Quote:
Originally Posted by Kentishman
However as I have said many times, policy is not as importat as marketing, image and name recognition.
KM
|
I certainly disagree with the last comment. When the Free England Party or UKIP is to have a proper crack at a general election, it will need to match the big two parties:
They usually spend up to £20 million each
They have some credible national figures
They have a professional head office function with full time staff
They have a candidate for each constituency
They have national networks of councillors and activists
They have alliances with interest groups
They should have a platform and measures that give millions reasons to vote for them
They should have a persuasive narrative - vote xyz because...
They still need access and influence with the media, especially the BBC
I think there may be some short cuts to the above, such as:
The existence of an issue which is seen as so key that tribal voting habits are secondary;
An Alliance of parties that overides sectional or party interests might be very powerful (i.e. it might be much more than the sum of the parts).
I sometimes wonder what would happen if UKIP took the lead in making such an alliance work. The obvious fulcrum would be the campaign for an English Parliament and nation, but UKIP is stuck in the 1950s on the state of the Union. And most of the time UKIP does not seem a very united and happy ship even on its own, which does not sound hopeful in the context of an Alliance!
So back to building up Free England from the ward upwards!