesty’s Government, who not only knows my country but cares for it too.

Then there is the whole issue of competitive tendering.

Whilst I condemn the suppression of individual freedoms and rights in China, they do know a few things about running a successful economy. Government spending is only some 20% of GDP, whereas in the Eurozone it was 47.5% (in 2005). In China, business runs with a light regulatory touch. In the European Union, we are regulating ourselves to death. In 2005, Mr. Blair promised that the British presidency would cut red tape. It did nothing of the sort – how many thousands of pages did it add to the mountain of legislation?

My country was hoodwinked into joining the European Union in 1973 on the basis of it being just a Free Trade Area. This is all it should be – no Parliament, no Commission, no Directives. Instead it has become a bureaucratic monster which is wrecking our economy.

As he finished a crowd of our activists from the South West – you know who you are – who were in the spectator’s gallery, burst into applause. They were stared at by the President of the Parliament who announced to all and sundry,

There must be no enthusiasm in this chamber

…perish the thought. Which leads me neatly onto Godfrey Bloom – never an enthusiast he. Here he neatly skewers the pretensions of the European Parliament’s attempts to regulate small businesses.


I find this absolutely fascinating! Every time I come here I have to smile. What this place knows about running small businesses is absolutely unbelievable. When I look up the CVs of Members of this Parliament, I find that nobody has ever had any serious responsibility for a small company in their lives. It is amazing what we all know about these things!

In 1992 I started a small business. I thought about it and I bought some old-fashioned, second- hand furniture. I sucked my pencil and thought, ‘My goodness me, what have I done? I have left a big corporation, where do I go from here?’. That business now has branches in Hong Kong, Jersey, the Channel Islands and South Africa, as well as London and York, which is my constituency.

I really do not think I could do that again. There are so many regulations, it is unbelievable. If you really want to fire up small business in the European Union, and particularly the United Kingdom, I would suggest that these people here and the Commission get their blasted noses out of everybody else’s business and stop trying to tell us how we should run our businesses!

Derek Clark then took up the bat to speak out against the blind consensus that is the current climate change debate.


Mr President, this issue is surrounded by half- truths and misleading statements which raise more questions than answers. Why did the director of a UK environment agency tell me they could not link global warming to climate change? If global warming is due to CO2 and the greenhouse effect, as opposed to a variation in solar activity, why was the same director unable to tell me if the greenhouse affect rises in proportion to the extra amount of CO2?

Why does the Stern Report show a steady rise over 2000 years – when in fact it was warmer in the 14th and 15th centuries than it is now? Why does Friends of the Earth say that incineration of waste to generate electricity produces more CO2 than conventional gas-fired generators when effectively much of the waste is bio-fuel and therefore carbon- neutral? They ignore the fact that landfill waste will produce methane, which is 12 times more potent a greenhouse gas than CO2.

Finally, why does the President of the Commission drive a car which produces 1.6 times more CO2 per kilometre than the average sort of car I drive?

Taking the Flag to the United States


Meanwhile, Gerard Batten was in Florida for four days at the invitation of the Council for National Policy – a major US networking and policy-forming forum for US conservatives. He was invited as a direct result of his work on radical Islam and the promotion in Strasbourg in December of “A proposed charter of Muslim understanding” by Sam Solomon.

Besides speaking on the threat posed to the West by radical Islam, he attended meetings on security and defence and met a number of key policy formers who will be valuable contacts for future policy development. Gerard enjoyed a warm welcome and our desire to leave the EU was overwhelmingly supported by the delegates.

DX of Nigel Farage and Nigel Farage on UKIP

Starting a new political party is always difficult. Voters who like the new message are nervous about voting for the new party because they see little prospect of their votes helping that party to victory, but fear that, in voting for them, they may let a really undesirable party sneak in by splitting the vote. This is a serious consideration in Britain where the electoral system has allowed the Blair regime, as the second largest party, with the second highest number of votes at the last General Election, to hold a strong majority of seats, even though they are heartily detested by a majority of the voters. This explains why Blair’s national socialists took over the British Labour Party rather than forming a new extreme political party under the national socialist banner.

David Cameron’s Blue Labour Conservatives hope that enough voters will back them as the lesser of two evils against the Blairist national socialists.

When UKIP was launched, Britain faced the very real prospect of being dragged into the Euro currency against the wishes of the people. UKIP played a key role in bringing that debate forward and saving the British Pound. Those EU countries that were dragged into the Euro, in place of their own native currency, have all suffered and their populations are keen to break free. In Germany, where the political class is determined to force all EU Member States into complete union as a new single country, the population is fighting back by introducing regional currencies to offer an alternative to the hated Euro.

In making a stand for Britain, UKIP gained no Parliamentary seats in Britain. Then came the European Parliamentary Elections and UKIP won a handful of seats in the European Parliament where they have punched above their weight. More significantly, they forced the Liberal Demoncrats into forth place and took seats from both the Blair regime national socialists and the Conservative and Unionist Party.

Recently, UKIP has taken a further important step by welcoming two Members of the House of Lords into their party, as defectors from David Cameron’s Blue Labour. This gives UKIP a voice for the first time in the British Parliament.

Now a political force to be considered seriously by other parties, UKIP stands to win a significant number of votes at the next British elections. New leader Nigel Farage and his colleagues have been working hard to demonstrate that they are not a single issue party, but a potential governing party.




Nigel Farage MEP, Leader of the (UK) Independence Party

As Nigel Farage says:

” It is always good advice to say ‘don’t believe all that you read in the newspapers’. The name ‘UK Independence Party’ is absolutely perfect for fighting European Elections: The point was proved conclusively in 2004. However, we have plenty of evidence that for local and general elections the name indicates too narrow a policy base.

In the spring of 2006 UKIP launched the ‘Five right things to do’. We began to campaign on a broader policy front which led to our successful launch of our tax and education papers. The theme that runs through everything we stand for is Independence: We want national independence, local independence, and independence for the individual from the state. My suggestion is that we campaign heavily on the ‘Independence’ theme for the local elections in May. This can be done in our literature and in how we address the public during the campaign. So, I am talking about a different emphasis whilst UKIP will still appear on the ballot paper.

However, we must open our minds to possible changes. When we adopted the ‘£’ sign as our logo, it was superb; it said what we stood for. That logo now marks an historical victory rather than an aspiration for the future. We must look for alternatives. Similarly with the party name, we need to do some surveys to find out just how we are perceived.

Nigel Farage”