To MikeUk "who the hell are you", I am glad that you give some one 100% support for having views on immigration that many consider match the vast majority of the population, but, like I said, why would UKIP, with its attempts over the years to distance themselves from those that might otherwise be proclaimed as "racist", welcome someone that courted "racist" controversy with an advert he ran some years ago?
Are UKIP really that desparate? Until UKIP, like any other party wins a seat legitimately such gains will only be of limited short term benefit, and are more likely to cause long-term problems due to the selfish and personal interests that Spink's actions demonstrate. He is potentially a loose cannon, that is why the Tories didn't want him, and UKIP should be more careful after the Kilroy saga.
UKIP might have gained far more by rejecting Spink, rather than accepting him as someone else's dirty washing. Spink is a spent force locally, he knew it, and the Tory Party knew it, that is why he was about to be deselected, whatever the official reasons.
It is nice, none the less, for UKIP to have the distinction of a Westminster MP, all they need is one more to gain parliamentary ppb, I just wish it had been a more high profile and distinguished character.
|