Latest from UKIP Daily

Open Letter to Paul Nuttall – Part II

[Ed: Part I of Dr Tomasz Slivink’s Open Letter to Paul Nuttall was published yesterday.Part I of Dr Tomasz Slivink’s Open Letter to Paul Nuttall was published yesterday.]

When Theresa May called a snap election, we were completely unprepared. What happened to the promise to select our candidates well ahead of any election? Paul, you’ve been Leader since November. That’s long enough for some progress to have been made by now, yet there appears to have been none.

Subsequent to May’s announcement, each Party only got one chance to put its best foot forward, to share its grand vision. A 30-second ‘elevator pitch’ by which the voters can judge whether to consider us a contender, or ignore us.

I understand the NEC was working on such an announcement. Good or bad, I do not know, because it was all overshadowed and pre-empted by our announcement of the burkha ban – which no one who should have been involved in the decision to announce it was told about.

With this, we burned our one opportunity to make our elevator pitch. This is our grand vision? This is our elevator pitch? This is putting our best foot forward? This is why voters should vote for us now? This is why UKIP is now still relevant, post-Brexit referendum. Whether this was intended or not, this is the message we sent and this is the message the population at large has heard.

If there was an official announcement by the party after that, I don’t know what it is. I am sure nobody does, or if they ever did, remembers it. All they remember is the burkha ban.

It would do no good to say that this is not how it is, that the burka ban was just one policy announcement of many. Everyone gets just one opportunity to make a first impression, to give their elevator pitch, and for us, this was it.

Who could have been so incompetent? Instead of the burkha, can we please ban them instead.

I shall not go into the content of this policy, because Jim Carver and Seamus Martin (http://www.salfordstar.com/article.asp?id=3844) have already eloquently said all I would have said myself. Yes, the establishment is failing to protect the country from a deliberate and concerted invasion and cultural cleansing attempt, and yes, we must hold them to account. But do we do this by calmly advocating effective security policies and proper enforcement of existing laws, or by loudly expressing our hatred of Muslims and advocating draconian and poorly thought out policies, which do a great deal to infringe on people’s liberties, alienate voters (and thus diminish our chances of actually being able to do anything about it) and dismantle our efforts dispelling the (unfair and untrue at the time) accusations that we were a bunch of bigots and racists, while not in any obvious way being effective at protecting the national security.

The more important issue to me is that a policy – whether right or wrong – on this question should have been regarded as our top policy priority.

The frustrating and sad thing is that UKIP is, in fact, more relevant now than it has ever been. A proper Brexit is far from assured. And Brexit is just the first step of our long journey of freeing the ordinary, honest and hard working people from the establishment liberal elite parasites on their backs. This is the grand vision that our traditional members share, that is enshrined in our Party Constitution, that our traditional supporters/voters have come to expect from us. This is the reason that in 2014, 26% of the electorate turned from not voting to supporting us because none of the parties of the liberal elite social democratic consensus represented their views.

And that is, apart from being the honest and moral stance to take, the great historical opportunity, the thing in great demand among the voters in the zeitgeist of the present time. Red UKIP either fail to see this, or more likely, deliberately choose to ignore it, with the intent of deliberately making us irrelevant. And why do we ignore this? Because most of the ruling elite of UKIP now are themselves members of the Establishment elite: would-be professional careerist politicians albeit, to-date at least – and in my view thankfully forever – unsuccessful. The very sort of people we are not supposed to be!

We surely do not think that the voters, and our members, cannot see through that? Both have been voting with their feet, leaving us in droves. That is why we dropped from 26% in 2014 to 13% in 2016 to under 5% now.

Our shift – our unconstitutional shift – to the liberal-left elite in terms of policy has been explained as necessary in order to win elections. Those who honestly and genuinely hold onto our principles and beliefs are dismissed as being away with the fairies, and as having no idea how to win elections – mostly by the same person who espoused these principles in order to win the Cambridge seat in the last General Election which he claimed he believed he could win, which most of us knew was not winnable, and where he achieved results which were closer to the results typically achieved by the Official Monster Raving Loony Party than a mainstream political party, being one of our worst performing candidates, if not actually the worst.

Yet what we now do is put him in charge and follow his ideas for the whole party, for all of our candidates! What do you think will happen? Should we be surprised if the results are the same as his own personal lack of electoral achievement in Cambridge? Our local election results speak for themselves!

Paul, in your e-mail to members on May 5th, you wrote:

“In the local elections yesterday many excellent UKIP representatives lost their seats on county councils despite campaigning hard for re-election. Frankly, there is nothing they could have done in the face of a big national swing to the Tories.”

In some sense, this is true. There is nothing they could have done. Because nobody listens to them. Not the NEC. Not the MEPs. Not the party spokesmen. It’s all driven by a secret unelected cabal of our enemies within.

But it is not true that there is nothing we, as a Party, could have done!

For a start, we could begin following our Constitution and our traditional principles. And drop this Red UKIP a.k.a. new Old Labour agenda which is a betrayal of our Constitution, of our members’ and supporters’ beliefs, as well as being electoral suicide.

The local election results have nearly wiped the Party out. The Party cannot afford another wipeout in the General Election, if it is to survive at all.

We need to stop betraying our traditional supporters and members – not the envious and jealous losers but people who either never voted before, or did not vote for a very long time, and some former Tories, because the existing social democratic liberal elite consensus offered them no one to vote for – and return to our roots. Or we will die.

I implore you, Paul: do the right thing whilst there is still a Party left. Remove Red UKIP from their reins of behind-the-throne power and return the Party to where it belongs, to its roots. If you truly cannot, because it conflicts with your inner beliefs (and there is another issue, of whether the voters will believe you as the Leader, if you change direction again in this way), then please hand over the reins of the Party to someone else who will. But if you decide to leave, then please take Red UKIP away with you as you depart.

Best wishes,

Tomaž

 

Ed: Will comment posters kindly respect our restriction on the length of their comment posts? We’ve been lenient in the last few weeks of local election campaigning, but posts have again increased in length. No more!

 

Print Friendly

39 Comments on Open Letter to Paul Nuttall – Part II

  1. Thinnish FreeThinker // May 15, 2017 at 9:36 pm // Reply

    UKIP is clearly split by a devastating fracture which cannot be healed, between the social democratic, let’s-do-a-Labour-lite, brigade and the true progressives who wish to create a new future, with radical approaches, a new politics. The fight is simply over which group will hang on to the title UKIP. Nothing more.

    • Yes this is the fight, TFT, but let’s get the terms right, shall we?
      Labour-lite? Up to a point. But patriotic, far stronger on defence and security, more protectionist and far less global – and off Labour’s scale when it comes to immigration and culture.
      But true progressives? With even more austerity pot-holes and food banks, fat cats and spivs, foreign utility companies and Chinese power stations? You must be joking.
      Who exctly is going to vote for your version, other than Tories?

  2. Thinnish FreeThinker // May 15, 2017 at 9:29 pm // Reply

    Have a look — in videos and photographs — at Nuttall’s eyes. Is there anything behind them? He must be the most unconvincing public person around at the present time. There may be a private inner life going on in there — one he is not keen to share with the public — but, apart from that, nothing. Even the plastic tv personalities of Marr and Peston are better than that.

  3. Thank you, Dr. Tomaz, for expressing the frustrations of So many, if the comments are anything to go by.
    I absolutely agree that the way everything has been done in the lead-up to this election has been done so incredibly badly that it’s hard to believe.
    I’m afraid your plea for Mr Nuttall to go will fall on deaf ears.
    The root of the problem seems to me to be that the UKIP Chairman, who I don’t recall voting for, seems to have a firm grip on the reins and is relishing the power.
    Unfortunately he couldn’t organize the proverbial in a brewery, and hapless UKIP candidates are fighting with both hands tied behind their backs as a result.
    Leadership isn’t something that can be learned, you either have it or you don’t, the same as vision. Unfortunately Mr.Nuttall has neither, and you have in some ways to feel sorry for a man who is so completely out of his depth. However, if he cared for the Party he would have done the decent thing and resigned after Stoke – he will never live down the errors, lies and deceit – let’s get real, would you, as a voter, think ‘that’s the man to be leading the country’.
    But no matter how far UKIP falls, and if anyone wins a seat it will be on their own merit and nothing to do with Head Office, UKIP will be desperately needed, I am confident, When May delivers nothing on Brexit and nothing on policy.
    It all depends whether, post election, enough members actually come together to reconstruct the Party. But to do that, the Leader and Chairman must go – and we need a membership Election for Wales as well.

  4. Sadly, I think the grit has now been so successfully introduced into UKIP’s gears that it is too late to do anything other than hoping that some people will vote for us based on their memories of what the party stood for before it became so hopelessly compromised. I will, and that is about all I can do. But why should anyone else? There is no sign at all of the public face of the party realising that anything has actually gone wrong, that was avoidable, and that should plainly be a subject for open remorse and repentance. I have joined other organisations just as they have been about to go down the Swannee – I really hope it isn’t going to happen again, or I shall feel I am some kind of Jonah! I cannot believe the speed and depth of the idiocy which has enveloped a party that just 11 months ago was at the height of its achievement.

    • Hear, bloody hear.
      The grassroots who have sacrificed so much have been badly let down by the extremely well off hierarchy.
      UKIP was at the height of its potential influence on June 24 ~and it has all been squandered.
      I despair.

  5. Howard Keating // May 15, 2017 at 2:55 pm // Reply

    Whilst being in full agreement with both the general sentiments and the main thrust of your letter as regards UKIP, Tomaz, I have to express my surprise at your apparent endorsement of the views of Seamus Martin on the Integration Policy as reported in the Salford Star.

    I agree that the announcement of the policy was ill-timed and poorly presented. But the interesting thing is that both Mr Martin and you seem to automatically equate any opposition to the odious legal and political ideology of Shariah Islamic law as ‘expressing hatred of Muslims’ and ‘Muslim bashing’. Surely, any hatefulness is in the dogma; not in the resistance to it.

    And, of course, following Mr Martin’s line of reasoning would mean that all those who opposed the odious legal and political ideology of Nazism ‘were expressing their hatred of all Germans’ and ‘German bashing’.

    No sense in that is there; just like there’s also no sense in pretending Islam is just a religion, like any other.

    Mr Martin’s views sounded ill-informed and intellectually feeble to me.

    • Tomaž Slivnik // May 15, 2017 at 6:26 pm // Reply

      There are a number of Arab world countries where children from a young age are systematically brainwashed to hate the Jews and hate the West. The Western world is being systematically invaded by people who hate us and hold us in contempt. Our governments are doing nothing about it. It is a big problem. We need to hold them to account.

      I acknowledge all this.

      I am not trying to be PC, nor trying to pander to Muslims, but neither do I wish unfairly to ostracize those who are innocent.

      We should solve these problems in ways which are effective, do not punish and alienate innocent bystanders and don’t erode our freedoms. I briefly mention in my other comment below some such options. I am not convinced that the burka ban is effective, but it is intrusive (and our other policies in the same bundle even more so – inspecting young girl’s genitals I think is rather creepy). It just seems to me like a way of saying “The government is doing nothing to stop the bloody Muslims, we’re fed up with the bloody Muslims and to show our irritation, we’ll ban the way they dress.”

      But mainly, it’s a complete distraction. Neither the burka nor FGM are subjects of top national importance. I tried to mention them as parenthetically as possible, yet it is the main thing people who have made sensible comments have picked on (I understand why; and Muslim “hatred” was probably too strong a word to use). If whoever came up with this ban wanted to make UKIP members argue in public about minute details of an obscure subject and make us look irrelevant, they have succeeded.

      I don’t mean to act aloof, but it is for this reason (that I would prefer not to be distracted from things which are, in my view, more important) that I would like to not say too much more about the burka ban.

      • Thank you for your reply, Tomaz, and I fully accept the validity of your comments.
        Where we appear to differ is in evaluating the degree of importance of the issue.

        My view is that Islamification in general, and global Islamist terrorism in particular, are at the centre of some of the greatest dangers facing the world today; and that protecting Britain’s population and culture is a prime, political responsibility which UKIP should, and I think must, embrace vigorously.

        If I understand you correctly, then you feel that there are more important, or more strategically effective, matters for UKIP to be addressing and focusing on. I think that’s a perfectly reasonable point of view.

        My view, however, is coloured by the fact that of the current Home Office list of 71 proscribed international terrorist groups about 75% are Islamist organisations.
        I think that’s a powerful pointer to the problems ahead.

        Of course, only time will tell which of our perspectives becomes reflected in the outcome.

        • When a general election is called and questions are being asked about the relevance of UKIP (at all) and we have 30 seconds to give our elevator pitch to save our neck or forever be cast into oblivion in the public’s mind, we need to state our grand vision, which should include the top few items with the following properties:

          1) they are at the top of the public’s priorities;
          2) they differentiate us from the other parties;
          3) our different position is consistent with what we believe in, we are morally in the right, and our opposition is morally in the wrong;
          4) the public overwhelmingly agrees with us.

          There are enough such issues to choose from. I’ve outlined a few in my various articles in the past. The main theme is that we will rid the common man of the parasitic ruling liberal elite which is corrupt and working against his best interests.

          I am not saying that the threat coming from the terrorist migrant who claims to be a child refugee but is in fact an unemployed adult fighting age male invader is not serious. It is. The deliberate failure to deal with it is a part of how the ruling elite is shafting us. Sweden is at risk of going down the route of American Indians if it carries on as it is, in my view, for example.

          But if we talk about fish and chips and banning the burka in our grand vision statement, we are irrelevant and lack the capacity to see the big picture.

          Also I would deal with the terrorist threat differently. Again approach it from the big picture view of what measures are most effective and are the right thing to do. Start by stopping immigration of fake child refugees who are in fact adult fighting age men coming to commit crimes. Take steps necessary to deport terrorists already in the UK (not possible while a member of the EU). See why the police are not enforcing laws already in existence which should already be dealing with the problem and take steps to ensure they do. Etc.

    • It seems the powers that be took note of Mr Martin’s words and, instead of challenging his blinkered thinking, decided to “play safe” and deselect Anne Marie Waters.

      No wonder voters don’t know what UKIP stands for, from one day to the next.

  6. Speaking as an ex-Regional Press Officer for UKIP (2003-5), but no longer a member, UKIP has more than enough brains available to run a successful party!
    It needs an MD with the ability and knowledge to organise, plan and also collate the resident Membership talent – and use it.

    I’m sure plenty of members would be more than happy to actively contribute via UKIP, to saving our great nation.
    UKIP needs cameramen, sound recordists, artists, printers, designers and people with knowledge of press layout – then it will all come together.
    Also, people with knowledge of transport, law & order, education, medicine, manufacturing, etc….all aspects of life – we are out here – and waiting for instructions, on how we can help!

  7. Which Socialist policies has O’Flynn been putting forward exactly, I’m not aware of any?

    • Good question, Ajax.
      Answer on here none, it seems.

    • Stan, I remember when UKIP members were asked to send off their personal details regarding their skills, experience and knowledge. I did so, along with others and never heard anymore.

      I watched a programme on TV regarding our service personnel returningt to the UK and being made redundant with very little ineffective help to find sustainable employment etc. I wrote to two UKIP MEPs where undemployment or potential unemployment was strong. I never received a response. More recently, I wrote To Mr Hookem who asst confirmed my email but since then, again, no further response.
      For many years upto and after fullt time employment I managed training and resource centres in developing programmes to help unemployed people into real jobs, further education, training etc.

      I suppose the real problem is that if I am alright Jack then buggar the rest applies, there ain’t much point in taking others problems too seriously. Is this what UKIP really stands for?

      • At the moment it would seem so, Martin, but, post election, members are determined to sort things out, clear out the idiots and use, Hopefully, the talents of people like you, of whom there are so many in UKIP – if we bottle it UKIP is finished.

  8. Phil O'Sophical // May 15, 2017 at 2:17 pm // Reply

    Have agreed with pretty much everything in Mr Slivnik’s two-part analysis, so it is a shame that he briefly reverts to our opponents’ tactic on the subject of the Burqa ban. Opposing the burqa is not “expressing our hatred of Muslims,” any more than is banning FGM, Sharia Law, stoning, sundry body-part chopping, and other medieval practices that do not mesh with British laws and values nor facilitate integration in modern Britain. Not that they wish to integrate but that is another story. You do not automatically hate someone simply because you disagree with their behaviour.

    I do agree it was handled badly – like everything else at the moment. The fact that several European countries are already enacting or proposing such a policy never came across. Also naive in the extreme to headline this now, seemingly having learned no lessons, unaware that the media will always pick one issue to misrepresent and damn Ukip, allowing them to say they have give due air-time, whilst ignoring the rest of the message.

    • Happy you agree with me on most things.

      Primarily, the burka ban is a distraction, the wrong issue to put up front. There are far more important issues, both of principle, where other parties are wrong and we are right (or, were, before Red UKIP), which are more important for the country’s future and matter more to the electorate.

      I could (and in future, will) stop there.

      I favour banning FGM, stoning, body-part chopping practices, child rape etc. – but all these things are already crimes. So why is nobody prosecuted for FGM? Laws to stop these practices already exist, but the police have abdicated their duty to enforce them. Giving police more powers is neither necessary nor will help, if they’re not using powers they already have. Maybe more powers are needed to compel the police to do their job and to take action against senior officers who suppress such law enforcement. Laws which waste police time pursuing “hate speech”, “racial crimes” and other PC “crimes” need repealing.

      I don’t favour regularly inspecting young girls for signs of FGM. I think it’s wrong to invade these girls’ privacy and fondle their genitals. There will be unscrupulous and bent “inspectors” doing it for kicks, as there will be damaging false accusations of the same.

      I don’t agree with Muslims being able to stone adulterers, engage in FGM etc. because Sharia Law permits/mandates it. (I’d like government officials be subject to the same laws as ordinary mortals too, but I digress). I have no problem with people agreeing to submit their commercial disputes to binding arbitration if all the parties voluntarily agree to do so, and can all agree on a mutually acceptable forum.

      I think the British way is to let everyone wear what they want. We should pursue measures which are effective at stopping crime and terrorism. Withdrawing from ECHR and deporting preachers of murder and those already convicted of terrorism who abuse “human rights” to prevent deportation and stopping immigration of unemployed fighting age men pretending to be children and pretending to be refugees who are clearly neither would be more effective than banning the burka (for example). I don’t favour a measure which is less effective but inconvenient to all Muslims (and only Muslims), whether criminals or not. If the policy was called “make people’s faces visible”, would you think it’s the best way to fight terrorism?

      • The burkha is an extreme statement, Tomaz, a symbol of refusal to respect our country, that its proponents can do pretty well what they want. This is still our country, and British pepole have a right to object to anything which makes it look like a foreign land.
        But then of course you are a libertarian.

        • Absolutely correct, Q. Tomaz, I would ask, with respect, that you get what Q is saying. Halal and the Burka are in fact political statements of the intent to live under Sharia Law in this country, that’s the point, it’s not a question of letting everyone wear what they want – our libertarian/liberal or whatever you call it way in the West is being used with great effect to cement in place a complete political system, Sharia, which is rapidly gaining traction as the Muslim population grows.

  9. Andrea Bramble // May 15, 2017 at 1:53 pm // Reply

    Excellent analysis of the situation. Previous comments cover most issues. The proof that those at the top are now career politicians is easy to qualify. Two areas have had their candidates remove in order that those at the top get into Parliament. The orginal candidates were very popular councillors with a good following for UKIP. At the last moment one was removed for Paul Oakley to stand instead. What does this show the members I wonder ? They were already disillusioned over the handling and more importantly the timing of the issue of banning the burka. Right now ordinary people are focusing entirely on Brexit.Obviously the NHS and foreign aid are major follow on subjects.Why isn’t UKIP discussing these with ordinary members ?

  10. Dr Slivink I fully agree that we most definitely need to be selling ourselves on policy. Being ‘controversial’ to gain media attention does have its place but also its risks. We should not lose sight that this is in a sense a second referendum not on UK independence per se but rather on what Brexit means to May. It’s a question she has been artfully dodging with her ‘Brexit means Brexit’.

    Mrs. May needs to be pressed on why she is apparently going to ratify the Unified Patent Court Agreement which will bring the unitary patent and Unified Patent Court (UPC) into being. This seems to confirm that to her, Brexit certainly doesn’t mean independence and that she intends us to have us remain, by stealth, shackled to the EU in whatever way she can get away with.
    https://arstechnica.co.uk/tech-policy/2016/11/uk-ratify-unitary-patent-accepts-supremacy-of-top-eu-court/

    Since this on its own would be unlikely to capture the public imagination I believe we should be looking for other hard evidence of May’s real intentions and then going public with what we find.

    Perhaps we should also be demanding that Mrs May agree to a TV debate so we can ask her to tell us what she thinks Brexit really means.

    To do that we would need a brilliant debater …

  11. Thank you Dr. Slivnik, it seems that Nuttall has become the epitome of a cartoon politician, happy to take his MEP’s salary and afraid of losing it if he rocks the boat.

    Heaven forbid he could even be the enemy within if his performance were to be taken as an indicator.

  12. Quite agree that the burkha announcement was mishandled and the opportunity squandered. It should have included all ritual slaughter and a few more things, but that’s not the issue here. Of course they should only be PART of a much bigger programme, concerned chiefly with what matters most to most people – the economy.
    Also agree that what Tomaz disparagingly describes as Red UKIP have done so far – of the VAT-off-fish-&-chips variety – has been totally derisory.

    But that’s as far as it goes. Tomaz’ reference to 2014 says it all – that election was about the EU and very little else. Current reality in 2017 is about a great deal more.
    The analysis falls because not enough people are going to vote for Tomaz’ vision of the Party once the electorate perceive Brexit is a done deal, as they have already. Most of his ‘traditional supporters’ are ex-Tory and will return to the Tories when it comes to a GE.
    Tomaz’ way is the way of the BNP – irrelevance and oblivion.
    Our only chance is to build a patriotic alliance which includes patriotic Labour voters – but they will not vote to further entrench wealth and privilege. We need to act on that or walk off into the sunset.
    The real choice is to stop our biggest threat – mass immigration – or try to out-do the Tories on neo-liberal market economics. Thinking patriots really must ask themselves this question.
    What’s it to be then, everyone on here? Stopping mass immigration, or futile attempts at Tomaz’ libertarianism?

    • Q, You have said before that other member’s ideas are the BNP way – please don’t be so dismissive of those that see the necessity to include a return to British values via an Integration Policy and a return to the values that Stout described yesterday.
      I think working class people are pi$$ed off with paying for people who choose hand-outs over work – and paying people to have children and live lives that they can only dream of.
      What our policies need to be above all is fair. That’s what I hear Time and again – those in genuine need must be helped, the rest should get off their backsides and earn a living – that includes those who for cultural reasons don’t speak English or leave the house. Instead of wasting NHS money on ‘diversity managers’ and interpreters spend it on the NHS – instead of wasting money on gender neutral enabling of schools spend the money on teachers and a proper curriculum which doesn’t include mosque visits.
      Fairness is what people mind about, more than anything else. That includes the fact that everyone is cared for but the British, who always, nowadays, get the rough end of the deal.

      • Then I haven’t made myself clear, Dee. I’m not for one moment equating Tomaz’ views to those of the BNP – far from it. What I’m saying is that to follow his vision for the Party is to follow the BNP’s example of exiting into a dead-end.
        Of course we have to combat the hand-out culture. But we also have to make sure that those who really need help get it. In doing that there will be inevitably be an element of the undeserving poor getting away with it, but the most important thing is that the deserving are not abandoned to abject poverty and hardship.
        AS I have remarked elsewhere on here today, self-reliance and the beneficial role of the state are not mutually exclusive.
        And you know my views about immigration. The philosophy that Tomaz supports, free-market economics, is generally in favour of it.

        • Thanks for clearing that up, Q.
          If, and it’s quite a big if, UKIP survives past this GE and members are determined and have enough grit to move a motion of no confidence in the current clueless cabal, we may actually be able to construct the Policies that a majority of members approve of, by virtue of John Rees-Evans Direct Democracy.
          Everyone would be able to put forward Policy ideas, people would argue for and against, and,those that got a certain proportion of votes would go on to the next stage – until ideas were fine tuned to Members agreement to be included in policy. Inevitably there would be some disappointment, but at least all Policy would be democratically decided. Of course we would only have success with this if there was a clear out of those currently ‘taking control’.
          We now have very few able spokespeople at the top – good people appear to have been sidelined. We would all be able to fluently argue our Policies, because we would all have been involved in the fine detail.
          So fine tune your arguments, Q, in case the miracle happens!

          • I’m trying (very), Dee!
            Tho we shouldn’t kid ourselves there can be a total free-for-all without anarchy. We’ll still depend on a vigorous and intelligent leadership to oversee the process – and there’ll always be a vital role for the leader with vision and judgment.

            Other than a few specific issues (like the burkha), I don’t think we can insist on setting detail. The best we can hope for is to determine the broad thrust between realistic alternatives.

        • Thinnish FreeThinker // May 15, 2017 at 9:06 pm // Reply

          Quercus, Stealing from some members of the population to give to other members of the population — whether the proceeds of such crime go to the ‘deserving’ or to the ‘undeserving’ — and spending vast amounts on any system to make it possible is both immoral and uneconomic. That’s why so-called social democracy fails at all levels.

    • Thinnish FreeThinker // May 15, 2017 at 9:10 pm // Reply

      Quercus, You say that what matters most to most people is the economy. You may have made money your god but please do not assume that you can tar others with the same vice.

      • In a general election – yes.
        What’s actually most important – if you bothered to read my articles and posts properly – is of course immigration, since that affects everything, but regrettably British politics has not yet come to recognise it as the existential threat which it is.
        How much more evidence do you need to accept that immigrfation and the EU are not sufficient to win GEs? I wish they were, but alas they’re not.

  13. Good points Tomasz. The situation is in fact even worse. UKIP ‘management’ are fixated on June 8th but this isn’t the key date of the General Election, the POSTAL BALLOT is the date that matters, campaigns should always peak then – we haven’t even fed the UKIP hamsters that turn the wheels of our antiquated printing presses. Suzanne Evans’ secret manifesto won’t be ready in time, not that it will have any effect on voting nor serve any real purpose because it isn’t for mass distribution, it’s a vanity project.

    We’ve all been saying for a long time, just get policy onto the dreadful national website, so we mere members have some idea what our policies are.

    But surely the spokesmen should produce policy for their particular subjects and be the first point of contact for discussion? Any business or political organisation has a board or cabinet with ‘Ministers/shadow ministers’ that the public recognise as the spokesmen and women in charge of that particular area? Sadly, UKIP were so used to Nigel being spokesman for every subject, that they’ve forgotten how to stand on their own two feet.

    An, Patrick O’Flynn was once head of communications, that was hilarious, now he’s apparently our Economics Spokesman, a sort of Shadow Chancellor. I haven’t heard or seen anything from him on Economics, no one I know in UKIP has a clue what our economic policies are, but hey, we’re only a few weeks from a General Election. Someone said he had a piece in The Sun recently, well how about emailing the membership first, so we know what to say on the doorstep?

    Bottom line here. The UKIP management couldn’t run a whelk stall. Twenty odd MEPs and the only intelligent output we ever see is from Roger Helmer, what are the others doing?

    I have been begging key UKIP seniors to get some videos done, it’s cheap, instant and maybe between them, some might actually be watchable…but they can’t even get that organised. Meanwhile, comparative nobodies get 1 million plus views online. After this GE UKIP needs a clear out of the old order, sack the lot.

    • Russel I agree about the videos – there is a great one that I came across yesterday by Cliff Dixon – bloggers for UKIP, he’s Hillingdon Branch Chairman. reasons why we shouldn’t trust Theresa May. I had no idea that Dan Hannen had been blocked from standing as a Tory, that’s just one reason. Check him out.
      These are the sort of videos that should be on a main UKIP website – all these talented people should have been brought in – instead, it’s just a little video done by him.
      Post GE we must get a proper Party sorted – I fully agree that we need a good clear out, the lot must be sacked, a proper process must be organized independently for election with full prospectuses from candidates, and we have to sort things out. The talent is there, it is ignored – all the previous work by members to achieve a historic victory has been squandered – heads must roll.
      If necessary, we must all try and chip in what we can to get the money to do this.
      Things cannot go on as they are.

    • Thinnish FreeThinker // May 15, 2017 at 9:15 pm // Reply

      Russell, I see pretty good stuff on You Tube from Gerard Batten, MEP, and he is a founder member of UKIP.

  14. I don’t think it’s anything to do with ‘Red UKIP’ in itself really. Nuttall is not up for a political struggle and massive demonisation like Farage. He wants a quiet life and thought that after the referendum he’d walk into an MPs job. When he gets pressed to be radical he makes a token gesture while the rest of the time is trying to be all things to all like mainstream parties. People with fire in their bellies are a threat to his quiet life and big salary. No good.

    • But Mike his token gestures as so inept, as Tomaz has pointed out – he’d have been better off not doing anything.
      Nuttall, and the Chairman must go post GE, It’s up to members to reclaim UKIP – it will be needed again, we can be sure of that. The grit that got us the referendum win will get us a proper functioning Party, I am confident. The important thing is that disillusioned members stay to be able to do it.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*