Latest from UKIP Daily

The Election – Another Post-Mortem

Friday night, 8 May, was a time for crying-in-the-beer.  We had lost 50% of our Parliamentary representation and it seemed that we had been given the Christmas turkey treatment by the electorate.  However, it turned out that we had quadrupled our vote in terms of pure numbers, and we had come second in 118 constituencies, albeit sometimes a distant second.  So it wasn’t all bad.

So what happened?  The Tories ran a campaign of fear, fear of a weak Labour government being dominated by a hoard of rampaging Scots, bent on looting the English taxpayer’s pockets and carrying the spoils back over the border, and it worked very well.  We saw first the news report of Nicola Sturgeon saying how she would be writing the next Labour government’s budget.  Next we saw Alec Salmond saying it was going to be him writing that budget.  Then it was Len McCluskey saying it was going to be him writing the budget.  Finally someone from the Labour party said that it would be Chancellor Ed Balls who would write the Labour budget.  Talk about the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse descending on our economy!  If that wasn’t enough to scare the hell out of anyone with any economic common sense, then I don’t know what would be.

Poor old Joe Public was so scared of the scenario that the Tories painted that he voted Tory out of panic, believing that voting Tory was the only safe way to avoid economic Armageddon.  All of our issues, immigration, EU domination, etc were set aside, and all the voters that would have voted for us in different circumstances lent their votes to the Tories out of fear.

What did we do wrong?  The answer is nothing.  We campaigned on the issues we thought important, and we had a set of good policies that had been properly costed.  We seemed to be the only party that even mentioned the national debt, let alone what to do about it.  I suspect that the main parties had a guilty conscience about running up such a phenomenal debt, and so wanted to keep it quiet.

So where do we go from here?  I suggest that we carry on doing what we have been doing.  Keep the party and its message in the public eye as much as possible, and challenge the other parties whenever we can.  It is likely that the Tory backbenchers will force an EU referendum, against Cameron’s wishes, but it is likely to end up as a biased exercise, loaded in favour of remaining in the EU.  We still have our MEPs, led by Nigel, who can make a noise about this, and the media will have to give us share of exposure as this is a European issue, and we speak for Britain on the issue of Europe.

This election may have been a bit of a Dunkirk for us, but if we just keep the faith and carry on existing, we will eventually have our D-Day, which will eventually result in a VE Day for Britain.  Then we can all give our livers some real exercise!

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
About Phillip Smith (43 Articles)
Phillip Smith is a retired aircraft maintenance engineer and former serviceman. He has been a member of UKIP since 1995.

16 Comments on The Election – Another Post-Mortem

  1. Some of us were inflicted with Ex Tory candidates who should never have passed HQ assessments, due to the baggage they brought with them, especially anoying when better local people failed to gain approval. Yes, we chose them at hustings, by a very narrow margin because our preferred chap did not pass and members turned up who we had never seen before and did not know the history of the outside candidate.

    Loyal little Ukipers as we are, we did our best to get them elected anyway but PLEASE, pay more attention to local party views next time and ensure local candidates get bonus points. Vet them all you like, that’s clearly necessary, odd nuts are still getting through, but give me an honest amateur every time over someone from outside who is more or less a clone of the sitting Tory candidate.

    Moan over. We were unlucky, as many have already said, Dave’s move to insist the nationalists were all over English TV paid off very well indeed and cost us many votes.
    We did do quite well in the District elections, 170 odd councillors is an excellent start at this level, thank you for my own seat. It will be a big help next time and in 2017 when the counties vote again. In no way must we give up now, this fight has only just started. Delighted Nigel is staying but I fear for his health if he maintains his usual pace for another 5 years. Take a rest boss.

    • Roger Turner // May 14, 2015 at 5:38 pm //

      What a lovely posting, you`ve hit the nail on the head, re those who usurped the efforts, often over many years of “amateurs” who when there is a mass desertion of the fair weather “Professional” politicians, will perhaps leave us who have the real future of the UK at heart to get on with the real work of fulfilling the name on the label.
      We are after all, the UK INDEPENDENCE Party and in my opinion lost an ideal opportunity of not just looking for a referendum, but pointing out a vote for UKIP was a vote to leave the EU.
      We would now be starting off this new campaign with 3.8 million committed voters possibly in the bag.
      Now we cannot be sure of any of them and need to start again virtually from scratch

  2. Alright the subject is “Another Post _ Mortem”
    So lets have a literary one
    I cannot quite remember the quotation accurately nor the author, but it may be Kipling, but my Wife learned it from her mother and instilled it on both my daughters who are in the process of passing it on to grandchildren.
    it goes:_
    “If in a tightish place,
    Show not it on your face,
    But smile and swagger on”
    Who is going around with the widest “forced” smile on his face?.
    Cameron of course – he`s living a nightmare.
    He never expected to win this election, he thought the best he could get would be another coalition or a minority supply basis parliament,
    there never was going to be a referendum, his erstwhile partners would not “allow” its inclusion.
    Failing that it was life with dear old Red Ed and no fear of a referendum.
    So here we are, the smoke and mirrors campaign has begun already, present effort is to create the prospect of an early referendum, to panic the nation before it has regained its senses, by “winning” an optout from the “ever closer union clause” (which apparently the French already have and there are other EU countries agreeing to our optout also) under what is called the Luxembourg Compromise.
    This will then be presented as a great victory “game set and match” and heigh ho we can all happily vote YES to stay in – only problem with that is the sting in the tail, the “real” negotiations begin after the referendum result no or inconsequential change and the EU and their poodle Cameron are home and dry
    This time with an unforced smile on his face, and such an obscene swagger (a la you are sooooh Money something or other)
    It`s up to UKIP to shake him rotten, just like that guy in Leeds did to Milliband..

  3. What a ‘glass half empty’ type of article!
    We got 3.8 million votes for goodness sake – over twice as many as the SNP – it was a very good result!! It is a shame that the vote did not translate into seats but that is the FPTP system and the Libdems lost that referendum.
    Roger Turner below makes a good point – we need to start convincing the doubters over BREXIT and quickly because we would lose a referendum now and Cameron knows that and the press chatter today indicates that there have been well-placed Tory leaks to get us ready for an earlier event.
    Farmers are very worried – they see CAP subsidies from EU as a major part of their income and fear it would stop if we left the EU. Of course many of them don’t realise that it is just some of our money coming back to them but those that do also realise that the EU not the British government decide how much is paid for what. I am not sure if our manifesto budget which made good use of our saved EU contribution took into account that we would have to pay farming subsidies ourselves – farmers are worried that the amount would be reduced because UK thinks urban industries not rural.
    We have lots of debates like that to develop to convince people that leaving the EU would not be the economic disaster that the crooks in the media and Government paint it as.

    • Brian OtridgeBrian Otridge // May 13, 2015 at 1:53 pm //

      On the CAP, I can answer you in two ways:

      1. For a start, we were only claiming the NET gain in EU contributions at £10Bn a year. We pay in £55m/day (and rising) which is £20Bn. The £10Bn coming back is made up of all that money spent on projects which proudly display the “Paid for by the EU” logo AND CAP payments to UK.

      2. The Agricultural section of our manifesto contained the concept of “A NEW UK SINGLE FARM PAYMENT” which would have replaced CAP payments to keep the farmers going, but taking away certain iniquities under the present system. (See http://www.ukip.org/manifesto2015 for download and search for that title I quoted)

  4. pamela preedy // May 12, 2015 at 10:46 am //

    It’s not really fair to say that Joe Public was scared of ”the scenario the Tories painted” as if they magicked it up. Nicola Sturgeon made her intentions absolutely clear on national TV, and Ed Miliband’s denial about the messed-up economy the last Labour government left behind was also televised. Even if the Tories had said nothing about it, the voters could see for themselves what would happen in the event of a Labour win. Relief that this didn’t happen is mingled with disappointment over UKIP’s loss of the MPs we expected, but UKIP’s greatest moment is still to come in our campaign to ensure a referendum that reflects the majority wish to leave the EU.

    • Only one thing I would point out Pamela, as I have said on another thread just now, the PRIMARY task is getting the public to vote POSITIVELY for a NO vote which must be a stated consequence of the referendum lead to BRexit and thus a brighter and more settled POSITIVE futureUK.
      UKIP must emphasise the positive “goodies” in leaving.
      So in effect by voting NO they will actually be voting POSITIVELY for (Buzz word) CHANGE. There`s millions of voters out there who will just love to give “No Change” Cameron a poke in the eye, I consider we should work on that aspect of Labour/LimpDims/SNP, strictly limited to this one issue in joining our crusade for a new political deal

      • pamela preedy // May 12, 2015 at 7:03 pm //

        It’s very hard to persuade people that voting ‘NO’ is voting positively.
        I don’t know what referendum question you have in mind, but it should be framed so that ‘YES’ is the answer. This was the SNP’s strategy in last September’s independence referendum and it worked very well. The wording was something along the lines of ”Do you want Scotland to be a free independent country?”

        The wording of the EU referendum is crucial and I hope that sufficient pressure is exerted on Cameron to agree to wording that elicits a resounding ‘YES’ from the electorate. Believe in Britain.

        • You must be joking – Cameron does not want to leave the EU so will chose a question to which his answer is YES!

          • pamela preedy // May 13, 2015 at 1:19 pm //

            What makes you think that Cameron will be allowed to decide on the wording? He didn’t choose the wording of the Scottish independence referendum. It’s more likely that there will be cross-party consultations with input from various organisations, including the Electoral Reform Society one hopes. He will also have to take into account the views of his anti-EU back benchers. It’s also up to UKIP to drive the agenda on this issue as we have on others in the last three years. Cameron wouldn’t even have called a referendum if it hadn’t been for UKIP support and pressure.

          • pamela preedy // May 13, 2015 at 1:19 pm //

            What makes you think that Cameron will be allowed to decide on the wording? He didn’t choose the wording of the Scottish independence referendum. It’s more likely that there will be cross-party consultations with input from various organisations, including the Electoral Reform Society one hopes. He will also have to take into account the views of his anti-EU back benchers. It’s also up to UKIP to drive the agenda on this issue as we have on others in the last three years. Cameron wouldn’t even have called a referendum if it hadn’t been for UKIP support and pressure.

          • ….and what was the Scottish question? Admittedly not the one the Nats wanted!

      • While I agree with the thrust of what you say as someone who gets little direct benefit from EU I am personally more motivated by its negatives and wish to escape them but I can recognise the great economic benefits for UK too

  5. Antony Nailer // May 12, 2015 at 9:32 am //

    To ‘notaracist’, HSBC might leave the UK because of UK bank taxes and because the EU is planning transaction charges. If I was a bank that had its roots in Hong Kong that’s where in the present hostile climate I would relocate the headquarters to.

    To Philip Smith, your summary of the various claims for the future budget proved there was no coherent message in the case of a Labour-SNP deal.

    Actually Lynton Crosby is now prancing around in the belief he did well. Actually he was no better than those running the Labour campaign as otherwise one party would have had a clear lead earlier.

    When standing in the voting booth the threat of the Scottish SNP was greater than the threat of the EU. That’s why UKIP didn’t get the swing vote.

    So in Scotland the voters had a clear choice bewteen the SNP with a clear message and Scottish Labour with a confused message. So there they voted SNP.

    In England the voters also had a simple choice between the Conservatives with a message to try to keep spending down or SNP with a ransom note. So they voted Conservative.

  6. The problem with the campaigning of LabCon, I no longer include the LibDems as they are a spent force on a downward spiral,is the negativity of it. We no longer get told what parties will do but what the other parties might do, the consequences it might have on the banking system and big business. Honda never left Sunderland because we didn’t join the Euro and HSBC despite their posturing will not leave the city, it’s to lucrative. Our political agenda is being steered by the banks and business because it is financially beneficial for them not the country. Cameron must get hold of these people but he won’t because he is in their pockets.

    • JulianTheSceptic // May 12, 2015 at 12:25 pm //

      Think you mean Nissan in Sunderland. The locals have got wise to their constant carping and hints about more government support….

Comments are closed.