Looking at the Young Independence conference cancellation the first reaction is one of shock/outrage/anger/disbelief/fear/panic. My first reaction was that the UK is now a one party banana republic. Ok, that’s not quite true, yet, but we are rapidly heading that way – but hopefully not if UKIP have anything to do with it.
We first have to understand what happened there. To put it simply: it was an act of far Left terrorism. There I said it: terrorism. Open any English dictionary and it will likely define a terrorist as
“A person who uses, or the threatens to use, extreme violence for political purposes.”
I think you will agree this describes the situation above succinctly. Their aim was to shut down an opposing viewpoint, and they succeeded in this instance. We have become so hung up on Islamic terrorism, we have overlooked hard Left terrorism. Make no mistake, the latter is just as dangerous as the former.
Now we have to understand why this is happening: the whole episode stank of U.S. Alinsky style tactics. The U.S. Left have been using these tactics for many years, now the U.K. and European Left have adopted them. Why? Because they are effective, nasty, shut down debate, force conservatives to concede ground and help the Left to control the agenda. Google ‘Saul Alinsky’ or ‘Rules for Radicals’ and you will learn about these tried and tested tactics.
I’m going to digress somewhat to make a point: anyone who has worked in retail knows a customer who complains is the best customer. This is because they are advising you on a shortcoming within your business. We should treat this as no different: it has shown us where a lot of weakness lie within UKIP. We have to learn to adapt, prevent, but at the least minimise repeat occurrences for the future.
The incident in my opinion is so typical for that of UKIP: it’s a school-boy error. We need to become professional, look professional and think professional. It is little wonder Peter Hitchens described UKIP as ‘Dad’s Army’. Could you imagine this would have happened to Labour or the Tories?
Let’s look at areas where there should be question marks:
Venue
Never, ever, pick a venue from a company that could be lobbied or scared. Private companies are easy to lobby, and the Left are experts at this. Look at what happened to the anti-Corbyn Labour MPs for example. Always go for a public building, one that is owned by the local council. It is less likely to have the plug pulled from it. Corporations don’t like bad publicity, it sends their corporate communication teams into meltdown. In summary, pick a venue that outside forces are unlikely to interfere with.
Know Your Enemy
Learn their tactics and then learn counter tactics, otherwise this will happen again. Look at how other conservatives in the US have dealt with similar threats: knowledge share! If you know the risk is going to be high, expect the worst and have a contingency plan. Did we have a contingency plan and was a threat risk assessment carried out before the speakers were chosen?
Use UKIP’s Subject Matter Experts (SMEs)
I find it amazing that an organisation which contains so many former military and police personnel doesn’t properly utilize their knowledge. I heard this problem discussed at a leadership hustings I attended: UKIP doesn’t use sufficiently the wealth of knowledge within its ranks. Did the leadership use any SME’s?
Security
This will become an issue in future. At the moment the Left are deciding UKIP’s future speakers – after all they managed to cancel a conference with emails. How will UKIP up security? Depending on the leadership results, security may become an even bigger issue.
Legal Recourse
Can we take legal action against the individuals responsible? I’d be very surprised if the hard Left emails do not fall foul of the Communications Act! UKIP need to push this. Have they written to the Chief Constable, Crime Commissioner, Home Secretary for comment? Has the Hotel provided the emails to the Police? Can some of UKIP’s former police officers offer help here? Doing nothing or being seen to do nothing is the worst case scenario!
Inaction in this instance is not an option. If this succeeds we are now being ruled by the mob. They will decide our agenda, our speakers, our venue, our policies and eventually everything. We will have lost our freedom of expression, freedom of conscience and our liberty.
UKIP cannot afford to let these terrorists get away with this. If they do, UKIP can forget about Torquay, or indeed anywhere in the UK for a conference venue. We may as well wind things up and turn off the lights….
—- ooOoo —-
Ed: we add below the full statement from Jane Collins MEP/UKIP United on this issue, which we only received yesterday evening:
“I was disappointed to hear that the YI conference on the 2nd September was cancelled and those who had spent time organising the event had their time wasted by those on the left who seem determined to remove any vestiges of political opposition to their views. I understand that the venues took the decision because of the threats of violence due to the hard left activists who seem to have time to congregate at events, even during working hours when one would imagine they might be at work.
This isn’t the first time it has happened in UKIP’s history and there are lessons to be learned.
Firstly, I have to ask how this situation was allowed to escalate: we have people in the party who should have advised the leadership of Young Independence rather than, perhaps, concentrating on getting mentioned in the media.
Secondly, that planning and security have to be taken seriously and this includes liaising with the police ahead of any events.
Thirdly, I have to question the judgement of whoever decided that having a very controversial figure like Martin Sellner as lead speaker, when we already had a controversial figure in Anne Marie Waters attending the event, was a good idea.
There is one thing encouraging free speech: it is quite another to poke a hornet’s nest particularly in a Left wing city such as Sheffield.
If I am elected leader I want to include YI as part of the reforms I will make to UKIP; including a representative from YI on the executive board whose job it will be to ensure two way communication and stop these situations from occurring.
I value the youth in our party: they are energetic and bring a vibrancy which benefits us. But they need to be mentored, not just left out in the cold.
Just as the party needs to reform and professionalise, so does YI and I think the fault for this not happening has to lie with the central party. I want to change that and I hope that members of young independence will support me in mine and my team’s plans to put this party back on track and get back to being that driving force in UK politics.
Jane Collins MEP, UKIP United
Leave a Reply
34 Comments on “Young Independence Conference – The Tip of the Iceberg”
Perhaps Jane Collins could answer this: if say the Green Party youth wing had a controversial speaker, on say, a commitment to world open borders and held it in my conservative (small c) town, would they be poking a hornests nest by having their meeting in a right wing town? Would their potential leader be blaming their choice of venue? Would their potential leadership be blaming themselves for inviting controversial speakers?
They can poke any hornets’ nest they like so long as they can pay for the associated necessary security! ?
By the way, John, we have all concentrated on the second article – I do apologize, because your article states the case perfectly, I could have cut and pasted most of it (if I knew how!) in answer to Rob McWhirter! Three resounding cheers!
Rob – perhaps you could contact the various lefty organisations and ask them for a list of speakers that YI should not invite and a list of towns where YI should not hold meetings. Perhaps you could also ask them which brand of toilet rolls it is acceptable for Kippers to use.
The point, John, is that we went down this route on NIGEL’s behalf, and learned that for UKIP, freedom of speech means deep pockets.
YI, therefore, are welcome to have controversial speakers, providing they also have a donor ready to stump up the necessary dough for security.
NO, it’ NOT fair, but we’ve learned the hard way that the establishment will do ZILCH to support us, and we need to be realistic in accordance!
Yet, Rob, no-one, having had this experience, seems to care a jot about the danger they put Anne Marie in, with their hysterical smearing and accusations, which are a gift to Lefties and MSM.
That’s the most shocking thing of all. Truly, only the Establishment care nothing for the safety of those they knowingly put in danger.
Secret guest speaker? What a brilliant idea!
Exactly.
Edit – the Rally in Bristol is on Sunday – 1.p.m Outside Bristol Templemeads, in case anyone is fit enough!
Great point, Dee! At least Jane IS interacting directly with us…
MEPs and loyalty.2014 24 UKIP MEPS elected
2017 If AMW becomes leader the following are likely to leave the party and/or continue their separation.
Arnott; Atkinson; Bashir; Bours (?); Carver; Coburn; Collins; Etheridge; Hookem; James; O’Flynn(?); Woolfe HALF THE PARTY!
16 of 24 MEPs refuse to financially support HQ staff by tithing their generous EU salary and expenses. Despite a firm promise to do so before being elected. I think we should know the names of the 16.
Bashir has long since joined the Tories, Woolfe and James are sitting as independents, having left the party last year.
Jane Collins, oh, dear! Many UKIP MEPs seem to have spent too much time hobnobbing with liberal, progressive counterparts in the watering holes and troughs of Brussels and Straz. They have become demob happy and lost sight of what makes UKIP tick.
A totally “out to lunch” comment by her, if I may say so.
So Jane Collins is for “encouraging free speech” but against allowing “controversial” characters to speak. Does she not realise that these two points are mutually exclusive? Essentially, then, she is the Leadership Candidate who will clamp down on freedom of expression by the YI and, no doubt, all the Branches. I’m glad we found out before we received our ballot papers.
I am surprised that none of the candidates has exploited this.
Left wing violence, intimidation, fear within companies, shutting down political opposition, curtailing free speech, attacking a political party… so much to shout about.
Any candidate could get publicity when contacting the organisers and the police while doing the right thing.
I would like a reply from Jane Collins MEP on what actions the party has taken on reporting the criminal intimidation of legitimate business and our youth by political thugs to the Police and what are they doing about it?
What mentoring is required to report a serious crime against ordinary law abiding workers, organisations and members of the public?
We need answers
In my day, the NEC invited a YI rep to attend, but they never did, for some reason…
But don’t they now have Katie Fanning on the NEC? And Anish Patel was YI?
Indeed, Katie is very YI and is even listed in the last available minutes as a double attendee, IIRC!
So there is little excuse for the current NEC not being up-to-speed on any YI shenanigans. They might even have asked for advice on how we managed Nigel’s security concerns in the day…
Who’s side are you on Iceni? Young Independents or antifa? I cannot tell be reading your posting above. Why is it confrontational to have a conference of speeches about the future of UKIP which ends in criminals threatening succesfully to shut it down?
Was it not confrontational to challenge the entire metropolitan elite in their disgusting acceptance of the creeping end of UK sovereignty as a price worth paying for staying in the EU? What is the difference?
I drew attention to this situation at 11.30am yesterday (Endorsement of AMW)and John sets the matter out in greater detail. If we don’t stand up for ourselves, then how will we ever convince the British voter that we will stand up for them? I’ve said the following many times during my membership: ‘it’s almost as if there are other influences at work’.