Latest from UKIP Daily

The Snap GE and UKIP

We’re having another GE! What fun! What would Spring be like without having to campaign!

The MSM are already in full electioneering mode, with opinion pages full of why this is good for the Tories, the Libdems, Labour, and why this means we will get Brexit – soft, hard, extreme, ultra, or none. UKIP is again non-existent – for now, that is. Wait until June 1st and we’ll have the usual slime and smears poured all over our candidates: the MSM only have to dust off the articles they wrote daily in 2015.

There are however a few points which make this coming GE different from that in 2015.

First of course is Brexit. That’s what it is about, that’s why such eminent people like Ms Gina Miller and Mr Tony Blair are already ‘campaigning’ to support any LibLab Remoaner candidate. That’s why the Tories are planning to force their choice of candidates on local associations, to give Ms May a Parliament full of soft-to-no Brexit MPs.

Then there’s the issue of the police investigations into breaches of Electoral Law in the 2015 GE. Various people, Nigel Farage first and foremost, have pointed out that this is the reason for Ms May going to the country now since many sitting MPs are involved. That would have meant many by-elections later this year – something she could not afford with her small majority of 12 MPs. A GE wipes the slate clean.

You will however not hear the MSM talk about this.

Then there are the Remoaners. The LibDems, who are on an upswing, are positioning themselves as the ‘Party of Remain’. The past by-elections have shown that this might be a successful strategy. And Labour – well, it is in disarray, but we all know that in the Labour heartlands people will vote Labour regardless.

So where does this leave us?

Frankly – in a hole we dug for ourselves.

Thanks to the waste of time, effort and resources in the by-elections we fought and lost, the local elections in two weeks will not be as successful as we hoped. Some are predicting a huge loss of seats, or, in other words, a blood bath. The MSM and the establishment parties will certainly go to town on that. Good timing, Ms May!

We – that is, our ‘leaders’ and party management – have wasted time ever since the referendum was won. Let’s just say that our leaders had six months to come up with some sort of manifesto. Instead we’re told that ”we have a plan” – but what that plan is, we don’t know, we’re not being told, and we don’t have any input. Many authors on UKIP Daily have been proposing policies UKIP could and should adopt. They were extensively debated by readers and members. There has been no interest shown by our Leaders. None!

We – that is, our ‘leaders’ and party management – have wasted effort, by standing in by-elections with candidates who were not local. We in UKIP have always prided ourselves on not being like the establishment parties, on not fielding ‘professional’ politicians, on promoting our own local candidates. Isn’t it extraordinary that we have been doing just that! Has Party Management, have the Leaders still not got it that prominent UKIPpers may be prominent in UKIP but not locally? Do we now, like the establishment parties, have a ‘party elite’ who feel they are entitled to become candidates in any constituency where they feel they have a chance, relying on us ordinary members to get them that seat, regardless? Or are HQ trying to do as the Tories: forcing their choice of candidates on local associations?

We – that is, our ‘leaders’ and party management – have wasted resources, especially in the by-elections we fought and lost. We all know that UKIP has not got funds, we all have had the begging letters, we all donated – but we do not know where our money went or how it was spent. We know from the local paper that the Stoke campaign spent nearly £100,000 of our money. Members have asked for a break-down but the treasurer has brushed them off. We can hand over our dosh, but must not ask if it was spent wisely. And now we’ve got to fund a GE campaign? What with?

That is the cold assessment of where we’re at: all at sea.

Where does this leave us?

Well, we now have to wait until June 9th before we can, in good conscience, ask for a revision of the leadership, spokespeople and party management. That is hard to swallow, but that’s life. Nothing we can do about it right now.

What we can do something about, starting today, is demanding from That Lot Up There to accept that we won’t win without taking a courageous stand on issues which will make voters want to vote for us; to accept that, no matter what we do, the MSM and the establishment parties will attack us anyway; to accept that we won’t win any votes by appeasing that lot!

What though about our policies? I suggest that we keep it simple, focussing on issues which people, voters, have talked about since June 23rd 2016:

  • Immigration
  • British Law for all
  • No more foreign aid

That’ll do for starters.

“Immigration” – which Ms May will not stop – was the largest issue and vote winner in the Brexit campaign. It is the best point with which to clobber the Tories, Labour and the LibDems, covering jobs, housing, schools, benefits, ‘refugees’ …

“British Law for all” addresses the burning issues from creeping sharia law to creeping islamification. (Did you know that one muslim councillor actually tweeted that calling the election in June was unfair to muslims because: Ramadan?) It is simple and elegant, chiming in with our innate sense of fairness while covering such points as abolishing the EAW.

“No more foreign aid” is simple but has many facets. For example, why do we send money abroad when our infrastructure crumbles, when our elderly live in misery, when our NHS has become the International HS?

See – we do not need another doorstop manifesto! Even better: these points show that UKIP is not a single-issue, Brexit-only party.

If we keep it simple, if we field local candidates, and if there are no more halal leaflets, we might, just might, pull off the one or other surprise win.

If we wait for Head Quarters and The Leaders to come up with a ‘national’ strategy aimed at out-labouring Labour, we will lose.

If we do not target a few seats but go for the blunderbuss approach which helped us lose in 2015, then we’re simply not smart enough to win seats in Parliament.

If we waste resources and effort by putting up candidates against Brexiteer Tories such as Jacob Rees Mogg or Brexiteer Labourites such as Kate Hoey, we fully deserve to lose.

I do hope our leaders see sense. Else I predict a bloodbath of epic proportions starting on June 9th, and who knows if UKIP will survive even unto the AGM in September.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email
About Vivian Evans (324 Articles)
Vivian is a UKIP patron, Vice Chair of UKIP Cardiff and Editor in Chief of UKIP Daily

80 Comments on The Snap GE and UKIP

  1. Is small government a lesser evil than big government?

    I suppose the more fundamental question is whether or not government is an evil?

    Whether one is a Christian or not, one would be inclined to say that government is a *necessary* evil.

    Therefore, the government as an institution and reality of necessary evil is to be distinguished from the ‘actors’ that actually exercise the function and power of government.

    It goes without saying therefore, democracy is a lesser evil compared to other forms of political system precisely because it holds the potential of getting rid of the actors in government.

    But trying to get rid of government as necessary evil by ‘cutting it to size’ is impossible, more so in this day and age. Human security is the catch-all term.

  2. And if it needs to be said: Not all of the ‘aspirational’ Tory MPs are enamoured with UKIP. The likes of Stuart Jackson (Peterborough) wants to have nothing to do with UKIP. And for all the hype of him thinknig of defecting, Philip Hollobone (Kettering) is not Kipper. His contribution in the chambers show that he is far from being a Carswellite classical liberal(which by the way is no different than a libertarian) but more in tune with the views of his voters, which could be summed up as ‘pragmatism.’

    Aspiration is not the means but precisely what it is — the goal. Pragmatism is the means to achieve the goal …..

  3. As for the aspirational Tories that Dr Slivnik referred to, yes, of course, he’s right about this group of voters as natural UKIP voters ….. but they’re also a very pragmatic group of voters.

    The point is Cameron gave the referendum in order to shoot the UKIP fox and May is ‘tugging at their heartstrings’ which could well represent a second attempt at shooting the UKIP fox to make sure it is well and truly dead ….. And thus the return of these voters back into the Tory fold.

    Moving to the right of May will not counter the situation. Aspirational Tory voters are pragmatic voters. They want the State to be on their side …… that’s the whole point ….. not a State that step back from its role but a State that understand and therefore care for them …..

  4. Someone mentioned about injecting money into a ‘unreformed’ NHS (Mr Gary Conway?). The NHS does need to be reformed in a sense of perhaps moving towards an insurance-based system. But the idea that the NHS is currently unreformed is untrue. The Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) was a result of the top-down reorganisation of the NHS. And the NHS is still short of money …..

    Clearly, therefore, one simply cannot wait for some real and proper changes to the NHS before additional money is injected. It’s just absurd for we are talking about people’s healthcare and lives here …..

  5. i would like to put in my penneth as a 75 year old why the hell is UKIP not saying the things that need to be said like no immigration and please dont say its good for us and we need it thats what the rest keep peddling brainwashing us and the other onee muslims are good people they are not its just a evil cult and anti christian anti british and undemocratic le Pen as the best idea get rid of them all as she will if elected UKIP as nothing to loose you are called racist now so you would loose nothing stopping this evil cult which is not a race is it as long as you tippy toe around the main issue to look good you will do nothing sucking up to the main stream parties

  6. Toby Micklethwait // April 21, 2017 at 11:17 pm // Reply

    Dear Viv,

    Good article. Thanks for expressing what a lot of us are thinking.

    Regards, Toby, 01932-873-557

  7. Front page of Evening Standard. Farage says Tories conning voters and parts of the media with rhetoric about taking control of borders. Thank God he’s operational!

  8. If we want to stop mass immigration we have to get our working people onside – and that means giving some way on the hardline Thatcherite policies Tomaz and so many of you espouse.
    If you can’t see that there really is no hope.
    It’s called selection and maintenance of the aim – and it’s fundamental.

    • Since Red UKIP (of which you are one) is in charge and all UKIP’s policies already include all of Red UKIP’s envious and jealous ones, and none of the ones me and others who agree with me espouse, we’ll soon see how well the ambulance chasing of the envious and jealous vote and the snubbing of our traditionally supporting aspirational working class will pan out. It is precisely the aspirational working classes that Red UKIP’s insistence on joining the liberal elites club alienates. The election is near. And Red UKIP will be judged by its results.

      • Tomaz I’m probably more purple than you will ever be on immigration, British law, defence, security.
        What you call ‘Red’ is simply being fairer to our less fortunate countrymen – and if we want their vote we’d better start seeing things a little more their way.
        We are not going to get any more votes from Tory quarters. Once we realise that truth we have to set our policies accordingly. But you in your obsession with liberal economics would apparently prefer oblivion under the Tory steamroller.
        We must fight – and fight clever.

        • The old chestnuts you repeat are neither original nor new. They are merely recycled old arguments from the liberal elite manual of the 1960s, which have all been thoroughly and repeatedly discredited.

          E.g. your references in an earlier post to the “Scandinavian model” supposedly justifying how well the social democratic model works. This argument might have worked 30 years ago, but today everyone knows that Sweden persisted being as successful as it was for as long as it did because of its long rooted tradition for good work ethics, frugality and hard work, in spite of the socialist takeover, not because of it. Today, everyone can see that socialist policies have failed in Scandinavia as they always have in history, every time and every place they have been tried. And everyone can see where leftist policies have evenutally got Sweden to – being the rape capital of the world where the indigenous population is about to be ethnically clensed by aggressive Muslim immigrants.

          The same applies to your patronising admonition about “being fairer to our less fortunate countrymen” (so those of us who disagree with you socialist ideas are “unfair”, are we?). The nearest those caviar munching champagne guzzling salon socialists who peddle such clichés have ever got to an aspirational working class poor person is by imagining viewing that alien species in a cage in a zoo. But some of us know what and how aspirational working class people think and want because we have directly experienced being one on our own skins. You and your do-gooding liberal elite kind – New Labour cum “Compassionate” (or “wet”) Conservatives cum Lib Dems cum Red UKIP brotherhood included – want to keep feeding these “unfortunate” caged monkeys peanuts, but the last thing you want is to let them out of their cages. You want to keep them caged in there, by force if necessary, and at a safe distance from yourself and your salon colleagues of course, so you can keep throwing them peanuts and feeling good about yourself and about how “compassionate” and “caring” and “sharing” you are. But these people don’t want your “compassion”, nor “care”, nor your peanuts, nor the government’s “help”. And they know exactly what you mean when you utter words like “compassion”, “care” and “sharing”: oppression, sponging off their backs and authoritarian control. All these people want is to be let out of their cages and the governement off their backs so they can help themselves. And this is what we are offering them.

          If you want to be fair and compassionate, don’t peddle and promote government oppression and graft and dress them up in appealing sounding euphemisms. Don’t take the shirt off someone else’s back and pretend you’re doing so to give it to someone “more needy”, while in reality keeping it to yourself. Just put your own hand in your own pocket and give your own money to someone you think needs it. Just like those of us who advocate politics of aspiration, honesty, hard work and good manners – which is true fairness rather than your phony “fairness” – do.

          • Old chestnuts?! Don’t make me laugh Tomaz.
            Of course Sweden’s made a big mistake with immigration. But please don’t try and tell me the Nordic countries aren’t happier, healthier, richer and better educated than us, because they are.
            Yes, you are unfair, probably because you’ve never had to serve alongside the salt of the earth and the backbone of our country.
            Your last paragraph is meaningless and not worth commenting on.
            You and your Thatcherite friends are turning your backs on the only chance we will ever have of stopping immigration and you’re too intellectually arrogant to see it.

          • Which liberal elite manual, Dr Slivnik? The 1960s were a time of high or full employment in the UK. Would you like to dispute that?

            That was before the triumph of monetarism – which is of course the liberal elite manual of today. And Sweden was not and never a Socialist country. It’s a social democratic system. There’s a difference. Please get that right.

          • As for the politics of fairness and compassion, how is it fair and compassionate to advocate that the State shirk from its capacity (let alone responsibility) to assist the needy?

            Is it fair that the unemployed have to rely on charitable handouts that would inevitably be below subsistence level? Is it fair to blame the unemployed when there is mass unemployment caused by your type of policies pursued by the government in the name of austerity?

          • And how is advocating greater government intervention/ pro-active government policies a form of promoting oppression and corruption?

            Are you insisting that small government is free and immune from oppression and corruption?

            Are you not aware that small government could lead to oppression by Big Business using the State as its amr or apparatus? Are you not aware of the banana republics in the Central America in inter-war years?

            Please acquaint yourself with facts rather than be merely immersed in ideological propaganda reading materials.

  9. I am presently waiting to hear whether whether I will be able to stand. I did in 2015 against Farron and have been invited to stand in every by-election since. But today am told I have to do a 500 mile round trip for a training day this coming Sunday, which I cannot attend. So I wait to hear whether they want a local candidate here or not.

    But here’s the thing. I really don’t care what SE puts into a manifesto. It’s an irrelevant waste of money and was much the same last time because it arrived so late. Now when time is so short, Who do they think is going to read it?

    I’m a Farage supporter. Most of us are. I agree with DrTomaz above about our agenda and don’t trust sharia May, hate halal, support gender equality and want to expose Farron as neither liberal nor democratic, condemn his association with corrupt remainders like Blair and mandelson and use every opportunity to expose the madness that is the current EU and all its works and future intentions.

    As for ukip, I’d prefer Banks tanks and want to see JRE involved, likewise AMW who is due to speak in barrow on the 29th, want to celebrate being in a party that attracts support from all sides of the divide but understand needs must, inspite of the carpet baggers and labour-lites that have floated to the surface, we don’t have the time to waste right now.

    And yet I have to wait. I don’t want to wait nor do I want to rely on their pathetic, formulaic leaflets which obstructed so much last time around.

    So what’s to be done? Wait and see I guess.

    I’ve asked the question. Do they want a candidate or not? I await their answer.

    • Alan, I am so gutted, you seem just the sort of person that would win us votes. But if they know you’re a Faragista, afraid you’ve had it.

      • Just heard from Kirsten Herriot. “There is no need for me to take any further action…”

        Which I’m pleased about. Hope it offers encouragement.

    • To be fair, it was Tim Aker who caused it to be so late last time. SE was called upon to step in and save the process after he missed deadline after deadline. I’m no fan of SE, but the blame should be apportioned correctly.

  10. Suzzane Evans is writing our manifesto. Fine, she’s good at that.

    However on hearing that Carswell isn’t standing for reelection she immediately talked about how good he is! She doesn’t seem to understand that no one likes a Judas or that she’s been used by him.

    Apparently she’s still Carswells useful idiot even when his betrayals have obviously made him unelectable. She needs to reflect on his fate if she’s going to regain trust within UKIP.

    • Ms Evans was not ‘good at writing a manifesto’ – she was good at collating the material she was presented with by e.g. MEPs and others, and then perform the presentation.
      If she’s still hankering after Carswell, then we ought to treat anything coming from her with the deepest mistrust.

      • You are absolutely correct . She didn’t write the 2015 manifesto herself although she claimed she did. I won’t trust UKIP until both she and Patrick O’Flynn are gone. Paul has made a huge mistake IMO. Many loyal members left feeling betrayed. I hope to support Patriotic Alliance once I’ve seen its profile in May.

      • Work with what you’ve got. It’s too late to be swinging the axe now. Suzzane Evans is in UKIP and is ideal to modify the manifesto she put together. She can also see Carswells fate as a political backstabber; unelectable and unwanted. Hopefully she’ll reflect on that.

        Let’s see what comes out of the wreckage after the general election. Then we can move on.

  11. I believe our message should just be what it has always been, which is that we want to get the overbearing burden – both financial and regulatory, which is completely out of touch with the ordinary people – of the political elites off the people’s backs. The EU is just the first step.

    This is perhaps an even briefer message and includes all of your three points:

    (a) no more foreign aid: stop poor, hard working British people from subsidising rich corrupt dictators in poor countries so that they can continue oppressing their own ordinary people. This is very much a part of the “get the elites off our backs” message.

    (b) immigration: it was my friend George I. who has opened my eyes as to why the liberal elites want not only not to limit, but actively to encourage unlimited immigration. Their thinking goes like this: the indigenous Western European population is aging. More and more old people depend on fewer and fewer young people to work and pay for their pensions, healthcare and other benefits of the welfare state. How to extend the life of the ponzi scheme called the “welfare state”, which depends for its existence on there being more and more new members paying in in order to be able to continue to pay out the existing members? The liberal elites’ answer: import many young foreigners – as many as will come. As an added benefit, these people will be more inclined to vote for the liberal elites than the indigenous population is. Of course, the effect of such migration is rather different than intended by the out-of-touch caviar-and-champagne liberal elites.

    Rolling back what has become not only a burden on the hard working aspirational taxpayers (both rich and poor alike), but also a trap for those stuck in long term welfare dependency would obviate the need for such cynical tactics. It would also solve the immigration problem because immigration would naturally limit itself to a smaller group of people who were on the whole more productive. Moreover, no draconian and intrusive immigration legislation would be needed.

    Thus, your immigration point is also included in the “get the elites off ordinary peoples’ backs” agenda.

    (c) British Law for all: this is really only a problem due to excess immigration by people from different cultures who have no intention of integrating and can afford to take this stance thanks to the generous welfare state and poor enforcement of criminal laws.

    The mass importation of ius civile into British law is also a consequence of the liberal elites’ love affair with the authoritarian political and legal systems of the continent. Get the liberal elites out and off our backs and we can restore things like the common law, habeas corpus, the right to a jury trial, freedom of speech and get rid of things like the European Arrest Warrant etc.

    Sadly, our leadership has completely misjudged the zeitgeist of this age and is instead pushing the party more towards the ground which all the so-called “centrist” liberal elites already occupy. Instead of staying loyal to our traditional supporters – those who gave us 4 million votes in the last general election, rather than staying at home as they did in previous elections, because in the governing social democratic consensus they felt they had no one to vote for – we are chasing the envious and jealous part of the Labour vote, who will never give us their vote anyway as they will tribally continue to vote Labour as their fathers, grandfathers and previous generations always have. In the meantime, our supporters will go back home and not vote at all.

    The primary beneficiaries of this policy will be the Tories, and Theresa May has masterfully capitalized on the strategic folly of UKIP’s leading team.

    As a result of this folly, the party will be wiped out not only in the local elections but also in the general election. In other words, by following the electoral recipe of the Leader’s Principal Senior Advisor, we will achieve the same electoral result he achieved in the previous general election in the Cambridge constituency where he stood – a humiliating result in the Official Monster Raving Loony Party territory. Despite being convinced before the election that he had a chance of actually winning by following his strategy of chasing the envious and jealous vote.

    Of course, these “elite” members of our party will then continue to blame the traditional party members for sticking to our long-held beliefs and principles for the party’s electoral failure. Hopefully, however, the majority of the party membership will see through this ruse this time and get rid of them once and for all. It must be stated clearly for the record that Red UKIP are in charge and they should take the credit for, or fall on their swords, for the results the party achieves in May and June.

    Sadly, there probably won’t be much of a party left after these people are done with it. The envious and jealous kind never disappoint with their ability to squander in a short few months what the aspirational and hard working ones have built up with their own blood, sweat and tears over periods of decades.

    • We are not Communists. So we should distinguish between the SMEs – the the ‘true’ entrepreneurs and the backbone of the economy — from Big Business, Big Finance, Big Corporations, etc.

      To the former, we should roll back the State (including the tax burden); to the latter, we should retain or even enhance the regulatory framework.

      Otherwise we do risk betraying our cause and the people we claim to represent …..

    • How do you think we won the First and Second World Wars, Tomaz? We’re fighting a war for economic and cultural survival now almost as deadly, and all you want to do is ‘roll back the state.’
      Parties evolve. Your “traditional party members” are not those of UKIP’s inception in 1993.
      This isn’t about envy, it’s about fairness and doing the greatest good for the greatest number – something our ex-Tories seem to have a real problem with.
      If the People’s Army means anything we have to be a bit more savvy and harness its power more effectively.

    • Tomas, what a wonderful post. We true Kippers must just wait and see. If Red UKIP fail, we will pick up the pieces and build something better. Or, if it is UKIP Mark 2, which we will not know until after the election, maybe transfer to the Patriotic Alliance. Arron, Hopefully, will be astute enough to use the gold that are the true grassroots Kippers.

    • Toby Micklethwait // April 21, 2017 at 11:15 pm // Reply

      Dear Tomaž (Slivnik),

      It’s great that you are still posting on this forum.

      I have NOT forgotten your “full statement by Dr Tomaz Slivnik explaining his resignation from the National Executive Committee of UKIP”.

      It was great and I re-read it often.

      Regards, Toby, 01932-873-557.

  12. Oh well, that’s it then! Afraid we will never get membership Democracy because the last thing Evans wants is for members to have policy input, as she said in the Leadership election. I said she wouldn’t stand as an MP. She likes it as is.
    We shall have to privately rename this site ‘Dreams of UKIP Members’!
    I will wait and see what she comes up with, and whether, if she does put anti-Sharia in the manifesto, which she has said she supports, anyone in the Leadership team actually mentions it. Perhaps they will surprise us with Anne Marie?! If there is nothing, I’m gone.

    • Hello Dee. Evans is far too bossy and self-opinionated. If Anne Marie did come on the UKIP team.. Evans would not get on with her. I’ve had enough now.

    • Dee – members and supporters on this site, may have differing views on some matters but seem united in their caring for their country and it’s fate. If Nuttall, Evans etc. come up with some PC manifesto, that I suspect will fail miserably, perhaps there will be an opportunity for UKIP Dailyers to really push for a change. The future could be bright. Fancy going for the leadership Viv? Your country needs you!

      • You are right, John, it’s just that I fear time, demographically, is running out. If only, if only, and yes, Viv, surely it couldn’t be harder than keeping us lot in line? You’d be great, and get my vote!

    • Would just like to point out to all the people saying we haven’t had any recent policy update that there was one done at the time of Stoke which is well hidden away on the UKIP website called New Pathways for Britain or something like that. Really hard to find, not in the Manifesto section.

      The website – awful – literally a stream of consciousness – the last item from Paul dated 13 April was ‘Nuttall condemns the oppression of gay men in Chechnya”. Huh? Why this suddenly become so pressing that our leader speaks out? He doesn’t say a lot and our message is so confused by having so many different people chipping in.

  13. Great article Viv, and spot on, almost… Why else would I comment?

    HARD Brexit has got to be added to the list, indeed it encompasses the immigration one, but it is also about getting out of all the other associated institutions, not being stitched up in a trade deal that only benefits the German Car Industry and French wine industry, that recognizes they already get more out of us than us out of them.

    I also vote in my heart for Viv for Head of Policy and the NEC, but I do understand why you can’t. Nothing to stop you being UKIP’s Keyboard Warrior in Chief, though, if only they got their priorities right and had the vehicle (i.e. a decent website) to present the party’s message on.

  14. Suzanne Evans has just told Daily Politics that she has been asked by our leader to write UKIP’s manifesto. This will be her full-time job for the next four weeks (conveniently preventing her being humiliated as a UKIP candidate).

    Has Direct Democracy been strangled at birth? John Rees-Evans could easily have organized and completed this within four weeks. But that might have given members a say, and J R-E a role, and that must be avoided at all costs.

    So much for anything radical, then..

    • Thanks for this info, Thomas. It’ll be the same old same old then. Oh – and of course members weren’t informed prior to her announcement. Emailing members must be exceedingly difficult … unless one wants something of them …

    • I am within a hair’s breadth of leaving.

      Who is paying her now (after she was made redundant by Carswell)? No new contract for her has gone before the NEC. If the leadership ignores the rules, and continues the corrupt nepotism of the past, I will leave UKIP.

    • She put the 2015 manifesto together, she’s best qualified to reorganise it in a hurry, and no-one is going to read it anyway because (shockingly) UKIP won’t win the general election. The only bits that actually matter will be about immigration, borders/territories etc, which I’m certain will not be left to her.

      Also it keeps her out of trouble. So right now it’s the best use of Suzanne Evans.

  15. Douglas Carswell is standing down:

    No comment …

    • Viv,

      Talk about momentous ups and downs of a political party, UKIP has had them all, but it is definitely on a real ‘downer’ at the moment. But if it is any consolation, if you look at what has happened since the referendum and the terrible decision of Nigel and originally Paul to walk away, this site has been pretty consistent on who should go and who should be in the leadership team.

      Most of us said Dianne James would be a disaster and she was, we all hated Carswell et el and now he has gone, unfortunately some of us thought Paul would be better but he is not and you did say so (I think). I believe the only consolation here is that if UKIP do really badly in the GE which I think they will, surely there will have to be a severe re-organisation and surgical pruning at the top, otherwise it will be ‘finito’ for them, and that’s the truth.

  16. And the material point, Viv?
    Does the NF not have a more protectionist and nationalist economic policy than UKIP, attracting many working class voters, and is that not a principal reason for their success (as well as stronger immigration policies, on which we don’t disagree?)

  17. True words Viv, but UKIP is not just all at sea; it is holed below the waterline just like hte Titanic.

    I for one cannot risk a wasted vote on UKIP which might just be the one which allows the LibDems to steal victory from the Tories. I don’t trust May and don’t want to support her but really have no choice.

    Come to think of it I don’t trust any of the politicians; they have shown their true nature in the past. Of course there is one exception to the rule as we know.

    However the fight must go on, whatever it might entail.

    • You do have a choice, Jack.
      Unless your MP is a proven strong Brexiteer that we’re not putting up against, you can vote for your UKIP candidate, if there is one.
      If you can spend all this time on here, you can jolly well help us now.

      • Q,
        Where I am presently registered UKIP don’t have a hope in hell of even coming close. The Libdems have to be kept out so my vote is going where it will best count against them. That would still be the likely situation if UKIP were fit for purpose which sadly it isn’t with the present lot in control.

  18. Thank you Viv, as usual, spot on. Q says it isn’t enough, but I beg to differ. We are not aiming to be the governing party, which obviously isn’t going to happen, and we should be brave enough to come out and say so. But we can point out that if you vote UKIP you would be sending a message to Government (of whatever colour) that these are the top issues that you care about, and which no-one will talk about. As well as a full Brexit.
    All our spokespeople should say that realistically we cannot aspire to govern, but anyone who votes UKIP can be sure that their representatives will put the needs of British people at the forefront, and the interests of Britain above all else. (Britain First as a slogan has been taken already!).
    This is where, as Viv points out, we have been so catastrophically wrong. We are not, and will not be in the foreseeable future, a Governing party, so let’s stop acting like the others and be unashamedly a campaigning Party, which was always what UKIP was about, and why people joined.
    As many of us have said a million times, people hate creeping Sharia, allied with creeping Islamisation and Halal, which must include Kosher, as we cannot turn a blind eye to any sort of cruel slaughter. Ban it all, it has no place in 21st Century Britain.
    If only we did that, votes would come our way, and membership too.
    But our gutless deaf and frankly risible Leadership won’t listen – they are taking 2 days to decide whether Arron can stand as a UKIP candidate for heavens sake! – they should just let him loose to be himself, he can’t be worse than Nuttall.

    • Dee
      We agree on so much – all I’m asking is that we face reality and ALSO offer something which the great majority of voters expect all parties to have a position on – economic policy.
      Otherwise all the things you and I want will never happen.
      Commentators on here are like a party conference, deluding themselves. We have to stop being so naive and address the realities.

      • Dear Q – I have told you before that I don’t understand economics! And I leave it to those who do. But yes, it’s immaterial now the Evans has got hold of the manifesto, but long term I agree every party needs an economic policy. As long as it doesn’t include us paying for 4 wives and 20 kids, and the world and their wives too, it’s all right by me.!
        Chatwise, your remark about voting Tory took me back – I did once when Johnathan Edwards promised to help fight a village development – he lied, he did the opposite, he lost and ended up…you’ve guessed it – an MEP!

  19. Good points Viv, it is absolutely necessary to keep it simple.

    Slight quibble regarding foreign aid. I think we should help out where there is a natural disaster. I don’t think anybody would object to sending assistance when there is an earthquake or a tsunami etc.

    Yes we must absolutely have British law for all. One law for everybody and everybody subject to the same law. With laws made in our own parliament by our own elected representatives. Zero tolerance of parallel systems such as Sharia Councils (which are discriminatory particularly against women) and they are anti-democratic.

    Sharia is the thin end of the wedge to completely undermining democracy itself. They believe that the laws of Allah are more important than the laws of man. And so ultimately the only role that parliament will have in the UK is to interpret Islamic scripts in order to work out who exactly is to have their hands and feet cut off on opposite sides. And what size of stick is allowed for a man to beat his wife etc.

    Once you allow any form of Sharia whether councils (Labour 2008) or finance (Conservative – Lib Dem coalition), there is no way that you can stop it spreading its evil tendrils everywhere.

    UKIP must be very clear – Zero tolerance of Sharia and its associated evils such as Halal.

    Viv, can you please email your article to the members of the NEC, and also send them my anti-Halal article? I think they are about to have a meeting, there is zero time remaining for messing around with niceties and pandering to political correctness.

    • Re Foreign Aid: of course this doesn’t mean we as a nation won’t help nations hit by natural disasters! It does mean that we scrap DfID and their ever-increasing budget, now planned to reach £13 billion. It should also mean that we get a breakdown of where the money went, a cost-benefit analysis without hiding behind ‘commercial confidentiality’. It should mean an end to us helping’ nations who are engaged in vicious and protracted civil war.
      A one-billion disaster fund is one thing, spending money we are actually borrowing on failed states or states with atom bombs is something else altogether.

  20. Our aim at this stage should be limited to protecting the Brexit position. Because our “leadership” has been woeful post 23rd June 16, UKIP is in no condition to fight on a broader manifesto. This means UKIPers will have to vote tactically and we should only put up candidates in selected seats where we can win or at least take votes away from strong “remain” candidates. As for Mrs May we have to trust her but I have a bad feeling that she intends to dilute Brexit. We will have a better idea when the Tory candidates are revealed. If there are significant numbers of Europhile “remainers” as candidates then UKIP will need to really up its game.

    • 1) Do not ever trust Ms May – her past history as Home Secretary should suffice.
      2) It is, of course, a Brexit election, but we must be shrewd, we cannot be seen as the Brexit-Party, we have to offer more, or rather, we have to pick up issues which people relate to now, today, in their daily lives, and weave Brexit back into those issues, like immigration …

  21. Spot on. Viv for Head of Policy and the NEC, I say!

  22. Not enough Viv. You cannot seriously expect to win any seats in a general election without a coherent economic policy.
    Out-Labouring Labour? Or doing what’s right and fair to get more of our less well-off countrymen’s votes that we so badly need if we are to have any chance at all? But what chance of that whilst UKIP is still driven by Thatcherites who won’t give an inch to the working man?
    And stopping ALL foreign aid? How far do you think that will get us? Halve it, yes – much better politics, still a significant saving – and a great slogan.
    Yes reward prominent and stalwart Brexiteer MPs of all other parties – tho few and far between. And yes target only those few best chances. Otherwise we must fight everywhere we can, and make full use of the free Royal Mail leaflet drop for all candidates. We have to keep the flag flying.

    • So tell me, Quercus: have our policy ‘directors’ been in touch with you about economic policy, as you detailed in your series of articles at the beginning of this year? I suspect not …
      Please note that we now do not have the time to ‘develop’ such policy – time has been wasted.
      Please also note that we do not have the time to fine-tune official ‘messages’, that we do not have the time to school candidates, that we do not have the time even to vet them all.
      Regarding that fabled ‘free’ Royal Mail leaflet drop: it is not free. Ask your branch chairman – find out how much it cost to print such leaflets – find out how during the 2015 GE official templates posted online did not work on candidates’ PCs, how leaflets were not produced on time, how addresses were mixed up, how that postal ‘drop’ arrived after the GE, if at all, in may cases …
      and what should be on such official leaflet? “economic Policy”, half of our 2015 Manifesto? Points including a lot of ‘but in case’ and ‘not really’ and ‘we hear your doubts’?
      If we cannot keep it as simple as possible, we are done for.

      • Of course they haven’t Viv – I never expected them to, and I share your despair over their attitude and incompetence.
        Of course we haven’t got time to ‘develop’ anything now – now that at last the sheer ruthlessness of the Tories has been laid bare for anyone still silly enough to disbelieve it. I seem to remember writing how we needed to get ourselves sorted on policy principles through direct democracy by April, but no-one wanted to hear.
        But we do even now have time ‘to go for it’ – if only the leadership, against all form, would show some steel and judgment in the hour of need.
        We can’t just not say anything on the economy – not least, because our candidates will be asked about it, and because someone’s got to the write the manifesto, PDQ. And we can either mumble something on conventional Tory lines or go for the bold and imaginative – which as I have been saying all along is our only chance.
        I am well aware of the costs of leafletting, having fought five elections. And I did say “where we can”.

  23. I wholly agree with all the points made except that I think it’s perhaps missing some of the silver lining.

    The Tory infiltrators have mostly gone or discredited. We are about to go into a fight that will unite us behind core UKIP messages. All the crap ideas and “mainstream” ambitions at the top of the party are being washed away by reality and necessity. It may be that Nuttall can rise to the occasion and reach the socially conservative working class northern voters where Tories are never going to win.

    If we hit hard on immigration and socially conservative messages now we will reestablish our relevance. If we do it right we may even salvage some dignity in the May elections.

    • Let’s hope that TPTB inside UKIP do stand for a core, unifying message. I can’t help remembering Nigel Farage who said that we are the Party standing against Political Correctness – it seems to have got lost a bit in the suddenly all-encompassing cry to out-labour Labour.

      • During Suzanne Evans’ leadership campaign, on the Andrew Marr show (or similar), she said she wished to take the party to the centre. She and O’Flynn still hold influential positions as Nuttall’s advisors. She was, she said, “sick of being called racist”. Thus policy will be capitulation to political correctness and with the aim of improving certain people’s personal comfort.

        Last time I spoke to Nigel he was in despair over this. He is loyally trying to say he believes Nuttall will come good but I suspect he does not really believe it.

        • That illustrates nicely the attitude present in those ‘On Top’: being ‘sick of being called a racist’ instead of turning the table, trying to get into bed with the Westminster Village denizens, becoming ‘acceptable’ to the likes of Marr and the rest of Al Beeb … They are in it for themselves, not for UKIP.
          I’m now going to say something nasty: I hope she and POF stand and get heavily trounced. That’ll be the only way we can get rid of them.

          • Its exactly what I think too, Viv, but I doubt they will stand – too happy pulling the strings and holding UKIP back. Hope I’m wrong.

    • Actually, the Tories can win in the north – Maggie Thatcher did just that in 1983. Social class C2 – the so called car owning working class – switched to the Tories. They are about to do it again.

      Newsnight interviews (in Barrow) was of traditional die-hard Labour voters now saying they were thinking of voting Tory (just as in 1983). They did not mention UKIP as a viable alternative.

      Our clueless cabal of leaders have let the policy vacuum go on too long. As a result UKIP is still seen as a single issue party without a coherent and credible set of domestic policies.

      The membership does not appear to grasp how divided on policy the party is – a consequence of weak, reactive but fundamentally self-serving leadership.

      Leaving the EU was merely a necessarily first step in getting the state of people’s backs. What was the vision for the UK after that? Unless and until the party can spell that out it has no future.

      The Labour party was almost finished off in 1983 and it took over a decade to revive. UKIP needs to play a longer game if it is to survive.

      • ‘Getting the state off our backs’ is the way for yet more of the liberal economics and its handmaiden globalisation which are doing so much harm to our economy.
        We have to do something different. We are actually in a war for our national survival, and only the state can win it.

      • Getting the state off the people’s back is directly opposed to the goal and by inclusion and extension the means of getting immigration numbers down and turning the Islamic tide back in the country.

        A smaller State is the ‘dream’ of both the Islamists and Big Business/ Big Finance. People did not vote for a smaller State. They are the ‘left behind.’ As such, they voted precisely for the State to fulfil its responsibility as the State and not pander to the interests of both the Islamists and globalists.

        • Smaller state does not mean no state and certainly does not mean no borders.

          Islamists want the largest possible state, a sharia one that dominates every aspect of life and ultiantely the whole world. Big business/Big finance want a state that they can lobby as in the EU and is large enough and controlling enough to stifle competition.

          • A smaller State is still not the answer. Cutting the size of the State will have an impact on every aspect of life – from immigration control to the health and safety standards (including on rail safety: e.g. Potter’s Bar tragic incidents).

            And the antidoe to Islamisation is not to get the State off the people’s back but to back the State’s pro-active involvement in forging and fostering nation-building. A smaller State is a breeding ground for Islamisation. Just because Islamists want a bigger State doesn’t mean we should want to go the opposite direction. The solution is doesn’t match the problem – in fact, it makes it worse …..

            As for Big Business/ Big Finance, they want a smaller State. A smaller State means privatisation and privatisation precisely means privatisation of profits and socialisation of costs.

          • The EU is not economically socialist or Marxist but emphatically right-wing corporatist. For example, EU state-aid rules that forbid government intervention means a smaller State in the form of lesser government participationin the provision of public services.

            The fiscal rule of neoliberalism that dominates the thinking of policy makers has its origin in the EU’s Fiscal Stability and Growth Pact – the ridiculous 3 per cent of GDP ……. as arbitrary as they come ….. and we know where that has led to ….. repeated and serial violations by offender countries on the one hand (e.g. Germany) and catastrophe on the other (e.g. Greece) ….

          • Stout, you are So way ahead of me. It has taken me till Flyers recent Freemason video to understand why Islam is being shoved down the throats of the world. As cleanliness is next to Godliness, so Islamist is next to Globalist one world Government.

  24. Try an obvious message like Marine offers! How long can we live as British when whole areas are taken over by others? Obviously we can’t. It’s not their fault. It’s the fault of profoundly wicked so-called ‘politicians’ who deliberately created this situation and won’t halt the inflow insisting it is to our advantage. When really it’s to suit them and their international power class.

    • Indeed – one would wish our leaders would take notice of France, and especially of Marine Le Pen. The first round of the French elections is this coming Sunday, and the results should tell us something.

      • I agree, Viv, but I’m afraid that the EU cabal cannot and will not let Marine win,the second round, not matter how much fiddling it takes – unless the whole of France votes for her, she will be stopped in whatever way they can manage. They will not lose ‘the project’. But the amount of votes she will get is something UKIP can only dream of. I believe Wilders actually won in the Netherlands, stories of dustbins full of votes being found were probably spot on.
        Something I never understood is why Nigel wouldn’t ally himself with Marine, does he now?

      • Then I hope you’re prepared to embrace that measure of protectionism and nationalist economics which is anathema to all Tories, including those in UKIP.
        That’s a principal reason for the NF’s success, and UKIP’s failure.
        When are you Tories ever going to see it?

        • Give over, Quercus – not everybody who disagrees with you is a Tory. And for the sake of cards-on-the-table: I have not been a member of any political party before I joined UKIP.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.