Latest from UKIP Daily

Where is UKIP’s General Election 2017 Strategy?

Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely – Lord Acton 1870

Due to the suddenness of Mrs May’s 2017 General Election announcement, does UKIP actually have a realistic election strategy in place? Obviously everyone will have his or her own ideas but without some central leadership the outcome for UKIP must be chaos and waste of resources, and worse – providing an open door for attack by other parties. Recovery and rebuilding the party from major mistakes and loss of public support could take a long time.

Any strategy must take cognisance of the current socio-economic and political situations, SWOT analysis (strengths, weaknesses, threats and opportunities for UKIP and the other parties), available resources and long term objectives.  It is obvious that the TINOs (Tories in Name Only) are heading for a substantial majority. Regardless of their shortcomings, they are the only apparently credible party of government. Mrs May does have form on leftish liberalism, authoritarian policies, wasting taxpayers money, silly decisions, winding people up and in being bigger on rhetoric than results; something of a reincarnated Tony Blair in a skirt.  Can she be trusted given her declared raison d’être for calling this election; to give her (BREXIT negotiating) power? But the other parties appear worse all round hence her aura of competence; a shining Snow White amongst the seven political dwarfs. After 8th June it is unlikely there will be an effective opposition to scrutinise and challenge government excesses or to offer better alternatives.  Not good for good government or democracy.  

Realistically, with limited resources and public perceptions of competence in central government, there is not much UKIP can achieve in this election except lay some groundwork for the future. Reputations and trust take time and effort to build up. Having policies is ineffectual without credibility; nobody is interested in even finding out about them without credibility built on some sort of reputation.  Some presence in Parliament would raise credibility, public awareness and public perceptions. So UKIP needs to develop, for this election, a credible offering that can be communicated with limited public profile and can be developed into a platform for creditable future government. Keep it simple, punchy and unique from the current really useless political dwarfs to take votes, if possible, from most of them.

The simple message, for endless repeating now, is that UKIP is a strong voice for the people and will do what the people want. The people who are the large demographic that is honest, law abiding, hardworking, socially conservative, financially prudent, patriotic British people.  People who want to get on with their lives without being messed around, taxed (up) to the hilt and being social experiments for trendy left liberal ideologues. And they want better lives for their children. These are the overlooked people, the left behind people, the just managing people, the once proud people who continue to be neglected and exploited by the political class and their cronies. Contrast UKIP’s message with the reality of other parties (and they have form):

Labour – a strong voice for being robbed, micromanaged and socially re-engineered by the Champagne Socialists of Islington.

Lib Dems – a strong voice for being robbed, micromanaged and socially re-engineered by the Champagne Socialists of Brussels and their privileged fellow travellers.

TINOs (Tory in Name only) – a strong voice for being robbed, micromanaged and socially re-engineered by the left liberal wannabes of the POSH Establishment and their privileged cronies.

It is somewhat unbelievable the level of deceitfulness and delusion, and calibre of incompetence and ignorance on offer from the establishment or legacy parties. They are all in La La Land. Nobody is prepared to tell anything like the truth, based on actual facts (assuming they know what the facts are) and offer up realistic solutions, especially for the worst challenges. Instead we get empty political language (to quote George Orwell, Politics and the English Language) designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. (e.g. ‘Brexit means Brexit’, ‘strong and stable government’, ‘for the many, not the few’ etc.).  Worse still, their distorted world view is far removed from the reality of the lives of ordinary people.

A vote for UKIP now is a unique opportunity for ordinary people to be heard and for freedom from being playthings for Eurocrats and politicians. UKIP is THE PEOPLE’S VOICE.

We hear men speaking for us of new laws strong and sweet,
Yet is there no man speaketh as we speak in the street….
The Secret People, GK Chesterton,

A vote for UKIP now is also a continuation of BREXIT and the journey of empowerment of the people towards a better relationship between government and governed, truly Government of the People, by the People, for the People.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

21 Comments on Where is UKIP’s General Election 2017 Strategy?

  1. Don’t forget Le Pen’s economic nationalism – which is a far cry from economic libertarianism.

    Libertarianism can no longer be the incipient, implicit, default, overarching and the only basic or fundamental approach that informs policy formulation and so on ….. there has to be either a

    a) Synthesis – in which libertarianism blends and merges with pragmatism and re-emerges as ‘State-Libertarianism’ (where the State and libertarian ideals are not enemies but friends, allies, partners, co-belligerents) …..
    b) Re-envisioning – where libertarianism fits into and at the micro-level

    • There are some tensions in life which ought not to be resolved such as ‘Christian secularism’ — the reason is simple: One ultimately deals with ultimate matters and the other ultimately deals with the penultimate matters …..

      To clarify, this is therefore unlike the much needed ‘resolution’ as regards the relationship between libertarianism and nationalism in UKIP. Both have to do with this life, this world ….. and not beyond ….. for the sake of people’s lives, there is an urgent need to remodify, remodulate, re-adjust, reform ……

      With Nigel, libertarianism represented a counter-balance and restraint on any surfeit expression of intemperate and unfettered nationalism and excesses (resulting in racism) ….. now is the time for libertarianism to be tempered and fettered by economic nationalism …..

  2. The persons counting internal UKIP Election votes after 10th June 2017 matter a lot!

  3. I have voted UKIP in every election since 2006. Where there has not been a UKIP candidate standing, I spoil my ballot paper. I have never voted Tory, or Labour, and I have only voted for the Lib Dems once (although in my own defence, at the time I was 18, had never voted before, and knew next to nothing about politics!)

    As I have said before in a comment on a past article here, I am lifelong disabled. The combination of disabilities which I suffer from have for various reasons made it impossible for me to continue working since around 2007, and as such I have been in receipt of disability benefit since then. This is my reason for refusing to vote Tory – the way that they, first under David Cameron and now with no change except for the worse under Theresa May, have treated disabled people in Britain is nothing short of appalling. Since 2011 two friends of mine have tragically taken their own lives as a direct result of cuts to their disability benefits. For myself, my eligibility for disability benefit is reassessed on a yearly basis, despite the fact that the conditions for which I receive said benefit are lifelong and incurable; a process which takes months and causes me a great deal of fear and worry. For me personally, a vote for the Tories would be nothing more than a vote for more of the same horrendous treatment.

    Labour, as a party, have never appealed to me, and their message in recent years has done little to warm me to them. Not to be too blunt about it, I hope, but they (and the Lib Dems) obviously detest the British people. As a British/English person, born and bred, why would I vote for any party who clearly does not have any of my interests in mind? I could say the same for the Tories, too.

    On occasion, I visit forums online for disabled people, and as might be expected, there has been a lot of discussion of late about the upcoming GE. Most disabled people – or at least, the ones who use the forums I have read – seem to be strongly rooting for Labour. This despite the fact that Labour have offered them nothing worth voting for, and were the creators and instigators (under Gordon Brown’s leadership) of the unfair and greatly feared Work Capability Assessment (WCA) for Employment & Support Allowance – a process which has seen tens of thousands of disabled people wrongly losing their entitlement to benefit.

    In summary, there are a lot of vulnerable British people out there who are being let down by what successive governments have done – and are still doing – to them. What can UKIP do to attract these potential voters?

    • Thank you very much for sharing, CLB!

      UKIP can attract potential voters by ‘going the extra mile’ in reaching out them such that the rhetoric is translated into policy.

      Having said that, there is evidence that UKIP is indeed moving in that direction. For example, the rhetoric against Big Business is now translated into proposing a turnover tax for corporations – an idea considered as anathema by libertarians.

      As you rightly hinted at, people want the State to be on their side. This require the State to play a greater role where relevant and appropriate. An example would be to provide greater funding to Remploy. Or even to set up another statutory (or chartered) company to complement and supplement the role of Remploy.

      On the other hand, the role of the courts should be enhanced or strengthened either by reversion to the pre-Criminal Justice and Courts Act 2015 or by introducing a new statute law that is informed by the attitude that the role of the courts in administrative law and judicial review is to check and balance against the excesses of the State – to scrutinise and be critical of the exercise of executive power conferred by Parliament so as to uphold the rule of law and parliamentary sovereignty when it comes to welfare and benefits.

      And at the same time, the executive should be trying to cut down the welfare state in terms of the benefits system such that the mainstream employable (i.e. in reference to the non-special needs people) will get a job with the State as soon as they’re unemployed or have been unemployed or under-employed (zero hours contracts and so on) …..

      • These are all good suggestions; however, Remploy was shut down in 2013, under David Cameron’s government, and therefore further funding could not be provided for it, even hypothetically speaking, as it no longer exists.

        Also, I feel I should point out that it is not only ‘special needs’ people who face difficulties in gaining – and more importantly, in keeping – employment of any kind. For example, a person with schizophrenia or suicidal depression would not be classed as ‘special needs’ in any instance; however an individual diagnosed with either one of these conditions, or many more conditions like them, would find employment challenging to say the least.

        • Oh ok, thanks for pointing that out CLB!

          So, therefore there is a need to revive Remploy and perhaps even create another one alongside it …..

          And yes, thanks for pointing out that people with mental health issues (which have the same ‘parity of esteem’ with physical health) also needs employment! … The likes of which can only be provided for by the State at a lower cost than the private sector …..

          • When there is an unemployment gap, the deficit increases ‘automatically’ (in contrast to ‘discretionary’ spending) due to the tax gap (namely less tax intake as against the potential revenue).

            To fill in the tax gap, the tax *burden* would have to rise. The most recent one in the form of the business rate. By extension, the tax burden would almost inevitably fall on the SMEs rather than the big corporations.

            In other words, the tax burden falls *disproportionately* on the SMEs compared to the big corporations. This is so since business rates are calculated irrespective of profit (levels).

            Pursuing the logic of ‘dis-proportionality,’ this extends and therefore applies in the area of corporation tax also. This happens because big corporations, unlike SMEs, are in a position to engage in (aggressive) tax avoidance.

            In addition, raising business tax burden at a time of slow(ing) economic growth may result in cash flow problems *or* slow(ing) economic growth resulting in cash flow problems may result in inability to shoulder the rising tax burden (whichever case may be) for SMEs.


          • That’s in reference to the Conservative government as the government of the day …..

            Furthermore, with the employment gap in the economy, it means less spending power by consumers which translates into less profits for SMEs than would otherwise be …..

            As for Labour ‘pretending’ to be the government-in-waiting, raising corporation tax would yet again raise the tax burden on the SMEs …..

            This is compounded by the fact that unlike the SMEs, big corporations would inevitably comprise of foreign or multinational businesses also …..

            This would ‘imply’ two things. namely that:

            1. Due to the nature of big corporations, they can easily relocate, especially the foreign ones.

            2. Due to the size of big corporations, any decision to relocate would in turn translate into the number of the layoffs which would be sizeable as compared to the SMEs.

            The only institution that can fill in the unemployment gap such that the economy will bounce back quickly and grow faster is the government.

            Thus, the solution is for a 3rd party step forward and say that any investment in the economy must ensure that public money ends up in the pocket of the many and not the few.

            That is, public money ends up in the pocket of SMEs, contractors, individuals and households. The most direct way of doing is by purchasing private sector resources via:

            1. Public procurement programmes – raw and semi-finished resources and end-user products; and

            2. Job creation programmes – that is, purchasing of the pool of unemployed labour or workforce.

            So far, *both* Tories and Labour want to do the *indirect* way because they are ‘captivated’ by the prevalent economic thinking of the day – the same thinking that has engulfed the EU and by inclusion trapped member countries such as Greece in a web of debt (public and private) matched by deficit reduction and ‘internal devaluation’ (i.e. wage and price deflation).

          • It may appear that a bigger deficit would mean greater centralisation of power in London and Whitehall but it doesn’t have to be so …..

            Putting money into the pocket of the many should mean the reverse, namely greater de-centralisation and more localism.

            Central govt would fund local govt and in turn the latter would spend based on local needs (both in terms of procurement and jobs creation).

            Therefore, money is spent by the local govt and the decision to spend is made by local govt in consultation with the local people.

  4. Le Pen’s campaign provides a shining light to UKIP (which is mostly being ignored). She is fighting against the crooked media, the crooked polls, and ordinary French people’s assumptions about her and Macron. Slowly she is winding in the losing margin, and her campaign and videos are part of that clawing back. This video/advert is AWESOME and UKIP should have something similar, if only we had someone with the necessary gravitas to deliver it:
    Even if you can’t read or listen to the French, her message comes across without the words.

    • Wonderful, Brian! But Marine is a star and a patriot. Nigel might have carried something like this off, but for some reason, he distances himself, or he did, historically, from both the FN and the challenges that are both ours and France’s, creeping Islamisation and the death of our culture and values.
      I hope she wins, but I think they will find a way to stop her.

    • I completely agree Brian.
      Personally, IMHO if John Rees-Evans had been elected leader (and of course allowed to lead effectively!) then UKIP would be in much better shape now.
      But that’s another story…

    • Marine le Pen is the person in all the world that I would most like to meet.Marine is playing a huge part in the defeat of the globalist elite, she is a star. Though it remains unlikely that she will win on 7th May ( next wednesday) she has already made history and will continue to do so in the French General Election in a few months time.
      With the superb quality of the youtube video Brian Otridge has poster above there is an outside chance she could win. I never doubted for a moment that Donald Trump would win but with Marine the odds are stacked against her including the crude propaganda by the eternally evilbbc (rot in hell).
      UKIP need John Rees Evans now to be given free sway over youtube videos.
      Wakey wakey mister nuttall.

    • The FN is a nationalist party unafraid to say so and sets out to attract talent. UKIP is a timid party which twists and turns to avoid ‘offence’ and where the principled may be dumped or excluded for ‘respectability’ like AMW. Its trumpet sounds an uncertain note and it shows. One hand always seems tied behind its back. ‘We don’t quite dare’ could be its slogan.

    • This is superb!

      I only have O level French, the meaning and passion comes through loud and clear.

      Vive la France!

  5. Instead of nuttall trying (failing) to explain UKIP and promising to hold May’s feet to the fire (if we get any seats), he should be challenging her NOW! before the election because it will be too late afterwards if she gets her mandate. Chase her for answers on the EU, about immigration, about demanded payments and about fisheries, agriculture etc., while stating UKIP’s position if we have one.

  6. UKIP should only put up candidates in seats where there is a realistic chance of winning. There is not the time or resource to do otherwise.

    Effectively this is a second referendum.
    Let the Tories win against Labour and Lib Dems where they are able. Let UKIP have a go where it came a close second to Labour or Lib Dems.

    It is time to act smart, not stupidly blundering on.

  7. I am coming to the conclusion that UKIP is led appallingly by people who do not know how to lead. This includes the more prima donna element of the MEPs – sorry lads and lasses you cannot walk on water. It seems to include the self important cleverclogs on the NEC – especially those there not voted into office. It includes in spades all those careerists who have expectations of exalted power and influence within and outwith UKIP.
    On top of all that some branches seem moribund – why so few active members?
    Some branches appear to be an extension of a golf club. Regional parties dont seem to fuction well and are neither local focussed nor national focussed ( with the exception of Wales maybe).
    The good news is that some branches are first class and are capable of being role models to the rest of us. Not perfect but hard working balanced and clever in the good sense.
    Step forward Thurrock, Hartlepool, Dudley, Bolton, Sunderland, Grimsby.
    So much to do and so little time.
    Local party leaders who block members’ voices and control wickedly agendas and proposals need to be challenged with votes of no confidence in June.

  8. That is a great slogan, Nigel, and you have summed up perfectly what the other Political Parties are offering.
    I also think TINO’s is a fantastic way to describe the Tories, I hope some of the UKIP candidates use it.
    My feeling is that UKIP candidates must plough their own furrow, hopefully assisted by some sort of manifesto eventually, but most of them will be able men and women, chosen by their branches because they espouse UKIP values – this must be a sort-of Independant (of any further Leadership shinannigans) UKIP – and maybe, just maybe, local people will vote for the person with the UKIP values, not the Party as it currently is.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.