British Democracy Forum - View Single Post

Lawrie Boxall · 07-11-2005, 07:38 PM

This is exactly the reason why I left UKIP. I had lost faith in the leadership. Not just Roger but the small group which influenced him and was I felt misleading UKIP. I felt I could not in all honesty lead my members in Berkshire INTO phpbb_a general election knowing that under the leadership of Nigel and Roger and Petrina (I must include her in the leading group as well I think as a supporter of this 2 time failed policy), that UKIP was nothing nothing more than a single issue pressure group, and never would be as long as they were controlling the party. I thought that to expect 450 candidates to sacrifice their time and money on the same false premise was a confidence trick, quite deliberate and of gross proportions, on the UKIP members. I did not want any part of it. And I thought that to repeat the mistakes of 2001 was just plain stupid. And without wishing to damage the electoral chances and moral of the fantastically keen activists within UKIP beyond repair, I said as much of this as I thought appropriate on this forum at that time.

I did consider joining Veritas and I said so to my branch members at our AGM - the day I left UKIP. I hoped it would be a success so that I could join. I was immediately worried about some of the people who were appointed to leading positions, not the UKIP London people so much but others. This was a further demonstration of RKS's complete inability at that time to listen to advice from his close advisers. It went downhill from there.

Given all this why am I still bothering with UKIP?
Because of what UKIP could achieve if it could find a leader of stature with a vision for this country to take the party forward. UKIP has to lead the whole pro-democracy movement in this country, not just the anti-EU movement. First of all it needs to understand that the EU is a symptom of bad government, not the cause, and that the only way for a party to significantly change this country is to get itself elected to power. A long journey but the only one which is worthwhile imo.

The alternative, a single issue party, is also quite valid, but if UKIP leaders want that, then they must end this con-trick and be honest about their beliefs. The con-trick has been the cause of so much trouble. My own opinion is that as a single issue party UKIP will wither like the Green Party, and at best if it survives, it will be about as relevant. It will never achieve its aim.

Many years have been wasted already. UKIP has to become electable. In my opinion, those responsible for the con-trick have automatically disqualified themselves from leading such a party. Not just because they simply would not understand it, which they would not, but they have been dishonest about their motives and cynically deceived the members. If I am wrong and they have just been innocently following their noses, they are disqualified by their monumental lack of talent.

I don't think I am wrong. UKIP needs a leader with the character and belief to lead a visionary party. Can it find one? First it needs to decide what it is.

07-11-2005, 07:38 PM	#23 (permalink)
Lawrie Boxall Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Sandhurst Posts: 1,030	This is exactly the reason why I left UKIP. I had lost faith in the leadership. Not just Roger but the small group which influenced him and was I felt misleading UKIP. I felt I could not in all honesty lead my members in Berkshire INTO phpbb_a general election knowing that under the leadership of Nigel and Roger and Petrina (I must include her in the leading group as well I think as a supporter of this 2 time failed policy), that UKIP was nothing nothing more than a single issue pressure group, and never would be as long as they were controlling the party. I thought that to expect 450 candidates to sacrifice their time and money on the same false premise was a confidence trick, quite deliberate and of gross proportions, on the UKIP members. I did not want any part of it. And I thought that to repeat the mistakes of 2001 was just plain stupid. And without wishing to damage the electoral chances and moral of the fantastically keen activists within UKIP beyond repair, I said as much of this as I thought appropriate on this forum at that time. I did consider joining Veritas and I said so to my branch members at our AGM - the day I left UKIP. I hoped it would be a success so that I could join. I was immediately worried about some of the people who were appointed to leading positions, not the UKIP London people so much but others. This was a further demonstration of RKS's complete inability at that time to listen to advice from his close advisers. It went downhill from there. Given all this why am I still bothering with UKIP? Because of what UKIP could achieve if it could find a leader of stature with a vision for this country to take the party forward. UKIP has to lead the whole pro-democracy movement in this country, not just the anti-EU movement. First of all it needs to understand that the EU is a symptom of bad government, not the cause, and that the only way for a party to significantly change this country is to get itself elected to power. A long journey but the only one which is worthwhile imo. The alternative, a single issue party, is also quite valid, but if UKIP leaders want that, then they must end this con-trick and be honest about their beliefs. The con-trick has been the cause of so much trouble. My own opinion is that as a single issue party UKIP will wither like the Green Party, and at best if it survives, it will be about as relevant. It will never achieve its aim. Many years have been wasted already. UKIP has to become electable. In my opinion, those responsible for the con-trick have automatically disqualified themselves from leading such a party. Not just because they simply would not understand it, which they would not, but they have been dishonest about their motives and cynically deceived the members. If I am wrong and they have just been innocently following their noses, they are disqualified by their monumental lack of talent. I don't think I am wrong. UKIP needs a leader with the character and belief to lead a visionary party. Can it find one? First it needs to decide what it is.