Latest from UKIP Daily

Nuttall must go

The failed gamble of Paul Nuttall’s candidature in Stoke-on-Trent represents the end of his prospects as a successful UKIP leader and he must resign before the party lapses into terminal decline and disrepair.

Throughout his short leadership, Nuttall has advanced few ideas on how UKIP can thrive and prosper as a political heavyweight in a post-referendum, and post-Brexit, United Kingdom, thus meaning UKIP are not making gains and not taking full advantage of the obvious open goal that awaits.

During the early hours of Friday morning, our leader indulged in tedious banality and dangerously open complacency. “Our time will come,” he claimed, as though we merely have to wait patiently, as one does for a train, for the inevitable cascade of new UKIP voters to arrive.

“We’re a unified party,” was the next refrain. Ah yes, in the criminal absence of ideas, this appears to be the sole ambition of Nuttall’s leadership. I know, and you know, that UKIP is not a united party. Besides, even if it were a beautifully united party, with no fracture or rift, it would not necessarily be conducive to success.

The Green Party is a united one. The Conservative party is not. Which of those is successful?

Worst of all, though, was the horrendous and diabolical excuse that Stoke-on-Trent Central is 72nd on the target list for UKIP. This constituency voted around 70% for ‘Leave’; the Labour candidate originally backed ‘Remain’; Labour’s vote share has been on a consistent decline for the last two decades; the city itself has immensely suffered from the slow decay of post-industrialisation; the Conservative party were greatly distracted by events further north; and the element of tactical voting was at an absolute minimum because this was a by-election.

In short, this was a dream opportunity for UKIP to gain a second Member of Parliament, but it was scuppered by employing an establishment tactic of parachuting in a candidate – an incredibly poor and careless candidate, it has to be noted. A local candidate would have fared far better.

The election result was so demonstrably woeful for Nuttall that he could have easily finished in an embarrassing third place; and had it not been for the efforts of an intrepid and stoic band of UKIP activists who campaigned in adverse weather, he would have done.

It is fair to say the events of the last few weeks have annihilated Nuttall’s credibility with the wider electorate, by which I mean the floating voters, and revealed him to be a political lightweight.

The debacle over the Hillsborough comments, as well as other false claims, means that voters will struggle to take Nuttall seriously during a General Election campaign. It also gifts the iniquitous mainstream media and the tired ‘LibLabCon’ parties an endless stream of ammunition.

We must also anticipate an arduous set of local elections in May of this year. UKIP will be defending 149 seats; seats that were gained during the bountiful harvest of 2013, when our party recorded an average share of around 20% of the vote.

It is reasonable to conclude from the evidence of isolated local by-elections over the course of the last seven months that we should be expectant of some rather de-moralising and damaging defeats in May, as well as a dip in vote share.

This will happen as a direct result of Nuttall’s poverty of ideas. The wider electorate simply do not grasp the point and purpose of UKIP in a post-referendum United Kingdom, even though there is a great need for Britain’s third biggest political party to still exist, because our leader has failed to evolve the party.

Furthermore, there appears to be no strategy from the new leader to expand the membership of the party. This is sorely needed as UKIP simply does not have enough activists – whereas Labour (the party UKIP are hoping to supplant) were able to battle adequately on two fronts, UKIP were severely under-resourced by comparison in Copeland – or, indeed, candidates for local elections.

Added to this, UKIP’s presence and activity on social media and the Internet is still rather second-rate compared to the smoother operations of the Conservatives and Labour. Again, there appears to be no recommendations or targets in place from the leadership to rectify this.

For all of those aforementioned reasons – a lack of ability and nous, a famine of ideas, an absence of credibility, and an array of lamentable excuses in defeat – Nuttall must resign for the sake of the very life of the party. Otherwise UKIP faces looming extinction.

Yes, it will be damaging for UKIP to have to go through yet another leadership contest, but the alternative to this is plain: Continuing under the leadership of Nuttall and enduring, over the course of the next three years, a growing reduction of influence in local government, successive by-election defeats, and a steady evaporation of our four million voters.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
About Joshua Pearce (3 Articles)
Joshua Pearce is a member of UKIP

43 Comments on Nuttall must go

  1. Margaret Dennis // March 6, 2017 at 7:38 am // Reply

    UKIP has missed its best chances and I am no longer a member. No need to blame anyone now, just close down and get behind Arron Banks, LeaveEU and the formation of a new party. One that will be radical with the most popular policies ie. Islamification, Immigration, EU (on steroids in the SW of England with the help of unelected LEPs), oversupply of jobs here, farmers (richer than councils) riding roughshod over laws on building. Our British Bill of Rights must be policy, environmental issues and the loss of agricultural land for food production. An English Assembly or the abolition of all others to re-unify the country. The UK needs a party willing to undo all the EU policies on some building due to us already having a high density of population (ignored every time I mention this).
    I doubt this will be seen as my other items disappeared, but I delivered 12,000 leaflets, spoke on the doorstep locally and organised/took part in 5 street stalls during the referendum campaign. Our local MP told the CONs that Remain would win Tiv/Hon but we undid his work and can again with the right people, Nigel Farage spoke for me.

  2. Have just seen today’s interview with Andrew MARR.

    WHY the apparent evasiveness over the issue of who exactly it was that he ‘knew’ who died at Hillsborough ?
    The unfortunate individual /s concerned is / are not going to be hurt by being named.
    Even more bizarre, but in the same vein, was evasiveness over the question ‘ Where have you been on holiday ? ‘
    The answer was ‘Somewhere in these British Isles ‘ ( or something to that effect I forget the exact words used.)
    Now WHY on earth would anyone not wish to give a straightforward answer to a perfectly straightforward question ?
    We know that Mrs May went to Switzerland for her last holiday. Why should we not know, if we care to, where Paul went ? I don’t care at all, but fail to see any legit reason for it to be a secret.
    If the answer is, in fact, ‘ I didn’t actually travel to a specific place for my holiday, I just had a complete break / switch off from the media at my home ‘ or something along those lines ~ why not say so ?
    It just all continues to give an impression of lacking forthrightness / straight talking.
    Can anyone here supply a possible explanation for not disclosing the holiday location ? Or the name/s of the person/s he knew who lost their lives at H’boro ?
    [ On the positive side, the weirdo grouse shooting / dole queue suit has been ditched ~shame same cannot be said for the beard. ]
    http://www.ffl.org.uk

  3. Nuttall is one of many problems.

    1. Sack Oakden.
    2. Sack Whittle.
    3. Nuttall may resign after he makes sensible replacements/we get slaughtered in the local elections in May.
    4. Banks is an egomaniac, a blowhard, and a fool. Anyone who supports renationalisation should be kept as far away from UKIP leadership as possible.
    5. At least our lone MP is a Glastonian Liberal, and not a hack for the MEP from the SE.

  4. As so often from Dee : a post full of bitter but necessary truths.

    As I read other reports : Arron Banks is not at this stage asking Paul N. to resign, merely to allow him ( Banks ) the Chairmanship.

    Provided only that the current Chair is appropriately compensated either financially or with another posting, for premature loss of office I would have thought this would be a very reasonable compromise.

    It might help if A.B.’s westmonster website had some mechanism for feedback or posting articles ( as does ukipdaily ).
    So I am not wholly enamoured of A.B.’s methods, but he claims he can do great things with the Chairmanship so why not let him try ?

    BTW ~has anyone from ukipdaily attempted to organize a reciprocal LINK between this site and westmonster ? I would have thought both websites would benefit therefrom, both in terms of traffic and cross fertilization of ideas ?

    Stoke was an wholly unnecessary disaster : we LED in the polls at the start…..we LED…..
    Completely unlike the usual FPTP situation where we start off with the wide perception that ‘a UKIP vote is a wasted vote ‘.

    Losing the campaign was down to a series of unforced errors on the part of the candidate / his minders, starting with the ludicrous mis-statement as to his permanent address, which gave a complete entrée to the MSM to re hash the PhD-Gate, Footballer-Gate and Hillsborough~Gate fiascos.

    Then there was the absence from a HUstings at which attendance had already been agreed……..

    Then the bizarre get~up – it all contributed to the Ukip candidate looking even less serious than the grotesque foul mouthed, misogynistic individual who actually took the seat ( on a vote of around 7,000 ~about what I got in Bishop Auckland in 2015, when I came third. My entire budget for leaflets was in the order of £3,000, btw.

    Plus I was an enthusiastic attender at Hustings organized by local worthies. )

    One could WEEP !! 🙁

    http://www.ukipdaily.com/thoughts-results-stoke-trent/

    http://www.ffl.org.uk

  5. Paul’s barely got into the job. C’mon, give the chap a chance.
    For those who imply that every day that passes without yet another change at the top is a day lost, note that there’s no media drip-drip effect right now. Our opponents have fired all their pistols. And some of their shots (e.g., re residence in the candidate’s application) have no substance at all. You don’t judge whether or not someone is residing at an address by poking a camera lens through the letterbox there… There was no intention to deceive, no conceivable advantage to gain – and per my (IANAL) reading of the law, no wrongdoing committed.
    For the sake of argument, is one expected to put one’s current address as “c/o Scotrail’s Caledonian Sleeper, probably somewhere between Carstairs and Watford” if one is headed for one’s new rented house in Pimlico the next day, having signed the contract a couple of days earlier with an immediate start to the tenancy?
    So that complaint is just silly and we in UKIP should not be giving it oxygen.
    Think what the media will make of another change in leadership.

    • He has been given a chance. He stood as a by-election candidate in a dream seat, from a UKIP perspective, and proved himself to be so lightweight that he would have finished 3rd had it not been for a huge volunteer effort.

      You certainly can’t judge whether someone is residing at a particular address by poking a camera lens through the letterbox, but Nuttall himself conceded during an interview with Crick that “I will be [living there], but I’m not now.”

      The wrongdoing committed was that he put down a false address. The Electoral Commission is perfectly explicit in stating that a candidate puts down their current address – i.e. put down the address you’re living at when you fill out the form. The very fact Nuttall didn’t do this and, worse, chose to make his address public on the ballot paper shows his abject incompetence.

      If he had won the election, he could have been disqualified a few days afterward – and just think what the media would have made of that?!

      And, yes, the media won’t be too kind over another change of leadership, but it has to be done. Unless you want to see UKIP polling in single figures and behind the Lib Dems by the end of the year?

  6. I wholeheartedly agree. The complacency with which the party and the leadership view this defeat is unhelpful. It is policy that generates support and members and votes. Our leadership team is prety much the same as before and new blood is so desperately needed.
    Better to deal with that now than wait.
    I believe we’ll have great difficulty in hanging onto seats in May. Perhaps, and if that happens, Paul will have no alternative but to stand down. It would be better for all concerned for him to plan his departure now so we can have an orderly and hopefully wider contest for a truly visionary leader.

  7. We should have stood the local candidate, that was the biggest mistake of the campaign, not anything the media dug up on Nuttall. Any UKIP leader will immediately be tarred and featured by the establishment.
    So he fails to win an election and you want a new leader, how many did Nigel lose ?
    The media pick up and mercilessly hound him over a few very minor technicalities, how many claims were made about Nigel ?
    If you want to join a club run, controlled and funded by one rich man, go ahead. I guess that the party is now split anyway. I think you will find that any new party will take 25 years to get anywhere and the bulk of UKIPs membership will continue to support Paul. This is not America, Banks is not Trump, the US pattern simply won’t work here, we are far too apathetical.
    The biggest problem with UKIP is that we were never fully united and some members consider the Brexit battle is won so why bother, they will find out in due course.
    The establishment remains full committed to retaining as much EU as possible and destroying UKIP to make that easier. Those who’re determined to split our party are actively helping them.

    • Putting down a false address, a very minor technicality?

      You seem to be suggesting he’s so senile, he doesn’t know where he lives.

      • I think you need to understand that candidates change address during elections all the time, he put down the one where he expected to be during the campaign and where the returning officer could find him. His intention was not to pretend he lived in Stoke, everyone knows he is not. I have a candidate who is moving house during the May elections. We have no idea when completion will be, is he to withdraw, because there is a 50/50 chance the address will be wrong ?

        • “He put down the one where he expected to be during the campaign” – Which is wrong, then. The guidance published by the Electoral Commission is perfectly explicit in stating that the candidate must put down their ‘current home address’ (it doesn’t even need to be in the constituency).

    • icini123@aol.com – The predominant reason for wanting Nuttall to resign is his chronic lack of ideas and strategy; if this continues, UKIP will steadily drift into irrelevance. And, already, polling figures will likely show UKIP as being the UK’s fourth biggest party by vote share on a consistent basis soon, slipping below the Lib Dems. But, of course, the Lib Dems have a clearly defined purpose, so this should be of no surprise.

      How many elections did Nigel lose? Well, like Nuttall, only one that he had a serious chance in – though as that ‘one’ (South Thanet, of course) is still under police investigation, it might be a touch harsh to say that!

      The media made numerous false claims about Nigel; whereas Nuttall’s idiocy over Tranmere Rovers/his PHD/Hillsborough/his address claims are all truthful, and they have destroyed his credibility.

      “Any new party will take 25 years to get anywhere” – old thinking, I’m afraid. In the age of the Internet and wide-ranging social media, it would likely take only a fifth of that time to establish a new political party, if it were planned and organised correctly (and if Arron Banks were at the helm, it would be planned and organised in such a fashion, as his Leave.EU model shows). Not that that is the route I want us to go down.

      I want UKIP to remain as a crucial feature of the otherwise-beige political landscape in this country, but it must be radical or it has no purpose.

      And Nuttall is no radical.

      • Joshua, The net result of your diatribes is to fan the flames of factional dissension within UKIP, thereby giving succour to our real political enemies – the LibLabCon.

        There is no doubt that Paul Nuttall let himself, and UKIP, down by failing to audit his blog. But you are swallowing the MSM (and Tory attack ad) anti-UKIP propaganda, hook line and sinker. Unfortunately human beings do tend to massage information in some way – by exaggeration, omission, or commission – as you have done in this article. Nuttall’s petty lies were no worse than Gareth Snell’s, and are simply not on the same planet as Corbyn’s or Cameron’s.

        I would not hold up Aaron Banks as an exemplar. He has previously backed Woolfe, James and Kassim, so his judgement is flawed. Leave.eu was nowhere near as successful as VoteLeave on any level. Turning UKIP into a vehicle for the mere transient amusement of a self-satisfied rich businessman with no real political experience, and no understanding that his factionalism damages UKIP more than his imaginary benefits, is an insult to the hardworking members, and contrary to our constitution, as well as being a divisive step.

        • The best thing for our real political enemies, as you refer to them, would be to keep Paul Nuttall in as UKIP leader. There we can drift aimlessly without purpose and sink gradually down in the polls – as we are doing at the moment: a YouGov poll published yesterday (an organisation that generally produces kind results for UKIP) had us a mere 1% ahead of the Lib Dems.

          The Lib Dems are making a gallant recovery – something of little surprise as they have a cause which people can rally around. What is UKIP’s cause with Nuttall?

          And it’s irrelevant as to which person’s lies were worse. The salient point is that Nuttall’s credibility with the wider electorate has been destroyed. Whether right or wrong, it doesn’t matter; UKIP will not be seen as a political force with Nuttall at the helm. Similar to how Labour are not a serious political force with Corbyn at the top.

          Yes Arron Banks did back Woolfe, James and Kassam, but I’m not sure as to why this is indicative of poor judgement? All of those three walked away for reasons that wouldn’t have been countenanced beforehand; it wasn’t as though the three were terrible political operators.

          And Leave.EU was far more successful (and continues to be) on social media (the area that UKIP needs to harness better) than Vote Leave. 119,000 thousand followers on Twitter for the former; 66,000 for the latter. Over 800,000 likes on FaceBook for the former; 543,000 for the latter. UKIP needs a successful, well-run social media operation in place by the next General Election if it is to make the most of its potential, and Banks appears to be the only one offering this.

          • Joshua, You seem to ground your comments on your imaginary speculations. That may support your opinions but it is not persuasive.

            Clearly it is to the advantage of the LibLabCon to keep UKIP occupied with factional in-fighting, rather than have us unite behind Paul Nuttall. And giving Nuttall only 3 months, including a by-election and a conference, to prove himself hardly seems fair to the man. Nigel Farage has had years to prepare himself.

            It is irrelevant how successful Leave.eu was on social media compared to VoteLeave because social media was low volume, mostly talking to the converted, and unseen by the majority of the 17.4 million Leave voters. The voters mainly got their information from the MSM (TV or internet), leaflets, etc, or had already made up their minds, not from social media.

            Your excuses for Aaron Banks’ poor judgement won’t wash. He was in a position to know them much better than you or I. Even so it was known that Stephen Woolfe was irascible and Diane James was unenthusiastic.

            The problem to which you seem blind, is that you are contributing to the dissension and strife within the party, not solving it.

    • Icini, it was not that he lost, it was how he lost. It was the whole disaster of the campaign, which I forebore to comment on at the time, because of loyalty.
      But now loyalty to UKIP and the necessity of having a vocal opposition ( it doesn’t matter if we have no MP’s,) we can, or could have ably done that from the sidelines.
      What Nuttall has done is destroyed UKIP, and it needs swift action to rescue what is left. People are leaving every day, and if Nuttall had any loyalty to UKIP he would stand down. He might have rescued his position if he had stood firm after the disaster, but he ran away, leaving the UKIP flag to be trampled by all and sundry.
      The reason we were not fully united was entirely down to Nuttall refusing to embrace anyone who was a Faragist – they would have been loyal, he didn’t give them the chance. Arron offered to put in people who would professionalize UKIP, but Nuttall doesn’t want that because he wants to retain his useless Chairman, who presumably helped to orchestrate the Stoke campaign.
      We aren’t stupid, the British public, many of us know Brexit is far from won, but apathy comes from the fact that there is no-one fighting the Brexit corner.
      Loyalty is not admirable if it is blind.

  8. UKIP is too light on policy. Of course our leaving the EU, without retaining any influence by it, is a short term objective that must be supported.
    A stand must also be taken against the Islamisation of our country which is proceeding apace. That requires robust immigration control and limiting the ability of those already here to live by the rules of Islam, particularly the imposition of Sharia law supported by its ally Political Correctness. That will only be a start; we will be overwhelmed soon by their out breeding us unless repatriation is on the agenda.
    Such policies would be welcomed by many who have experienced the takeover of our towns by the invader. If a stand is not taken now then we will lose our country to Islam. It must take priority.
    We must not ignore the march of globalisation either and the world predicted by Orwell and Huxley which is the inevitable consequence if it is not stopped.

  9. Farage’s premature decision to step down from UKIP party leadership with little thought as far as could be seen about the succession process. Farage’s departure reduced the party leadership and top echelon to a rabble, a public spectacle of incompetence and un electibility which continued until some respite was gained by Mr Nuttall reluctantly putting himself forward as the stability candidate.

    Mr Nuttall is not the man for the job long term. The damage done to the party looks hard to fix. The Inertia too great, they have proven themselves unfit to govern at National level despite some unpublicised success at local level. They simply cannot build a stong national, county and branch party machine structure.

    I thought the title of this article was harsh at first but sadly it is the truth.

  10. If he would do it William Dartmouth would be fantastic.
    Superbly knowledgeable, great public speaker, excellent intellect, and a distinctly English sense of humour.
    Oh, and he is already in the Lords ( at least I think so ? ).
    He shows no sign of wanting it tho’.
    Sense of humour is not sufficient on its own but its absence ( as manifested plainly with Paul N. ) is fatal. You have to have a sense of the absurd.
    And if you do you probably don’t get into silliness like exaggerating where you live / Hillsborough / PhD / Footballer……..

  11. I think Farage and Banks have already decided to form a new party and are simply justifying it in advance. ‘We tried with UKIP we really did’. It’s a very old fashioned operation making almost no use of the web by modern standards and with large membership fees. Stuck in the 1980s. What is the price elasicity of demand for membership? Halve the price double the members or more? Farage admired Grillo’s party. Mass member web based parties seem to me to be the future with more direct member input. Low fees don’t matter if you can create a stir. You’ll get donors. A snag is fake cheap members though as Labour found.

    It became too comfortable at the top in UKIP. Curse of parties. Banks is sharp as even the Evening Standard admits today. They call Farage a lightweight. Oh rot he’s a brilliant communicator. Call Carswell a heavyweight. Pass on that one.

  12. Paul Nuttall is a chancer who has gotten a damn lot further than he should of, this indicates how the party big wigs are out of their depth, Hillsborough, PHD, all of a sudden dressing himself up like a poacher.

    Could nobody see it, he looked ridiculous and frankly bizarre.

    I stopped supporting after the failed Carswell, Evans and O, Flynn coup attempt, they should have been throw out but no they have been allowed to stay and basically turn the party into another vanilla middle ground tow the line group of troughers and as for Hamilton good grief it’s as if the party does not want to be taken seriously.

    A total clear out is needed.

  13. Albert Bradshaw // March 1, 2017 at 2:05 pm // Reply

    I had high hopes for Paul as leader when he took up the position. I thought he may well be the right man at the right time to take the North from Labour.
    Unfortunately he has fallen at the first hurdle.The Tories split the Brexit vote in Stoke and he didn’t see it coming. That and the various examples of being economical with the truth, and using the old “member of staff screwed up” chestnut to try and make it go away was cringeworthy.
    Unfortunately his credibility with the electorate is beyond repair, and for that reason he must go.
    UKIP is in grave danger of quickly fading into obscurity and the only thing I can see which may prevent this is allowing Aaron Banks to do what he says he wants to do.
    It will be a gamble yes, but I believe its probably that or bust to be honest.
    In the eyes of the voting public, Nigel was UKIP, and its purpose was to get the UK out of the EU.
    It now needs to change its vision and purpose and convey it to the general public or die.

  14. As someone who supported his candidacy, & was publicly calling for it at the at the time of Diane James’ election to the post, I now have concerns about Nuttall’s leadership.

    After a flying start in the first 6 weeks after his election, with impressive media appearances & some interesting organizational orders within the party’s administration, things deteriorated with:

    #1 A misjudged personal new presentational look.

    #2 The appointment to senior positions immediately of the 2015 GE anti-Farage plotters.

    #3 A series of policy views being expressed on religion, penal execution, abortion, torture used as a public instrument, which sounded frankly odd & sinister.

    #4 A lack of apparent elan & desire to attack the Liblabcon, & the blunder of actually praising Theresa May – when do you think she will ever repay the compliment, whereas on the other hand she’s quite willing to steal UKIP policies? She won’t, because for all her failings she understands to competitive nature of the adversarial political system – you never give opponents an inch.

    #4 A noticeable shying away from the foreign immigration policy area, which is the lodestone issue in England & Wales’ political landscape.

    #5 Labour’s attack dogs found a weakness in Nuttall’s personal armour with the issue of his apparent propensity to exaggerate things, & went after it in pursuance of a decapitation strategy to try to kill UKIP off at this transitional stage of its development into a domestic force.

    Stoke was a missed opportunity in consequence, but a sense of fairness & proportion is required also here. UKIP came 2nd in Stoke, & was only 2500 votes from capturing a Westminster Parliamentary constituency that’s been Labour for 7 decades. Taking into account the problems detailed above, & UKIP relative inexperience in domestic politics – regardless of what the Liblabcon/MSM is now saying trying to talk UKIP out of existence – this indicates the strength of its potential support that lies in the old Labour heartland, waiting to be tapped, & augers well for UKIP’s prospects in the future, if it can fashion itself into a political weapon to do it.

    The question is now whether Nuttall is the man to exploit this great political opportunity?

  15. I’m banking on Banks. And judging by the reaction at our recent branch meeting, so is everybody else there.

    • Banks is impressive in many ways, & if he had stood for UKIP’s leadership after Farage’s abandonment of it, I would have gambled & probably supported him over Nuttall, but there are doubts also. He supported Woolfe, James, Kassim’s candidacies for the leadership – & look where they ended up. He tried to muscle into the Tory leadership contest waving his £ around to get a shoe in the door, only to be embarrassingly given short shrift. He appears to nurse personal grudges which he won’t let go – case in point Carswell, & the idea of standing against Carswell in Claction is electorally silly tactically, as it would just split the UKIP vote, & let the Tories breeze back in there. Also, publicly threatening to withdraw financial support for UKIP if he’s not made its Chair was crass beyond belief.

      • Ajax, Very sound points, especially that those calling for Nuttall to go (I didn’t vote for him btw) also supported Woolfe, James and Kassim.

        The infighting among UKIP leaders has been going on for years, all the way back to Michael Holmes in 2000. Oddly enough it’s always Farage on one side. What a coincidence!!

        Farage is an entrepreneur personality, like Banks is, and so they can’t cope with other people having different ideas to them or, God forbid, actually arguing with them. It’s obey or be labeled as a “plant” or a “saboteur”

      • UKIP needs professionalising and as a successful businessman Banks is the man to do it. Without Nigel we are pretty lightweight but I think Paul,despite his blunders should be given a chance

  16. What does UKIP stand for? The leadership wishes to terminate Douglas Carswell’s membership of UKIP because he is not following UKIP Policies. Why is the UKIP leadership attacking its only MP whilst not showing any leadership to the other UKIP members?
    The first priority should be providing leadership to its members. The only manifestos that I see on the UKIP website are those showing the retired leader. At least one branch detail is incorrect. I have the impression that the UKIP leadership do not know how to lead a party and is emulating the European Union leadership.
    The UK needs a progressive political party to form a government, Ukip is not showing its self as a progressive party, I have no confidence in the party leadership as it is now showing leadership to its members. I have not been able to find a “Whose who” list of regional ‘officers’, why the secrecy?
    I have my thoughts on what should be a single manifesto policy that might win members. I am uncertain how to pass this portal up, who would listen to the proposal?
    I am now considering whether to support UKIP or move to another party.

  17. A brave article, every word of which I agree with. Smokedkipper, if Nuttall is the best we have, I honestly know we are doomed. Bill Etheridge, John Rees-Evans (my favorite, of course!) Ray Finch, not forgetting Raheem – there is talent around, even Peter Whittle who I don’t think has Leadership qualities could hardly make a worse job of it. The CRUCIAL thing about Whoever is the next Leader is that they are willing to OPEN UP the Party to the wealth of talent waiting on the sidelines, not even utilized yet – which is something both J R-E and Raheem said they would do.
    Step down Paul, let Arron Banks bring in the re-organizational people that he has said he would do. Paul Oakden and Nuttall are going to finish the Party off very soon if they don’t. I don’t know if the membership would this time look very hard at candidates, but give them the chance – not a rushed election, this time. The trouble is, there are now very few members left, if the truth, I believe, is told.
    We can rise from,the ashes, but we must expect to write off the May elections – however, it is where we begin once again to get our message out, once we actually have one.

    • I’m not saying Nuttall is the best potential leader we have in the party, but for the sake of our credibility he has to stay for the mid term. Another leadership battle would be worse than anything else right now.

      It could still work out. His recent mauling by the media may have cured him of his mainstream politics delusion. If he stays, that is. His silence since Stoke is worrying. I fear that he might just quit and leave UKIP as a laughing stock.

      • He cannot stay, SK, he has completely lost credibility in the eyes of the public, he (and therefore we) are a laughing stock. What is going on now with Arron and Nigel has meant that the process has been started, if we fail to finish it, or if those Nuttall-ites persuade him that he can ride this out, we look even less decisive, having started something we are not willing to finish. If it had been a case of unfair press coverage, if we believed in our Leader even if others didn’t, we might face things down, but Paul’s disasters are self inflicted – we can have no confidence in his Leadership going forward – on the doorsteps, you wouldn’t be talking about policy, you would be defending the Leader., and waiting for his next debacle.

        • Sigh. The silence of Paul Nuttall since Stoke is deafening. I see your point, I’m not wholly convinced but I guess there’s no good way out of this. Let’s see what happens.

          Apparently Carswells future is now in the hands of the NEC. If Carswell isn’t expelled within the next couple of weeks I will no longer consider myself a Kipper. I hate this.

          • I agree Carswell goes or I go. What a pity that Nigel didn’t groom a suitable replacement before he left, who can take the reigns? As far as I can see the only person who wants it is Paul. Give him a chance, we can’t keep changing leaders.

  18. Lydia Seetulboseea // March 1, 2017 at 11:31 am // Reply

    Yes I agree, Paul Nuttall must go. The Hillsborough debacle, pH D, comments such as “well at least I didn’t say anything racist” when challenged on those issues, and after UKIP throwing everything at STOKE saying “it was only 71st on our hit list”, his disappearance after the election, not wanting to talk to the media, make him totally unfit to be our leader. Knowing how the press will scrutinise every last detail, he should have or got one of his aids to go through his website etc. He squandered a great opportunity for us.
    I can understand Nigel needs a break after working his socks off for us, but I love him, he speaks for me. I wish we still had him as our UKIP leader. We would never have even had the referendum let alone won it without this truly great man.

  19. UKIP’s oddball problem is that an elite class of buddies has arisen based ironically in Brussels. I refer to the 24 MEPs who have been elevated both by merit and by chance. Those close to them such as party workers or branch colleagues bolster them. They are the dominant force in UKIP and they want to keep their power.
    About half of them are good honourable hardworking and reasonable individuals..Stuart Agnew; Jane Collins; and William Dartmouth come to mind. Some plough their own furrow but contribute greatly to the Brexit cause such as Gerard Batten; and of course Nigel Farage has been the dynamo upon which the whole Brexit movement was built.
    Even if all the others mean well viz Woolfe; James; Bours; etc they have all too often acted to reinforce their privilege. There are hundreds of members and thousands of sympathisers who could replace them in a heartbeat.
    Many too many of our MEPs and other self appointed elites were disastrously antiTrump. This includes Jonathan Arnott who at least blogs on here. I urge everybody to watch the President’s address to Congress on youtube. Donald Trump speaks cogently and brilliantly for one hour WITHOUT NOTES.
    Verily President Donald J. Trump is going to be greater than Ronald Reagan or for that matter any other President in the last 100 years AND HE IS OUR FRIEND.
    How dare the MEPs debate/plan to distance themselves from this towering hero of populism!(which they did in Strasbourg at the time of the woolfe-hookem rumpus).I was at the socalled hustings in Guiseley Yorkshire and heared Paul Nuttall make plain his discomfort with Trump style politics.
    We need a Donald Trump or a Marine le Pen. Let us start by becoming a democratic party. I will not be attending any more conferences until we the people can speak at the meetings from the floor.
    Very very sadly I have to concur that Paul must go – Paul is a good guy but he has tragically damaged himself by the mistakes in Stoke. Of course Paul was at Hillsborough and it must have been traumatic for him as a child but it should never have been on his facebook page in that misleading way, and he was not familiar with Stoke on Trent sufficient to win over loyalist labour voters so his residence in Penkhull was a gross error of judgement.

    • Hear hear! I have just submitted an article to Viv on how UKIP could take the genesis of Trump’s Speech to Congress to be a radical manifesto for UKIP, as Nigel encouraged us to do at Spring Conference!

    • Phil O'Sophical // March 1, 2017 at 6:49 pm // Reply

      Totally agree. I did not want Paul as leader, but was prepared to give him a chance. Well, he’s had that chance – in spades (considering the ‘gift’ of the Stoke by-election) – and failed badly. Being a ‘nice man’, as so many are at pains to say, does not alone a leader make. Trump by contrast has blazed his own new trail with that amazing speech, which I hope will have, if not put the lid on the media, taken the wind from their sails somewhat. I expect their whining to sound more and more hollow from now on. He’s just made the presidency his own.

  20. As someone who saw the leadership coronation (not election) of Paul as simply papering over the cracks, I’m bound to agree. All the signs were there months ago in the leadership campaign – big on calls for “unity”, next to nothing on policy, vision or direction. This gave a sense that there would a vacuum at the top, that no attempt would be made to address the growing gap between the leadership and members/activists, plum jobs for Suzanne Evans duly followed, and UKIP are precisely where I feared they would be.

    It is simply a question of which goes first; the latecomers who are determined to drag UKIP onto centre ground irrelevance, or the party itself. Until this issue, that has been undermining UKIP for at least 3 years, is addressed we will continue to see voters and members drift away.

  21. I wanted to disagree with this article but I am finding it difficult. However, who would replace him? If we want to keep our base we don’t need another humiliating leadership battle ridiculed by a mocking mainstream media.

    Nuttall is the best leader available at the moment. He has screwed up (or been screwed) badly but I think it’s recoverable if he changes his attitude & team to a more assertive and radical stance.

    We need to fight media fire with fire. That means visibly getting our house in order, starting with confidently expelling Carswell. Then adopt a distinctively populist-nationalist presentation deliberately designed to antagonise the mainstream media and get Aaron Banks in to professionalise the party operation.

    • I voted for John Rees Evans at the last leadership election (after Kassam pulled out) and would likely vote for him if he stood again. I think Rees-Evans being leader, with Banks as chairman, would maximise our potential as a party of great democratic reform for ourselves and the country as a whole.

  22. I think your conclusion, although cruel, is correct, but too limited in its scope. It is the entire collective leadership that needs to go, not just Paul. They have abdicated responsibility by failing to tackle the Carswell crisis. They appear to racked by such anxiety (or is it rigor mortis) that they are unable to come up with a clear statement of what UKIP stands for and what its policies are. Their silence is deafening. Where is Nuttall? What does Whittle have to say? For me, the last straw was the ‘New Paths for Britain’ document which is lamentable, listing lowering VAT on takeaways as a greater priority than cutting immigration and foreign aid, no mention of word ‘islam’. UKIP is about standing up and talking straight, saying what you believe in, not being mealy-mouthed and pandering. We lead opinion, not follow it. Please, can just ONE PERSON in the leadership team stand up and say they are either for or against Carswell? So we can get it over with and move on?

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*