erictheviking

It's certainly not wrong, just irrelevant to most people. That's the problem in a nutshell with the political aspects of the party.

Basic sociology (Maslow) shows that there are certain things that will always rank higher on people's list than others. The anti-EU issue is a too-difficult sell on its own (as I and others have repeatedly tried to get those at the top of the party to see). We ain't gonna change that, no matter how much we want it to be changed.

My problem with UKIP (and I seem to be the only one marching in step at the moment 8) ) is that I'm no longer going to go on flogging the 'cheval mort' of trying to recruit in an area that isn't interested in a blend of quasi-BNP, thinly-disguised xenophobia and fascism.

UKIP has a natural constituency in the shires which is largely absent from the urban environment. Issues like foxhunting ought to have given us a BIG CLUE that something's amiss and sharply polarized between the two.

But it's the cities where the votes are, and it's the urban voters we have to engage successfully with if we are to succeed in getting the EU out of the UK. I've tried time and again to make the point that we could campaign successfully, if we had a vision, promoted by the leadership, to give cohesiveness, direction and context to our anti-EU stance.

Right now, not only do we look a million miles from government, we look like our clothes have Velcro instead of buttons and we are forbidden sharp instruments (just in case, you understand). That last bit is sensible, as we don't have a wonderful track record. Nattrass is the latest in a long line of UKIP political suicides.

I don't mind being laughed at. What I detest is being laughed at for good reasons.

Now there I agree with you. So who are we attracting INTO phpbb_the party, and who's making key decisions at the top? What message does it send? Is UKIP setting a stellar example of what reformed politics might be like, or is it becoming a safe house for people other parties (sensibly) rejected?

Sorry, but that is a non sequitur. Of course UKIP should be loud, clear and consistent on the matter of the EU, but it won't wake people up per se. The purpose of taking such a line now is so that we are not compromised when the matter can finally be laid to rest by an honest British parliament acting in the national interest, not politicians' self-interest. Firing anti-EU darts, with no other shots in our locker, is beyond risky, it's suicidal. the only reason we're still here is that the bigger parties have had other targets to train their guns on (each other). Heaven forfend they notice UKIP in the next few months!

Roger is being 'economical with the actualité'. Any fule can stand up, tell people what they want to hear, reassure them that what they believe is right and be cheered for it. Outside that hall and beyond that moment he convinced nobody at all. Roger's whistling while Rome burns. Unless UKIP reforms itself, the end will come, and soon.

I'm now in two minds about that. If UKIP is wasted effort, as it certainly appears to be after the weekend's ego-fest, then either it's redeemable or it isn't. If it isn't, the quicker we stop unproductive activity and put finite resources INTO phpbb_something that will work, the better.

So do I, fervently. But that is another non sequitur to your previous arguments. You said that we had to keep banging on about the EU, as that would work. It won't, and one doesn't need to be a sociologist to see it.