Bridging the gaps on the right

The ironic thing the media trolls do is attempt to paint the right as one extreme position through and through, despite it being the left that cling to the same set of ideals. And the only "diversity" they claim to love is purely superficial.

In reality most on the "extreme right" have issues based positions. Putting them all over the political spectrum but for the most part, right of centre. Apparently taking things on a case by case basis is the new definition of "extreme".

This is strength in that those on the right, the majority not the geniunely extreme, are able to gain more knowledge this way, but its a weakness in the way it can spread us so thin as to gift the lefties elections by voting for ukip OR forbritain OR britainfirst. Ann Marie waters recently covered this beautifully at a conference, pointing out the principled stances, albeit admirable, prevent groups on the right meeting in the middle on certain issues in order to more likely gain power. Because as torn as that would be materialised, it would be less torn than the libs and the tories (how did we think that would be a good idea?!) and for what would be acheived it would be so much better in terms of outcomes...Even if it got so pedantic as in every single issue had to appease each side, which as cynical as I am sounds ludicrous even to me. She did point out another major barrier too, as did Stuart Agnew of UKIP (self sufficiency personified that man) recently, that egos can be an issue and the potential of merging even when key values are shared, and members suggest ways to satisfy both sides, the thought of another big chief in their town scares or threatens them. In this age of doxing, painting those on the wrong side of the spectrum as nazis, it's an understandable concern.

But as this is a concern that is, to my knowledge, always orchestrated by the left, one we shouldn't have to worry about concerning parties on the right. Now, I'd be overly idealistic to think every group on the right could agree, especially the (pitifully few in number, regardless what the media try to peddle) geniunely extreme right. But I also don't want to be overly cynical and just stand firm and proud when the outcome costs us elections. Or worse, gifts them to the big two.

I  am currently on the fence over my party alliance, but on this particular issue I find Ann Marie's ForBritain stance a little overly idealistic  (though a world I wish we could live in), BritainFirst a little too cynical as they won't even seem to entertain collaboration at the minute. But the fittingly happy medium position being taken is that of the aforementioned UKIP's Stuart Agnew, seconded by Jill Seymour who want to promote more local elections and allow the public to side with the party in most power following these.

BritainFirst's standing firm; principled or stick in the mud? ForBritain extending an olive branch; weak or promoting unity? UKIP promoting yet warning, considerate or wishy washy? Choices choices.

So for this particular conundrum, I personally am on the side of Stuart Agnew and, by virtue, all of them until the most favourable in local elections is determined.

Which, after the betrayal of Brexit and the last two years, is a really refreshing and well needed, in the words of The Beatles, let it be. (I also find this stance is the best way to be a good advocate for the world you value without going mad.)

...And then raise our voices louder than ever for the victor.

#UKIP #FORBRITAIN #BRITAINFIRST