The election result though unexpected it not really inconceivable. The Conservative and Labour core voters are still something of the order of 13 million electors each. The core vote of smaller parties like Liberal and UKIP is also 100 times the paid up membership. 40% of voters, that is around 2.4 million, were and are unattached.
In the past some of these voted against both the major parties by giving the vote to the Liberals. The remainder either elected the Conservatives or Labour. The winner normally is the one holding the centre ground of politics, such as Tony Blair or David Cameron. On this occasion it definitely wasn’t Ed Miliband and Labour.
UKIP was hoping to hoover up floating voters and some from each of Labour and the Conservatives who wanted our country back from the EU. Unlike the SNP of course that doesn’t actually want nationality it wants Socialism, and if it can’t get it from the UK it will try to get it from the EU.
When I joined the local UKIP group in March 2013 it was like many of us in the belief that I want my country back. It came as a bit of a surprise when two of our members stood as paper candidates in the local elections. Then in 2014 there was of course the European Parliamentary Election so that was an opportunity for all to vote for an anti-EU party.
Immediately following the success in that election the focus started on obtaining a prospective parliamentary candidate for 2015 and as 2014 progressed there was pressure from the group to have candidates for local councils again.
It is clear that many members of the local UKIP constituency branches were not interested in parish, town, and district council positions because such things can be incredibly boring and don’t in the short term aid us in getting our country back. So this brings us to the purpose and future for UKIP as a political party.
Nigel Farage has always said that he doesn’t want to be a cabinet minister and all he wants is our country back. If that is the case and our primary objective is to have a referendum on EU membership then I don’t think UKIP will prosper. The Conservatives will give us a referendum, which will be fixed and run in a way to get the required result of a ‘stay in’.
If UKIP is still around after that it will be out on a limb. People keep saying, ah yes, but look at how the SNP prospered. Actually the SNP prospered because it had a clear message for the Scottish people that one way or another it would end austerity and get more money to throw at its public services. Labour in Scotland and England had unclear messages and promises that couldn’t be pinned down or reconciled with money raising taxation.
If you look at past general elections you will see that Labour has always been unelectable on English seats alone and needed Scottish MP’s to give them a majority. One of the things the English liked about the idea of Scottish independence was that we would never have another Labour government.
That’s where we now are unless of course Labour can move back to the centre ground and displace the Tories, like Tony Blair did. So in reality a Socialist government in unelectable and what we will always get is centre Conservative or centre Labour.
Getting back to the UKIP situation, each and every member and the party overall need to decide if we only exist to get out of the EU and if that is ever a possibility in our lifetimes.
Or do we wish to be a political party in the UK, or even of England, with some of the other policies in our excellent manifesto. Unfortunately most of our policies relate to leaving the EU, and if that is not likely we are just wasting time and money.
At branch and sub-branch level we also have the problem of group dynamics. Many branches are newly formed or reformed and as membership has rapidly grown there have been challenges to those who formed the branches. These challenges often get beaten off and in other cases new committees get elected.
It is only when competent people democratically chosen by the members form committees that branches can function properly with the members supporting the cause. Where originators fight off challenges or use undemocratic methods to cling to power there is division and a disconnect between members and committee.
This is normal in the animal kingdom and with the human animal as well. Whereas in the animal kingdom it is normally the dominant male that is challenged, here in human society we have made it so male and female can be the contestants for group dominance.
In our groups the process always goes through the following stages;- Forming, storming, reforming, and performing. Unfortunately with the rapid growth of UKIP we in many places are still undergoing the storming phase where newcomers are challenging the group originators. I always said that if we worked this through we might be in a position to fight the 2020 election with well performing groups but 2015 was just too soon.
So do we change our party name to be reflect a party that has more issues than just ‘leave the EU’ and to take our place as an ongoing political force in the UK. That will mean we need to start recruiting members willing to stand in local elections and build and councillor base. I cannot see how we otherwise can grow our membership on the single issue to have 100,000 members necessary by 2020 to win more than 25% of the national vote and have sufficient MPs to make us a force in UK/English politics. Think well on it.
I’m really of the ‘first things first’ school of thought. Firstly make sure, as far as we can, that the referendum actually takes place, that it is free and fair and that the arguments are allowed to be made then campaign for a vote to leave.
Everything else is secondary.
What an apt article. Not sure UKIP will see out the week at the moment.
I think that a single word name, or one that would default to a single word in use, would be good.
As my previous comment I think this is a far reaching decision that should not be taken lightly; some professional advice is necessary as supporters and party members are too close to see the big picture.
I’ve given this a great deal of thought to this, and I just don’t know. We’re UKIP until at least 2017, that’s for sure, so in my eyes we should perhaps not get overly distracted by this until we actually have to cross this particular bridge.
However, caution abound. There are sometimes unintended consequences when selecting a name. For example, Soveriegn is also the name of a cheap brand of cigarettes, the smoke-of-choice for a particular demographic and political rivals may well make unwanted connections or connotations with ‘our’ new party name. Be careful what you wish for…!
… Apologies for my numerous typos etc in my post above. Insomnia can be a bit of a curse; I hope nevertheless I’ve made my points clear.
Whatever anyone says I still believe that the only way is out. We need to govern ourselves without any input from the undemocratic EU. They will not swerve from their long term agenda. As I have said before World War III by stealth.
Think of the word ‘Independence’ in UKIP as relating to libertarianism; as independence for individuals from the tentacles of the state, be that a European susperstate, the UK state, the Welsh state, the Scottish state, you name it. If UKIP was to change its name at all, we should consider renaming and rebranding the party as ‘The Libertarian Party’. That would really throw off balance both the Left and Right of the political spectrum, killing two birds with one stone.
Why would UKIP call itself Libertarian though? Why would you use a word which is a bit obscure? why not just the Liberty party?
That’ll do.
Good article. Much of what you say I also saw at a branch level. There are many dedicated folk but equally we suffered because of a few egos. The party at every level needs better structures aided by central managers/staffers who can direct resources and control communications. The operation needs to be tighter with clearly defined aims. Nigel refers to the party as the “peoples army”; there is much to learn from the way the military cascade and extract orders to each appropriate level. This can be done in a cooperative fashion.
Milburn (ex Labour Minister of Health) and Stella Creasy were both extremely uncomplimentary to UKIP. Their rhetoric against UKIP was not challenged, except Neil said that Labour and Tory had both failed to control migration. There was no recognition of UKIP’s policy or influence in the matter. I have no idea on the protocol required to ask a country to join the Commonwealth. Interestingly, Rwanda has joined despite not being part of the Empire – so it could be done.
I am deaf,so maybe I misheard, but I thought Milburn was complimentary in that I thought he inferred UKIP had done a service in keeping the issue public
On the contrary. They both blamed UKIP for stoking up resentment and division over immigration. The labour lot can’t apologise for anything – economy and immigration. They would be the last to admit or infer that UKIP had been right in any way.
Even if Scotland goes “independent” there is likely to be a period in which the monarch is still head of state. Even the SNP realise that dumping the Queen is not in their short term interests. In that scenario UKIP could remain. Further if England was to leave the EU and Scotland stayed in the disparity in economic performance would soon see the Scots wanting to rejoin the Union or at least there would be another version of the “clearances” as Scots flooded south. Having said all that you could just replace UK with “British”
My suggested name for the party is Sovereign. It represents nationality, it represents our currency, and our monarchy. We could still use the pound symbol and the colour purple which is a bit like royal blue.
Being facetious we could make it into a three letter acronym, the Soveriegn National Party, SNP for short. This might force the Scots to come clean and rename their party as the Scottish Socialist Party.
Interesting. However, much as I despise the breed, maybe the services of a professional spin doctor / advertising consultant are needed.
Afterthought: We as supporters/ members of UKIP are not really qualified to make the decision wrt a new name; we are too close to see the bigger picture.
I suspect that very last thing we need is a spin doctor.