Latest from UKIP Daily

What now for UKIP?

If President Macron and his party could come from nowhere in about a year to rule France, and the Liberals likewise unexpectedly won the famous landslide of 1906, why didn’t at least the 17.4 Million who voted for Brexit, vote for a team of the chief Brexit architects, UKIP to negotiate it, rather than revert to voting for Theresa Re-May-n or Jeremy Corbyn?

President Macron’s success has been attributed to many voters deciding that neither the Left nor Right had the answers to France’s problems, and so wanting change but being equally uncomfortable with the type of populist anger that had upturned politics in the UK and USA.

Psychologically, we are by instinct creatures of habit, conditioned by such adages as “better the devil you know than the angel you don’t”.  A key difference between the UK and French political situations is that BREXIT is now underway and for many represents huge change with the risk of going into the unknown, whereas for Remainers, erroneously in my view, staying in the EU was a continuity vote.  Thus a vote for an untested UKIP Government would have been tantamount to a second risky change.  Voting for Macron was a vote for one change.  Apart from some unease about its past, a vote for Marie Le Pen and her Front Nationale would have been a vote for two major changes: an untested party which wanted Frexit.

As seen in TV competitions such as Britain’s Got Talent, selection is often a process of rejection with the winner being the last (wo)man standing.  Seen from this perspective, a hung parliament represents a rejection of both Labour and Conservatives because of unease about aspects of both parties and their respective leaders.

If Conservative and Labour MP’s do not implement their full Brexit Manifestos’ policy, including ceasing to be a member of the EU Single Market, upon which they were elected by 80% of the electorate, such a betrayal of democracy could indeed go a long way to persuading people to vote for an untested party which will implement the full Brexit for which 17.4 Million voted.  But I don’t believe that that can solely be relied upon: part of such a rejection would be voters being convinced that such a change would be for the better by having seen a united UKIP top team consistently showing themselves to be an effective constructive opposition, and so an alternative government in waiting.

Voting positively, largely on the basis of the Leader and his/her top team and their Party’s policies, translates into a simultaneous appeal to heart and intellect, or emotion and mind – a bit like courting!  While opposites can attract, playing the percentages implies that if we want most voters to see the UKIP Leader/PM-in-waiting as ‘being like me’, (s)he would probably be a mother or father – ‘who knows what I, the typical voter, am going through, because (s)he have been, or is going through the same.’

Just as a song only stays for a limited time as No. 1 of the Pop charts, bluster and anger have had their day, at least for the time being: both may well have contributed to the Brexit vote and to Donald Trump getting elected President, but staying angry when the aim is already starting is unattractive – and achieves what?

UKIP needs a leader whose tone, as much as compelling common sense policy content, has gravitas and does not appear to be deliberately abrasive as if trying to irk your average wishy washy centre ground voter, with at best a casual interest in politics, whom we need to win over.  We need to meet them where they are, rather than where we’d like them to be, which means they now need to be politically caressed rather than kicked and screamed at.

When talking about controlling immigration, would it not sound less ‘migrant-bashing’, and so more reasonable to suggest that it’s as much in any potential migrant’s interest as ours not to uproot on a false prospectus, and so an Australian points system is in fact to everyone’s mutual benefit?

How about substituting a butchery-sounding ‘cutting’ of Foreign Aid to fund the NHS – which left us open to charges of depriving the world’s most vulnerable – for a gentler shifting of non-essential foreign aid such as £400 Million to Pakistan and India (who have their own nuclear submarines and space programme respectively) to fund the NHS where it will achieve a better humanitarian outcome?  Doesn’t that sound more reasoned and less shrill?

In the context of so much of the excellent UKIP manifesto being unknown to so many and acknowledging the policy is increasingly being adopted by many European countries, was the disproportionate concentration on the Ban the Burka policy, seemingly to the exclusion of so much else, really going to determine the next UK government and thereby win votes in a General Election or reinforce our detractors’ now predictable, but still damaging distortion of what we’re really about?

If UKIP is to succeed, we need to communicate our Common Sense policy stances on a wide range of issues – even if some change over time, as the world changes – to show that if like President Macron we can capture the UK public mood and imagination, there is indeed relevance and life for UKIP after winning the EU Referendum and post-Brexit negotiations.  We need to ‘do a Spassky’ (the Soviet world champion chess player who caused outrage by walking around the board to see the position from his opponent’s viewpoint) and improve on our ability to predict how both our policies and the manner by which we present them will be perceived from an average voter’s viewpoint.

If UKIP can get these things right, there’s every reason why we should be able to grow The People’s Army to match Labour’s.  An essential first step will be selecting the right leader: if we UKIPpers can’t see them as a PM in waiting, you can be pretty sure nobody else will.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
About David G. Meacock (5 Articles)
David G. Meacock is UKIP Candidate for Chesham & Amersham

31 Comments on What now for UKIP?

  1. I firmly believe that if we give people a voice – latest poll 48% Of people think Islam is incompatible with British values – 50% think National Identity is under threat – we will succeed.
    I firmly believe that this worry will increase so rapidly that I will go further and say that unless people are given the choice that is so obviously lacking at the ballot box, civil unrest and worse, which God forbid, all of us want to avoid, will grow through frustration.
    I believe a great many Muslims don’t want to be plunged into this situation any more than we do. And has anyone asked Muslim women how they feel about living under the Sharia? No, obviously, because they are afraid to speak out.
    We keep trying to think of policies that ‘appeal ‘ to everyone – well we have them, discussed here many times, we just haven’t got a Leader with the guts or knowledge to articulate them. Restore British Law, limit immigration, is basically it. That means bracing ourselves for howls of rage from the communist Islamic sympathizers and Brainwashed university students – but it won’t last – today’s ‘Day of Rage’ attracted some 500 – there were more Police than demonstrators.
    There is only one person as driven as Tommy Robinson, but more articulate though not more knowledgeable – Tommy studied Islam in detail in prison – and that is Anne Marie. UKIP needs her to lead us, Britain needs her to lead us, we have to realize that demonization by MSM might terrify those without any backbone – the rest of us know MSM have completely lost credibility. No-one else has the courage to try and get us out of this mess.

  2. AMW presents UKIP with a challenge that it seems unable to refute. If UKIP is the party of sovereignty, which is what Brexit was all about, then it also has to be anti-Sharia, because applying Sharia law removes sovereignty from the British state over the affairs of its citizens that choose to follow sharia. It is very important that people understand that Islam is not simply a religion, it is an entire alternative civilisation that includes a religion. It seems to me from the pronouncements of some of the NEC that they haven’t bothered studying Islam or the life of its founder. I personally find AMW too extreme, but the next leader of UKIP needs to become expert in Islam (as the last real leader was expert in the EU) in order to be able to argue with reason against the encroachments of one civilisation into another. It is perfectly possible to do this without being inflammatory, but it presupposes a level of knowledge that nobody in our leadership appears to possess. Our idea of the nation state is fundamentally challenged by the universalism of islam which believes in a single law for all mankind, regardless of which country they happen to live in. Nation states are man-made and therefore fallible, only god’s will as expressed in the koran, which is the direct word of god (unlike the bible, which never claims to be the word of god) and therefore has precedence over any man-made law or constitution.

    There is a huge education job that needs to be done for the general UK population which is totally ignorant of islam, but by studying islam and comparing it to our nation state democracy then the benefits and superiority of our own civilisation become clear. However at the moment what we have is the MSM and government want to treat islam as a religion, and think they can keep it in the same constitutional box as our religion, which they can’t because it is a universal civilisation. Our nation state fought for 100 years to expel the influence of the papacy over the affairs of our own citizens, it was Henry VIII in his Act of Supremacy who ended the requirement to attend church and pay religious taxes to Rome (replace Rome with Brussels and it starts to sound familiar?), and if they didn’t pay those taxes they were imprisoned. He then demolished the physical bases of the Roman church in England through the dissolution of the monasteries, it was these monasteries that exerted external influence by collecting taxes and funelling the money back to Rome. This was the formation of the nation state which had supreme sovereignty over the affairs of its own citizens. The argument with islam is basically a repeat of this struggle.

    By taking up this historic challenge UKIP would be fulfilling a noble purpose, because it would be educating the British people in their history, which is something our education system has not wanted to do for a long time. We would also be making a reasoned argument against islam. Not based on saying how many rape cases, not based on inflaming feelings after terrorist attacks, but making the case for national sovereignty, which is entirely consistent with our purpose to leave the EU.

    However, I believe this means UKIP won’t have much electoral success for a while, and needs to rebuild and repurpose its base before expanding again. For those who yearn for power (the chance of which seems to have disappeared anyway) then this won’t be a path to success. But for those people seeking a noble cause entirely consistent with the purpose of UKIP, entirely consistent with even the name UK INDEPENDENCE Party (independence referring to the sovereignty of the nation state), then I believe this to be the rallying call for the next 30 years. We don’t need to be single issue, but we do need to be single cause, that is for the sovereignty of our nation state and for the perfection of its democracy.

    • A well thought out and reasoned comment. Like you, I find AMW a bit too extreme which could backfire on UKIP at the ballot box, in the event of her being elected leader. The MSM would, no doubt have a field day with it.

      We definitely need someone who can make reasoned argument in the way you suggest. One of Nigel Garage’s great attributes is that, although he was proficient at going on the attack, he knew just when to stop. That is what we need in our next leader.

      • Blasted automatic spelling ‘corrector’. I meant, of course, Nigel Farage.

      • Brenda, I respectfully suggest the MSM is discredited, the more they scream raaaycist the better – we know we aren’t racist – British people are desperate for a Party that speaks for them and doesn’t seem hell-bent on consigning them to the fiery pit of Sharia – UKIP has to be that Party – and Nigel just doesn’t want to take on the Islamization question, rightly so, he’s had enough of the flak. Anne Marie bravely is unbending through it – and inspires many. Finally, have you read Tommy Robinson’s heartfelt thanks that so many millions have supported him after the Piers Morgan interview – he says he feels it’s all been worth it, now people are hearing his message. What no one has, is a party to vote for – UKIP must be that party, imo.

        • No, the more the MSM shout ‘racist’ the more the mud will stick which in turn will further make the UKIP brand toxic, and puts up a brick wall against anything we want to say, no matter how factually based.

          I read recently on UKIP Daily that someone said that only 1,000 women in the UK actually wear the Burka – out of 70 Million, that’s a mere 0.0014%.

          Graham presents his case well, until he says UKIP won’t have much electoral success.

          If such a compelling argument – without the inflammatory rhetoric as he says – can be a part of a programme of common sense policies and so not given undue prominence, UKIP can indeed be in a position to take action. Screaming from the proverbial armchair in unmeasured tones won’t achieve anything – as we saw.

          • There’s a suggestion buried here, that I’ve seen a lot lately, that the MSM are in some way justified in calling UKIP “racist”.

            The MSM and the establishment generally shout “racist” not because of anything UKIP have said, done, believe or propose, but because they hate UKIP. See also the cries of “bigot”, “fascist”, “little Englander” etc etc etc.

            None of these accusations have any basis in fact. Yet still they are made, and yes, they do stick.

            That being the case, it doesn’t matter what policies UKIP propose or how we present them, we will still be accused of “racism”. This is partly because our opponents know this is an effective way to shut down debate and bully us into silence, and partly because a significant number of people genuinely believe that ideas such as controlling immigration or leaving the EU are “racist”.

            This being the case, we’re on a hiding to nothing if we select policies on the basis of what might play well in the media. We could literally appoint the Arch Bishop of Canterbury as leader, with a policy to develop a cure for cancer within 5 years and the MSM would still smear us as bigoted racists.

            And the 1,000 Burka wearers thing was errant rubbish from, I believe, Jonathan Arnott. I saw a video yesterday of Muslim women marching in Bradford, and there were several hundred, if not over a thousand, there alone.

            Just as 25 years ago the idea of leaving the EU was for cranks and gadflys, those warning of the islamification of the UK are similarly derided today. It is a simple demographic fact that the UK will be majority Muslim this century. As more people begin to realise this, and more learn about the true nature of Islam (spoiler: it’s not the “religion of peace” we were taught about in school) the idea of being anti-Islam, or pro-British liberal democratic secular culture, will gain traction. In short, this will be the defining issue of the next 50 years, and, as with the EU, UKIP have the chance to be the canaries in the coal mine and raise awareness. Yes, we will be abused for it, but that only confirms that it is the right thing to do.

          • Brenda Rattle // June 21, 2017 at 7:42 pm //

            Thank you David, I feel a bit better now! I think the voice of reasoned debate always makes a point so much better at the end of the day.

            By pure chance, I came across this article last evening. It’s going to cause, oh dear, Shock and Horror for many as the chap in the article is not exactly Mr Popular but does put forward his points in a very reasoned way and it hits harder than abrasiveness.

            http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-40340803

            He makes the case quite succinctly with regard to politicians ignoring the problem for years and deliberately suppressing discussion.

          • Brenda Rattle // June 21, 2017 at 7:54 pm //

            Thank you David. I feel a bit better now. I feel that putting something forward in a firm but reasoned way tends to drive a point home far more effectively than abrasiveness.

            The following article is a good illustration of this especially the point made about politicians ignoring the matter for years and suppressing discussion on the matter…

            http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-40340803

        • Dee,
          With respect, you have every right to support whosoever you wish. By the same token, I have the right to prefer someone who can tackle the issue in a more reasoned way. Neither of us is wrong, we simply differ in our approach.

          I am well aware that AMW has many supporters. Indeed, I was recently asked to be an assentor for her by one of her supporters. The following day I was asked to confirm if I would do it. I began to feel under pressure and said that I would not. That was my rightful choice.

          I am also aware that Tommy Robinson has many supporters. However, the fact that he has thanked millions of people has nothing to do with who I choose to support in the forthcoming leadership contest. Nor does it alleviate my deep unease about AMW becoming leader.

          This is democracy and I won’t be bulldozed into supporting someone I’m not comfortable with.

          Kind regards.

    • Graham, you make excellent points.
      There seems to be a woeful ignorance among much of the higher levels of the party. This must be urgently corrected.

      I have been in contact with AMW and suggested the deputy leadership position would suit her. She would avoid the admin tasks inherent with the leadership position, and be able to focus on core issues such as Islam. That was my suggestion.

      I really do not think there is 30 years remaining. We could be at the point of no return in as little as 13 years. See my article:
      http://www.ukipdaily.com/uks-demographic-transition-islamic-state/

      Realistically we have very little time to waste. Everyone in UKIP must get up to speed on Islam. Internal communications methods do not seem to be working.

  3. UKIP is going nowhere unless the current leadership cabal is ousted.

  4. Islamic extremism is a problem but the only way to deal with it is to persuade and educate the followers of that religion to exclude extremists from their midst and update their beliefs so they fit into a modern, northwestern society and to observe the laws and cultural norms of a Christian nation, whilst quietly worshiping as they wish, at home. Constantly knocking them is not the answer and there must be utter condemnation of any violence from anyone for any reason.
    Just so you know, if AMW is elected as leader I will leave the party and I have little doubt many others will too.

    • You will never persuade them to become apostates. Why don’t you educate yourself in the teachings of Islam before you spout such nonsense?

      Just so you know, if AMW is elected as leader I will JOIN the party and I have little doubt many others will too.

      We already have 3 cultural Marxist parties supporting the dhimmification of the UK. We don’t need another one.

    • Icini, you cannot educate those that live under Sharia in,their communities and aren’t allowed out, or to speak to others. Sharia is the root of it all, and must be banned.

  5. It seems to me that a fair chunk of the electorate, particularly the young, went for ‘Pie in the Sky’ promises from Santa Corbyn; and because Labour thought they had little chance of winning the election they thought they would never be called upon to keep those promises. Common sense about where the money was going to come from to finance those promises, (apart from ditching Trident and depriving the rich of their supposedly ill-gotten gains) didn’t come into the argument at any point.
    I dare say Labour voters who had previously backed UKIP were lulled into a false sense of security when Corbyn’s manifesto promised to respect the result of the referendum and take us out of the EU, which includes coming out of the single market and customs union. Therefore, with Brexit in the bag ‘Pie in the Sky’ sounded great. However, if Corbyn eventually gets his hands on the keys to NO 10 he will to have to manage the expectations of those who have voted for utopia. Of course, when he fails to deliver all those goodies he will blame Brexit; or whatever passes for Brexit.

  6. Hugo van Randwyck // June 19, 2017 at 8:55 pm // Reply

    Hi David, yes, I agree, if people in the party, then neither are many in the public. Also a good idea to choose a leader who wants to be PM:)

  7. All common sense but the party is fatally flawed with the existence of the NEC. Until it gets rid of that it has no future. This is why I resigned.

  8. I stood, David, and got trashed. 2% of the vote. I think it became a battle of the leaders. And the Corbyn scenting May blood … timing.

    I tried rational. It got nowhere. Posted the ppc experience here a few days ago

    Maybe the answer IS to get behind AMW. She came to this town 29th April. No audience but I got her onto bbc2
    Maybe a lot of exposure of Sharia etc and all the shit that’ll go with it, …. hard to imagine it could do any worse in such febrile times.

    • Alan, I think the answer is to get behind Anne Marie, obviously, because I have endorsed her candidacy. I feel that only a strong Leader at this point in time will give British people the Party that they all say isn’t available at present. Every Party has broken their contract with us to enforce British Law, protect our way of life and not let our generosity be taken advantage of.
      Corbyn masquerades as a people’s champion (May fell at the second fence) but his core vote support depends on his breaking that contract too.
      The reason that Anne Marie is painted as extremeist by MSM and even some in UKIP is because with strength necessarily comes conflict from those who take advantage of weakness. I don’t see anyone else as having that inner steel that has sustained her to keep going so far – listening to Nigel on LBC, I think he isn’t the man for the task ahead, nor does he want it. If she works with John Rees-Evans, if he would work with her to reorganize UKIP on-line I think we would have a formidable team.

      • Even were I to concede only for the sake of making this point that the Islamism Extremists issue is the No. 1 problem currently facing the UK, the blunt truth of the matter is that unless you can convince the majority of voters to share such view, then as we’ve just seen, you will not get elected and so you’re unable to do anything about it fast. Thus you have to get elected on solutions to bread and butter issues which the electorate believe will improve their day to day lot, with the Islamist issue well down the list in terms of priorities, so that you then have the power to address it.

        I take this opportunity to unequivocally condemn the cowardly, idiotic and barbaric attack on Muslim worshipers the other night.

        • Been thinking about that and am coming to the view that the opposite is true.

          If ukip did so badly this time because exlab voters returned to their roots, they are far more likely to respond to the likes of AMW with her exposure of sharia, and the consequences.

          Add hitler being the architect of the EU , via Walther Funk, and pushing the message that Germany dominating the EU is there for itself, etc, and who there gives a toss for those left behind?

          Indoctrinated youth. Biased media…. thinking blunt may have more impact than analysis paralysis….

          • David Meacock // June 21, 2017 at 9:16 am //

            The launch of the UKIP campaign confirmed to many that the choice in terms of Government, esp. in terms of who’d be negotiating Brexit was between the Conservatives and Labour.

            It is often said that elections are lost rather than won, and that is precisely what Theresa May did when with unbelievable arrogance of thinking as she’d be winning by a landslide, she thought she could afford to lose a few OAP votes. As we now know, her contributing to the election turning from “Who d’you want to negotiate Brexit?” into a wide range of bread and butter issues, caused her to lose just a few more than she bargain for!!!

            A classic case of the hare (PM May) and the tortoise (Corbyn) race.

            If we UKIPpers want to be elected and so be in a position to take action, we have to show we can be trusted with imaginative solutions to the problems which currently influence the majority of voters before we can expect them to even listen to our views on the Islamist extremist issue, never mind trust us to take action.

  9. The French want change for the better without any real change since that’s disruptive and worrying. Human nature exploited by politicians. A form of virtue signalling. Populism offers real change.

    OK UKIP could become a fake change party….

    • What’s ‘fake’ about starting a conversation based on fact and meeting people where they are?

      Repeating the approach of the General Election we’ve just had will very likely only produce the same result: an average 98% rejection and zero MP’s.
      Face facts.

      • What you are asking for is a change programme that does not alarm anyone. ‘Common sense’. There is no such thing if it’s real change. The general election idea was to mainstream. ‘Common sense’. No future in it. Pubs are full of people who think if only a ‘common sense’ party appeared it would sweep the board. It don’t work.

        • Your castigating Common Sense reminds me of a story of a new conductor of one of the major orchestras who upon being appointed suggested a radical programme which hasn’t been performed for years: the Beethoven Symphonies!

          “Frightening the horses” as you appear to be suggesting certainly didn’t work.

          The dire financial situation of the UK Government’s finances should be enough to alarm everyone if only it was known about and the implications understood.

          • UKIP was only successful when it frightened the horses. Leaving the EU was sure that! Unthinkable.

          • The snag with Common Sense is tnat there are different opinions about what it consists of. So it ends as a mishmash of nothing to avoid dissent.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*