a swansong 4 europe

I have heard on good authority that a UKIP candidate in Merseyside, whether speaking on his own initiative, or with agreement from others within the Merseyside area, had telephoned the organiser of the BNP in that locality requesting that the two parties do not stand against each other in certain wards.

Whilst I believe some initial agreement may have been made on that, it seems that the BNP have already made their decision to contest the suggested ward/s regardless.

No doubt the UKIP candidate was well-meaning, but I suspect this smacks more of desparation and inexperience than anything else.

blueblood1920

UKIP wanted BNP to stand aside, however they were not willing to stand aside for the BNP. But I can confirm talks took place.

Hunter

It's a pity the two Parties can't work together on this. There is a real possibility that both Parties, being so close on policies, would split a vote that could otherwise see of the Labour candidate. It may be that the Tory and LibDem are just as bad, but at least it would give Labour the boot. If there is a real chance that UKIP or BNP could win a seat were it not for splitting the vote then this would be even more reason for doing so. This isn't unheard of in British politics. The Liberals and Democrats did this before they merged, and it isn't unknown for LibDem/Tory agreements when contesting against Labour.

Liverpool has a particular MP who is more of a hinderance than a help to a region that has one of the highest unemployment figures in the country, it would be beneficial to the people of Liverpool to have this lot removed and if co-operation is the key to doing so, then I believe it should be considered.

blueblood1920

Labour are getting stronger in Liverpool, Lib Dems run the council and are likely to lose control to Labour soon.

In Liverpool UKIP are nothing, Sefton is their area and that is the area they wanted BNP to stand aside but refused to stand aside for a BNP candidate target ward. They need to give to recieve, to be totally honest we dont want UKIP to have a seat in Merseyside as we want UKIP gone altogether as they are just a state safety valve.

Hunter

If the UKIP refused to give way in one area they can't really complain that the BNP won't give way for them. Co-operation is a give and take system.

Did they give any reason why they wouldn't give way on the targeted area?

Populist Lee

I darsay a UKIP spokes*person* will resort to the dreaded "F . . " word.
"No deals with fascists . . ."

You should know the form by now.

__________________
ENGLISH POPULISM
Stands as the only obstacle in the path of the Plutocrats
who seek to reduce all the Peoples of the World
to Economic and Political Slavery under Globalism


POPULISM MEANS WHAT YOU WANT IS WHAT YOU GET

Hunter

This may be what head office think PL, but on the ground, with limited finances, the grassroots workers know how the system really works.

Populist Lee

They do indeed.

I could be a right b*****d with all the little nuggets of information I've picked up along the way . . .
Amounts to a goldmine, one could say.

But. The Cause comes first.

__________________
ENGLISH POPULISM
Stands as the only obstacle in the path of the Plutocrats
who seek to reduce all the Peoples of the World
to Economic and Political Slavery under Globalism


POPULISM MEANS WHAT YOU WANT IS WHAT YOU GET

The Guvnah

... and furthermore

Passing appropriated resemblence to a party of the right and nothing more, certainly not close enough for me to encompass. So they won't reciprocate? what arrogance, do they (UKIP) believe that a handful of MEPs feeding at the trough confers a superiority?

Millennium3

Although no longer a member of UKIP, it seems to me that it is essential to get some members of the anti EU parties into the HofC at the next GE so that the case can be made, there, for changing our relationship with Europe. I would favour a 'British Democratic Alliance' being formed by these parties, agreeing a relatively simple manifesto [item 1. A post ratification referendum on the LT] and allocating constituencies to each party, based on strength.

Although the Lords Constitution committee have ruled that we can get out any time we choose, I understand there is a clause in the LT which requires the applications of member countries who wish to leave to be subject to a vote through QMV, which comes into force 5 years after the Treaty has been ratified. In order to be able to act within this time scale, it would be necessary for anti EU MPs to be the majority by the GE after next [this would be close in terms of timing]. This extremely difficult task would be virtually impossible if at least some anti EUers are not elected to the next Parliament.