Latest from UKIP Daily

A Word on Carswell

Another standoff between Nigel and Carswell. For a time, I thought Nigel might be preparing to leave UKIP, that his pride would force him to, having publicly declared Carswell must go. A UKIP with Carswell still in and Nigel out would not be viable. I felt that the legal niceties were irrelevant to the politics which appeared to be that Carswell must go. But, on LBC a few nights ago, Nigel was emphatic that he would not leave UKIP, that forming a new party was wrong. Taking him at his very public word then Carswell need not be expelled, and cannot be on inconclusive, private correspondence, just to keep Nigel in.

Yet Carswell is a problem. When he tweeted a smiley face on learning of Nigel stepping down as leader – what did he think he was doing? It cannot be that he was too thick to see that ordinary Kippers would be offended by that self-indulgent act. It must be therefore that he simply does not care about offending ordinary Kippers. For that tweet, he should have been taken aside and given a stern warning. Would you or I be allowed to insult, provoke and taunt the ordinary membership? When it comes to Nigel, Carswell is showing himself to be incontinent, unable to refrain from tweeting “Knight night” after the email fiasco.

Is he, as Aaron Banks exclaimed at Doncaster 2015, semi-autistic, just unable to empathise with party members and see the hurt he causes? If he does see it then why do it? Should the party send him for psychiatric therapy, for losing self-control whenever Nigel’s name comes up? But if we allow that he is fully responsible and accountable for his actions, and so deliberately or recklessly provoking the membership, then why haven’t the leadership, of leader, Chairman and NEC, taken him aside?

Carswell cannot go on inflaming the members, ignoring their feelings and indulging his own antipathy to Nigel publicly. Yes, there is free speech, Carswell is entitled to his opinions, but he lives on UKIP’s dime and he needs to respect that. A great number of Kippers are upset by his mocking and sneering tweets and remarks. Does the leadership share his disdain for ordinary Kippers? If they fail to reel him in then a conclusion that they do will be unavoidable.

Carswell defected to save his seat (No 1 likely to fall to UKIP had he stayed Tory at the 2015 GE) and to go from obscure backbencher no-one had heard of (or was ever likely to) to a national figure invited onto Question Time and interviewed frequently by the press. What has he given back to the party in return? Search in vain for speeches in the House promoting or defending UKIP!

I suspect the real reason for his indifference to members’ feelings is that he is not indifferent at all. He actually needs ordinary Kippers to complain about him as part of what is, in Tory terms, virtue signalling. His real allegiance, his comfort zone, is Tory MP friends. He signals every time that he has not really left, that he is not truly UKIP but semi-detached, that like them he is part of the anti-Farage establishment. He joined Vote Leave at the outset, as did Suzanne Evans, a group hostile to Nigel and UKIP. His emailed quip that perhaps Nigel could be rewarded for `services to headline writers’ was as much for his Tory friends as for winding up ordinary Kippers.

This view is supported by the action of Tories. Just before the General Election Cameron was reported as saying, in relation to Mark Reckless, who really did defect to UKIP completely, that he really wanted to get that [insert a very un-parliamentary term beginning with f and ending with r], but no such ire was shown toward Carswell. Indeed, relations between Carswell and Tories are all too friendly, especially with Daniel Hannan, a graceless leaver who refuses to acknowledge Nigel. At a meeting at Hammersmith Town Hall before the Referendum, Hannan was on stage with Lord Owen. Owen made a very gracious speech praising UKIP for its part, saying that it was not racist but a genuine grassroots movement that he was happy to campaign alongside. Hannan was asked to comment but shook his head. No way would he acknowledge UKIP yet alone praise it. That’s who Carswell signals to. Yes, they believe we should leave the EU, but not to the extent that their personal comfort is ever to be at risk by stepping outside their true tribe’s norms. Neither merit any respect from us.

Carswell’s indifference to ordinary Kippers may also reflect that by 2020 he does not expect or plan to be defending Clacton under a UKIP banner. If he did he would not want to alienate UKIP activists. In July last year at an event in the centre of London to debate the various forms of Brexit (supposedly), Carswell effectively disavowed UKIP in order to ingratiate himself before what was a 99%, middle class remainer audience – in a debate chaired by the Guardian’s Jonathan Freedland to give you the flavour. But his views are self-servingly false.

Instead of endlessly complaining about Carswell the leadership should allow us to debate him, to expose the denial about UKIP’s part in Brexit, to challenge his fantasy version of history, to give the lie to the media fed drivel about nativists and racists.

Provided he now stops sneering at ordinary Kippers, stops taunting Nigel and his supporters, then nothing need turn on his presence in our party (if Carswell can be said to be in our party) and we avoid the unseemly and unpredictable fallout from trying to expel him. Having an MP, even one and even just him, gets us media representation rights.

We cannot currently get rid of Carswell in any way that would keep the party out of the High Court – he will be too careful not to provide any killer evidence. We therefore can debate him – not that the leadership will allow anyone articulate to do that! – or just ignore him provided the leader, the Chairman, and the NEC act as one in explaining to Carswell that he must never, ever again hold the members in contempt with corrupt virtue signalling to his Tory mates. If we are not to be forever up and down the Sisyphean hill with Carswell, then Nuttall, Oakden and the NEC must reel him in. He must virtue signal to his true tribe wholly in private. Tell him to never sneer or mock again. And bloody well mean it!

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

66 Comments on A Word on Carswell

  1. Thinnish Free-Thinker // March 4, 2017 at 5:49 pm // Reply

    There is an online petition calling upon Douglas Carswell to resign from UKIP:
    It already has 3,726 signatures. Why not sign it?

    • TFT,

      Thanks, just signed it.

    • I signed !
      ( Surprise surprise ! )
      Will Paul take any notice ?
      What is the benefit to Paul of his supporting membership of UKIP by someone who so detests UKIP members and its main issue of ending mass uncontrolled immigration ?

    • Toby Micklethwait // March 6, 2017 at 10:20 pm // Reply

      Dear Thinnish,

      Paul Nuttall wrote in the Daily Telegraph … “The party needs to ditch the infighting and knee jerk reactions. We have always been a party of different talents and opinions, united by our desire for common sense solutions to the issues often not dealt with by the establishment.”.

      Criticising Carswell in public, or on this forum, (or setting up or supporting public petitions against him) looks to me like infighting.

      I support Paul Nuttall’s request that the infighting stop, now.

      Regards, Toby, 01932-873557

      • Following Paul’s impassioned plea for unity in his conference speech at 3pm saturday, then on saturday evening 7pm Suzanne Evans tweeted a joke about Farage not getting a Knighthood, with Richard Hilton sniggering in background. On Sunday, Carswell wrote his article saying he’d rather be in the EU than be under a Front National / AfD government, and separately he said he’d give freedom to employers to hire anyone from around the world if they can be paid £23k (guess what, all jobs paying £23k to £50k would see wages eroded to £23k). On Sunday evening Patrick O’Flynn tweeted a summary of donors designed to demean contribution of Banks, when in fact all it showed is that Banks has been badly treated as he has never been recognised with a position (compare this to John Bickley, who has donated – wait for it – £ZERO – as treasurer). So it seems to me there is a concerted campaign being waged by the clique to impose their will. You cannot expect people not to fight back against the theft of their party.

  2. Well …..

    Just read about Mr Banks’ policy proposals …. and …..

    If Carswell has to go, then he *must* go(!) …..

    Personally I still have a ‘soft spot’ for good ole Uncle Nige!


    Let’s re-boot and make UKIP radical!

    Neither right not left but (the) radical (centre) – for the sake of the British people!

    • ‘Radical’ doesn’t mean ‘centre’ to me, Jason. The centre is where the look-a-likey liblabcongreen bunch live and it’s very overcrowded & smelly. They all yammer on about ‘diversity’ as if it’s a moral sine qua non, yet the hypocrites tolerate no diversity of beliefs, only their own self-assured, PC, right-on, virtue-signalling, lib/leftard elitist, anti-British working-class dyed-in-the-wool bigotry.

      ‘Radical’ means wanting something wholly different from what the old party- political elite want. For me and, I hope, UKIP, it’s ‘Britain and the British First; this is OUR country and you’d better believe it’.
      At present, there are a lot of muslims who think this country is theirs for the taking; all they have to do is wait for it to fall into their greedy hands by outbreeding the natives, perhaps a bit of terror thrown in if there’s resistance.

      We need a whole new way of thinking and acting: self-defence, self-protection, self-preservation against islamisation. No multiculti, no mass immigration, no cultural relativism, no fetish of ‘diversity’. As a firm policy, only one culture promoted and officially supported – British. The creation of a hostile environment for islam would clear some of those no-go zones they’ve established in this country, and strict immigration laws and a robust deportation/repatriation programme would do the rest.

      I only hope that the government and the British people wake up in time to see the danger we’re in. ‘It couldn’t happen here’ is lazy thinking. It’s probably what the populations of all the countries conquered by marauding muslims thought before they were forced to convert, or pay exorbitant taxes for no rights whatsoever, or die a nasty death.

      ‘Might is Right’ is the fascist muslim philosophy, always has been, still is.

      • The centre is for people who like re-arranging deck chairs while the ship sinks. Courting popularity by trying to emulate the uncontroversial centre will be the kiss of death for UKIP.

      • Am not too particular about the ‘terminology,’ Panmelia ….. your point is always well taken (although I don’t always agree with you view of Christianity! ….. but, yes, religion causes wars) …… and yes, it’s surreal …… what a surreal world we do live in …… the Left best exemplifies what is wrong with the UK …… Rotherham, Luton, Bradford, Blackburn, etc. and of course the no-go zones, Sharia patrol, ….. the silence, complicity, ‘self-hatred'(??), contemptible vision and attitude of the Labour Party as represented by the liberal metropolitan elite …..

        Would like to share that although I’m not an economic libertarian as such , I’m as always an admirer of Margaret Thatcher … as one of the prominent icons of the country and of the country’s history and heritage …… the other of course is Churchill ….. and even Enoch Powell although he was a quintessential ‘pragmatic libertarian’ ……

        Thank you very much for your views and perspectives and policy proposals and not least for being kindred spirits when it comes to Islam (at least in the context of Western civilisation) …..

  3. Carswell. Personally I think he’s irrelevant. However at a recent meeting of the branch I chair, I asked members to vote on the matter and they decided we’d be better off without him, so that’s my position now. We also decide that a party run and funded by Mr Banks is not acceptable, you should not be able to “buy” a political party. though he’s right about a small raft of simply stated policies. I’m unsure about a parallel “5 star movement”, it depends exactly how it relates to UKIP, if it damages our party I would oppose it but I guess it may be possible to run both so long as the new outlet does not stand candidates. Whatever we end up with, for Pete’s sake get on with it, this squabbling is disastrous for us.

    • I agree you shouldn`t be able to “buy” a party by donations, but we are a limited company, he should be able to make an offer for that.
      I remember Nigel was planning to make a reverse takeover bid for the Cinservative party a few years ago.
      Just a thought if the Russians are guilty of interfering in the US political process – they are in good company – hasn`t that been what Nigel has been up to and isn`t it what Obama was doing when he urged us to remain in the EU Care Home for Failed European Nations?
      They`re all at it – it`s politics!

  4. If you had strong leadership Carswell would be irrelevant. He thrives on the we can’t throw him out he’s our only MP. Without that psychological pull his power would be gone even if he remained as a nuisance and described regularly as such. He’s only an ordinary member should be the cry. If he wants to pay a sub. Freeze him out.

    • Whilst he remains entitled to claim the UKIP label the MSM can continue to interview him purportedly seeking UKIP views, whilst all the time knowing he will say stuff which damages UKIP.
      It could not be worse.

  5. If we are all being honest, including Douglas, he needs to move on, it’s obvious isn’t it, short money or not.

  6. I have a theory about Carswell: he insults, provokes and upsets UKIP members for the sole purpose of causing disenchantment with the Party and a resulting fall-off of membership and funds. He seems to be succeeding as well, judging by reports of the drop in membership and only £33,000 in donated income.

    I knew this bloke was not on our side when he refused to claim the Short funds we were entitled to as a small party. Carswell is arrogant, patronising, and thinks so well of himself that he dares to criticise Nigel Farage whose green wellies he is not worthy to lick clean after a muddy tramp in the country.

    Carswell’s intended insults don’t work with me: I AM a ‘nativist’ and proud of it. I believe that the real natives of this country, the historic Brits, the indigenous people who have been here time out of mind have exclusive rights to and ownership of the lands that make up the UK. Their needs, wants, wishes and rights should always be put first. They should have the right to homes, work, school places, hospital treatment, care in old age, sickness pay, unemployment benefits and every other public service they and their forebears have established and paid for over hundreds of years.
    Immigrants should not be entitled to any of these things unless they have worked, contributed and paid their own way for a minimum of ten years, and NO British taxpayers’ money should be sent out of the country either. No British passport or citizenship or National Insurance number handed out to anyone who comes here; no foreigners allowed to vote in elections or stand for office; foreign criminals preferably not allowed in (proper checks needed), but convicts deported immediately; no ridiculous rights to a family life with a cat(or even a family – take them with you); and no chance to return.
    Without attraction for spongers and miscreants, the number of immigrants would drastically reduce and be less of a problem as long as they knew they wouldn’t get a council house or a job or a school place etc if Brits needed what was available. Second-class citizens? Not really, they wouldn’t be citizens at all remember, just temporary visitors.

    Of course, Condescending Carswell isn’t the only reason for membership dropping off. It’s also the failure to deal with an obvious snake in the grass such as him, the failures of two successive leaders, the failure to ask the MEMBERS what policies they want to see in a manifesto, the failure of Stoke, the distancing from Trump, and the reluctance of one of the best contributors to the Party, if not THE best, to throw good money after bad. I don’t blame Aaron Banks, and I hope he can persuade Nigel to join him as Leader of an enriched, revitalised movement. It would be fun choosing a new name.

    • Toby Micklethwait // March 5, 2017 at 3:15 pm // Reply

      Dear Panmelia,

      You say “I knew this bloke was not on our side when he refused to claim the Short funds we were entitled to as a small party”.

      The internet ( tells us:
      Why has Douglas Carswell rejected [Short money]?
      Douglas Carswell is a longstanding campaigner against what he sees as the undemocratic and corrupt nature of Westminster politics. He fell out with UKIP party officials when they suggested he use the Short money to employ 15 members of staff. “I am not a US senator, I don’t need 15 staff,” said Mr Carswell. “UKIP is supposed to be different.”
      You seem to be right that Carswell is not on UKIP’s side if there is a conflict between what UKIP plans to do and what it legal.

      However, if we were to throw someone out of the party for putting the law above UKIP that could, I imagine, lead to a legal action. And I have a feeling that the judges would agree that the law is above UKIP … and instruct that Carswell be reinstated.

      Regards, Toby, 01932-873557

      • Toby,

        When Carswell took this stance I have to say I agreed with him, but since then he has done far to much damage to us and I find it difficult to forgive him for that. I don’t understand how Paul can think that is okay.

  7. He is doing UKIP HUGE harm and enjoys doing so.

    The MEDIA love him because while he can claim the UKIP label he can be called upon to speak ‘for’ UKIP all the while whilst being guaranteed to say things which ridicule everything which UKIPPERS hold dear.

    He is a total disaster for UKIP and it should be a fairly simple matter to expel him.

    He has brought the Party into disrepute, by calling members ‘Nativists’ for starters. Why complicate things ? That is sufficient offence.

    There are no countervailing plus points to mitigate the logical consequence of expulsion from the Party.

  8. As a once aspiring member I have no personal knowledge of the UKIP hierarchy but what I have read about them from apparently respectable sources has convinced me that they gained their positions through cronyism rather than competence. There is also as far as I know the dark cloud of the Electoral Commission still hanging over them which, after the mess created of Stoke by Nuttall, could well finish off UKIP both financially and through loss of more members. I have no respect for the Labour Party and little enough for the Conservative Party that is now evident, but UKIP by comparison are rank amateurs and must be a great disappointment to the remaining members.
    As for Carswell I have never met him and know little about him but I certainly wouldn’t buy a second hand car off him.
    So the next few weeks will be telling. It would be good to see the phoenix of a reborn UKIP emerge from the fire, but I have no confidence that it will.

  9. To me the media seem to see Carswell as a well meaning politician who is trying to transform UKIP into the “decent” conformist party it should be so it could join with the other well meaning parties: Lib; Con; Lab; Greens that are doing their best for the UK and our brothers and sisters in the EU (not European peoples).

    The media and LibLabCon politicians do little to publicise and criticise verbal and physical attacks on Kippers with maybe the exception of the Express

    While I watched the Stoke election night report on BBC and Sky, Jack Dromey was interviewed and called Labour’s victory over UKIP a victory over “Hate”, the reporter stated that no UKIP representative had been found to be interviewed. Someone should have been giving Dromey a mouthful, but there was no one. It seems membership is falling and donations are very low. Who wants to contribute or belong to a party that is giving the establishment a free ride on insulting Kippers who have to run the gauntlet with Labour supporting thugs? I certainly don’t.

    The party surely should be radical in criticising the three political parties that have flooded the country with immigrants; that have raised the country’s debt level to an immense amount and still rising and appear to be unable to stop rising crime. However, UKIP politicians appear to be generally unable or unwilling to do so and remain relatively invisible, taking their big MEP salary, looking forward to their EU pension and not rocking the boat.

    I hope Banks does start another party, and one of the rules should be that people who join and seem to be in it for themselves can be booted out by the membership in their area if they attain a representative political position.

    There should be room for differing points of view in a political party but I believe Farage made a big mistake in welcoming in people from other parties and instantly pushing aside long standing members in the hope that the newcomers experience would be more useful before at first making sure of their motives. Something needs to be done to sort out this problem or membership will continue to fall and who wants to donate to a party that appears to be ruled by people on the make. Invisible Nuttall should grow a pair and tell the media and Labour supporting thugs where to go, or if he feels unable to do this be satisfied with his nice EU salary and fade into the background.

    Sorry it’s a bit disjoined, just wanted to make these points and am happy to be criticised on any of them

    • John, I didn’t know about that disgraceful incident with Schneur Odze until I saw your link. I have met Schneur several times in Parliamentary by-election campaigns and he has always made a wonderful contribution, including arranging free good hotel accommodation for people coming from all parts of the country.
      The nasty Leftard racists should be bloody ashamed of themselves, but I doubt they are because they always think of themselves as beyond reproach. The dullards are so busy branding everyone who doesn’t agree with them as ‘racists’ there’s little time for sef-examination, let alone self-criticism.

  10. Paralysed by indecision just like Labour. And hoping something will turn up.

  11. Stout

    Are you able, by any chance, to cut and paste the relevant part of the Constitution or Rules or whatever which relates to grounds for expulsion ?
    I would like to cast a lawyerly eye over the actual text.
    Just prior to that i would have thought that there are grounds to assert that he is bringing the Party into disrepute : Has he not referred to the ordinary membership as ‘Nativists’ ?
    Has he not stated that he joined mainly to inject decency ( or some such paraphrase ) into the campaign to leave the EU ? Thus by necessary implication stating that UKIP membership were not decent people ( or whatever the term was which he used to disparage us ).
    When he appears on TV and radio purporting to represent UKIP but then in fact enunciating a preference for policies ( such as continued immigration ) he is certainly sowing confusion in the ranks of the membership and also amongst the general public as to what UKIP stands for.
    If he represented a specific current of thought within UKIP all that might be tolerable, but in fact he represents only himself.

    • Provisions on disciplinaries are in part XI, alas way too long to be allowed as a comment. There is no list of offences – elsewhere, belonging to another political party permits cancellation of your membership on discovery – and any member may submit a “complaint”. What happens then is up to the disciplinary committee. There are conduct prescriptions in the rule book wherein features the not bringing the party into disrepute that you mention. The onus would on the complainant to prove that Carswell had directly caused disrepute. Bit tricky surely with our brawling MEPs and variously bickering and leaking former leadership candidates.

      • Well if he has indeed referred ( directly or by necessary implication) to UKIP members as ‘nativists’ and / or has more generally stated or implied that UKIP members are such that his presence amongst us within the party was necessary to cleanse us of our sin ~ then to me that certainly amounts to a prima facie case of bringing the party into disrepute ( because why should not a general member of the public, hearing such criticisms, not pay heed to them, particular when they come from a person with the standing of an MP ? )
        What I do not have access to are direct quotes of what he has said in this vein .

        • Lydia Seetulboseea // March 4, 2017 at 10:09 am // Reply

          When Rhys uses the phrase “bringing the party into disrepute”, does that apply to comments people put on Facebook? Some of the comments on sites such as ‘UKIP presenting Nigel Farage’ I have to remove because they are very racist and hostile and offensive. Comments about Moslems implying they are all paedophiles/jihadists etc. I think these comments bring us all in UKIP into disrepute. When I’ve been out leafleting and get called racist/fascist, it’s not helped by having comments like this in the public domain. My family is like United nations but I still get called racist. We as a party should have ZERO tolerance and expel these people. That must be one of our pledges if we are to grow.

  12. Carswell joined UKIP in good faith believing it was a radical Libertarian Party in formation, which he could become the leader of. Talk of him jumping ship from the Tories to save his electoral hide from a UKIP threat in Clacton is without foundation. UKIP wasn’t standing candidates against him because of his anti-eu views, & if it had he would easily have seen off the challenge wearing Tory colours, & he had a comfortable professional political career future in Westminster set up for himself as a principled back-bench M.P. in his middle years, which he risked by turn-coating on the Tories.

    Unfortunately since joining UKIP, although he has achieved substantial influence in the party’s hierarchy, he’s been undermined by an antagonistic relationship with much of its rank & file, caused by its semi-fanatical personal loyalty to Farage; by the fact that UKIP isn’t at heart a Libertarian Party, & by his own egotism, which has made him unpopular with it.

    On a superficial level this is a personality clash between Carswell & Farage (caused by Carswell’s desire for Farage’s job as leader when he held that post), but on a deeper level it’s becoming apparent that it’s a more profound fight for the soul of the UKIP. Is it going to become, as characters like Suzanne Evans/O’Flynn want, Liblabconkip, or as Carswell wants – a new radical Libertarian Party, or what the Faragists are, i.e. Powellite Classical Liberalism? The lodestone issue that this philosophical political battle of has settled itself around issue of foreign immigration.

    I suspect that Carswell has despaired of winning the second option now, & is seeking a route back to the Tory Party.

    • Carswell appears merely economically liberal. There is no evidence of libertarianism. No Tory is a radical libertarian and Carswell ceased to be a member of the Tory party (but not ceasing his Tory allegiances) over the EU only. While leaving the EU is a necessary first step in any libertarian agenda it does not make leavers libertarian. His disdain for ordinary kippers, “nativists”, his near silence on immigration, suggests he may be more of a globalist. The uncertainty about what he stands for is indictment itself.

      • As far as I understand Carswell’s position it is as purist Libertarianism as you will find in England’s politics. He is ideologically a Free Tradist in all circumstances; believes reducing government power is always the correct thing to do; doesn’t believe that governments should impede migration; is against government involvement in the marketplace; he’s for the virtual abolition of the Welfare State; is against the existence of the NHS; is anti government action on global warming; doesn’t believe that government has the right to prohibit the private ownership of firearms; etc., on & on it goes, he’s published books on it & he has voted along these lines consistently in Parliament for several years. The core of his ideology is Libertarianism, i.e. freedom of the individual from the impediment of governmental power.

        • Ah Carswell the quiet libertarian, so quiet that no-one noticed. He doesn’t believe that governments should not impede migration? Really? Worse than I thought.

      • He isn’t silent on immigration, he is pro-immigration! Only today he has re-tweeted complaints that UK immigration forms are too complicated. The guy represents every sell-out of the British people that rank and file kippers detest

    • No. Carswell has always disliked UKIP and UKIP supporters. He freely admits that he joined UKIP in order to sabotage it because he didn’t want “the wrong kind of euroskeptic” involved in the referendum campaign. He freely admits usong “nativist” as code for racist when describing UKIP supporters.

      Don’t believe me? Listen to him saying it:

    • Either way it was a career move.

    This is a sort of mental disorder similar but worse than Stockholm Syndrome.
    It is characterised by extreme self loathing through guilt of being from a rich white middle class background and leads to a disproportionate belief upon global racial/cultural unity through the rich world ‘atoning’ for the sin of being rich successful and technologically advanced.
    With poor whites the reaction is schizophrenic as yes they are poor but it might be their own fault because they are white.
    Carswell in reality a classic Liberal in the mould of Gladstone is in a crusade to reform UKIP from within on the basis that it has been successful(so worthy of parasitic infestation) and that most active members are Home Counties tory types. This crusade has given him high status in the media. Those who are his allies in all this share his mindset.
    Most people who voted UKIP in 2014 in the Euro elections disagree profoundly with Carswell’s politics as do most Brexiteers of last year.
    That the Chair of UKIP ( no-one voted for this person) is comfortable with Carswell demonstrates the appalling state of UKIP today.

    • Excuse me, CK, I hope you don’t mean Welsh as in ‘Welsh’!
      But I agree with you, the Chairman is part of the UKIP problem, he is one of the unelected sycophants that Nuttall is comfortable with, which, as you say, tells you all you need to know.

  14. Dear Stout , I agree about Carswell. It is very annoying when he sabotages UKIP but I personally don’t care enough and have never said Carswell must go. After all, the Tories suffer Anna Soubry and Nicky Morgan, I would say that Carswell is a pale shadow of those two!
    But our current Leader is a different matter. I know you say that we cannot remove him, but very sadly I have to conclude that if he stays, he will finish UKIP unless he changes radically, and I just don’t think he is capable of doing so.
    He has no judgement, and worse, no vision for UKIP, and even if he had, he is unable to articulate it in a manner that will enthuse. The only thing he has got at all excited about is an English Parliament, which some here support, but which I think is both the least of our worries and very short sighted, in that it could easily turn into the first Muslim parliament in Britain.
    Nuttall’s idea of unity is to surround himself with Yes people, most of whom are as talentless as he is. He will never bring in, or search for the talent we need, and we will never expand our rapidly shrinking membership base. Does anyone think that
    People would want to join UKIP because they are excited by the ideas of the Leader?
    As to Banks, he obviously thinks that Carswell’s actions will continue to sabotage UKIP, and he would be wasting his money. But you may know if we can afford to turn down his offer, which included bringing in talented people to reorganize the shambolic state of UKIP H.Q, which I have given up on, as nothing works and I can’t even get NEC minutes. My assessment is that membership is now down to hard core support, and without Arron we will go bankrupt anyway. But you know better than I do.

    • When I said you know better than I do, reading it back it comes across as a snide comment, and was in no way meant like that, Stout, I respect you greatly. I meant that you probably know better than I do the actual state of the UKIP finances, as I have always assumed you are more than a humble foot soldier,

      • Dee, Banks has not donated for some 18 months or so. It is a media repeated myth that he bankrolls the party. UKIP stares into the abyss (again). Nigel is not leaving UKIP – he still thinks Paul can learn and grow – and without Nigel Banks is too pussy to start his rumoured alternative party. The members have been let down (again) – decent, salt of the earth, committed kippers who have been loyal throughout – and this yeoman is furious at the betrayal of them (again) and now about to pick up his pikestaff and go after every chancer and interloper infesting the hierarchy. There is no alternative to UKIP and I believe I will be joined by many in the fight to get our party back. Do not give up hope, prepare for the long term, focus your anger. We poll 10 to 13% nationally – despite the farce that we are. We can still build a future. And we will.

        • I will try, Stout! I was referring to Bank’s current offer. Are others willing to finance what is undoubtedly a must, re-organization of online stuff from HO. I don’t know how many letters I wrote
          Pointing out I was a member as well as very small donor before I got acknowledged. Now, when I try to download NEC minutes, it comes up Not Known or something similar. I have given up!

          • The only other fly in your argument, Stout, is that I wonder if Nigel, who I dearly love and admire, is actually a very good judge of character. Is it just loyalty that has him believing in Paul. Paul has often distanced himself from, or disparaged Nigel, especially since Trump. So they obviously don’t think alike, or Paul is not Brave enough to publically endorse what Nigel is currently doing.

          • Stout Yeoman // March 3, 2017 at 2:09 pm //

            Nigel is a hopeless judge of character. He supports Nuttall because he sees no-one else (or perhaps does see someone – Evans). A case of cling to nurse for fear of something worse.

  15. With only £33,228 in donations in the last quarter, just three grand more than the Women’s Equality Party, there does not seem much “means” for HQ to live within.

    • Meant to be reply to icini123.

    • Due to the party being in deficit, any money you give at the moment would not be for any future campaigning, it would simply go to paying back Chris Mills and Alan Bown their loans. Indeed, these are the real powers behind the throne, they can pull the plug at any time and put UKIP into liquidation as it is a company which, without their ongoing support, would be insolvent. Hence making any donation is pointless.

      • Not quite. I believe they have converted their loans into donations precisely to save the party. But I should agree no more donations without reform.

        Unlike Banks who has not donated at all in the past year, Mills and Bown are the party’s heroes but who are careful not to dictate. Unlike Banks they are not trying to buy influence. May be time they did.

        • actually Banks made a donation as recently as september 2016, and put £150k in through ROck Financial and £35k in his own name during 2016. but you seem correct on Mills, the GFS loans were converted into cash donations. I think Banks is trying to buy influence in order to reform party. It is pretty clear this is now Douglas Carswell’s party and anyone who doesn’t like that can Foxtrot Oscar. But that means around 80% of ‘old UKIP’ members are no longer wanted.

  16. I agree that UKIP must be saved, but clearly we need rid of Carswell. He is hostile to the party and its members. He uses his media profile to taunt, demoralise and discredit us.

    I didn’t realise he could sue us if expelled. What grounds he would have? We would simply be cancelling his UKIP membership. He would continue to be an MP.

    Under what circumstances can he be cleanly expelled?

    • We have a constitution and rule book. Failure to follow that, or to reach a decision perverse on the facts, would permit Carswell to seek a review by the courts. Unlike Evans’ fact free, emotional rant when she sought High Court review, Carswell would likely engage a professional firm of solicitors who would do a proper job. Unless he leaked his own emails, private, inconclusive correspondence is not grounds for correspondence. Public vilification by a former leader is not grounds also. He has been embraced by two leaders since Nigel stood down. The doctrine of laches stops us going back to earlier offences unless he has been repeatedly warned about his behaviour. Our pussy leadership won’t have done that. Political disagreements are common. We have no more grounds for expulsion than Major did over the `bastards’ and many other examples of standoffs within parties.

      • Well he has to go so how can we get rid of him? What authority does the executive have over Carswell? Or have we lost our party?

        • Nigel couldn’t get rid of him, so the chance of any of us being able to is nil. The only people that could are Chris Mills and Alan Bown.

        • SK,

          Why son’t we say he is ‘not fit for purpose’, that seems to be commonly used now, and there is no better example than him.

  17. Carswell was a pain to the Tories and he continues that trend in UKIP, we were desperate for converts and accepted people we should not have done. I don’t much care if he stays and is quietly sidelined or goes but I do know that any attempt to form new party will fail and simply set us back years.
    Mr Banks was very good to us and we must be grateful but I’m not about to be threatened by him into supporting his personal agenda. The branches can survive without his cash and HQ must learn to live within their means. The chance for a shot at the deeply established political elite, left and right, comes once in generations and we are in the process, post referendum, of throwing it away. This is partly due to a few members actually believing the media smears and remaining cross that their candidate did not get elected as leader. My message to them is please cease, immediately. We made our choice and to survive we need to make the best of it. You are behaving in exactly the same way as continuity Remainers and helping them to deliver the lightest possible Brexit, Is that really what you want ?

    • We’ve got to be realistic. The party leadership had been hijacked by Carswell/Evans/Hamilton & Co. Membership is falling fast and donors have stopped donating. Stoke was a self inflicted humiliation, the media are treating us as a laughing stock. Our representatives are uninspiring and (as seen in Stoke) not up to the job. Carswell is going out of his way to say things most Kippers strongly disagree with, and it’s not just him. On several occasions recently I’ve found myself disagreeing with UKIP positions expressed by Whittle and Nuttall, such as taking “child” refugees from France. They all seem unwilling to stand against mainstream virtue signalling, and embarrassed to talk about immigration.

      If this continues UKIP will fade to nothing. UKIP isn’t toxic, and neither are its supporters. I may not agree with everything Aaron Banks says but he’s the only chance we’ve got to stop the rot.

      • DID Whittle and Nuttall specifically support taking the ‘child’ ‘refugees’ from a safe country ( which let them into its territory ) which is in fact just as wealthy as the UK, which has social workers ( ‘assistants sociaux ‘ ) in each of its Départements, and in fact has more than twice the national territory per inhabitant than we do ?
        Do people ever have a decent THINK before they spout the Virtue Signalling nonsense ?

    • Phil O'Sophical // March 3, 2017 at 11:22 am // Reply

      By their friends shall ye know them. It may be a misquote but is appropriate nonetheless. You only have to see the way the MSM treat Carswell compared with the rest of Ukip for proof of his real agenda.

    • Phil O'Sophical // March 3, 2017 at 11:27 am // Reply

      “This is partly due to a few members actually believing the media smears and remaining cross that their candidate did not get elected as leader.”

      Now who is misrepresenting in the manner of Remainers?

      Every critic I have read has been at pains to say that Paul is a good man, and they were prepared to wait and see and to give him the benefit of the doubt. It is not ‘sour grapes’ or anger, it is desperation that our fears have been borne out.

      “to survive we need to make the best of it.”

      Hmm? The way Labour are making the best of Corbyn?

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.