realwales

Fellow UKIPpers, those of you who are former members of the Conservative party in particular, please, please take note of what you are about to read.

You former members of the Conservative party who have switched to UKIP, please realise that joining UKIP is NOT some temporary trial separation from the Conservative party, but a permant, absolute and irreconcilable divorce from a party whom you may have served loyally for many years but has since betrayed you, your values and everything you thought your party stood for. By examining the four leadership contenders, this has never been more obvious.

Firstly, there is Kenneth Clarke. I do not need to preach to the converted here, you know as well as I do about his pro- Euro credentials. But add to this the fact that with the possible exception of the Treasury, every Cabinet portfolio he held he left in a mess, just ask any teacher or doctor whose memory stretches back 15 years or so. His record also proves that he is socially liberal, and I suspect if he was beginning his political career today he would have no difficulty sitting behind Tony Blair or even Charles Kennedy. By electing Mr Clarke as leader, the Conservative party would be prostituting their principles in the name of gaining power for power's sake. Incidentally, I don't think this would work. Mr Clarke isn't nearly as popular with Joe Public as the popular media would have us believe, most people I know regard him as pompous and arrogent. Add to this the fact he would probably destroy his own party in the process- so its not all bad then!

As for David Davis, UKIP leader Roger Knapman summed up this man of double standards perfectly. Whereas Mr Knapman, an honourable and thoroughly decent man resigned as a government whip over Maastricht, Mr Davis acted as a whip to get the Treaty through. He has also previously been a Europe Minister, and his voting record has been relatively similar to that of Kenneth Clarke. I do not believe his speech last week was nearly as bad as the media would have us believe, it was unspectacular but far from terrible. I dismiss him instead because he has not made a firm commitment to EU withdrawal and his somewhat coy attitude towards the issue of Europe make me wonder whether he has actually changed his mind at all. Only if he publically and unambiguously states that he has changed his mind and adjusts his policies accordingly will I take this man as credible.

Then there is David Cameron, the 'reformer', the 'moderniser' and the '21st century candidate who will appeal to younger voters'. Yeah, right! Mr Cameron's speech was grossly over- praised and lacked any backbone. A true conservative regards much of the social and cultural revolution that Britain has seen in the past 50 years has done more harm than good. It has weakened the family unit, made our education system far poorer, and seen crime rocket. Why on earth doees Mr cameron seek to endorse it? The reality is Mr Cameron is a public school toff and a career politician, and there is something very creepy about his entire campaign. Also, would somebody please find me some of these young people who find him appealing? The young people I know who take any interest in politics at all are certainly not interested in the age of the politicians. Of course, on top of this if you are a UKIP supporter you will most likely agree he is not Euro- sceptic enough for our liking.

Finally, there is Dr Liam Fox. A first look suggests he shares many of the values you would hold dear. You may see him a euro- sceptic (although like Hague and IDS, not euro- sceptic enough when push comes to shove), Atlanticist, anti- abortion and pro- family. These are the values the Conservative party used to stand for and probably the values you hold dear- I know I do. But look more closely. The front page of his website reads, "It [the Conservative Party] must present a fresh and younger image that will attract the younger voters who will make the difference between winning and losing." This statement stinks of David Cameron to me, and that when it comes down to putting his long- held principles INTO phpbb_action, it seems pretty apparent to me he will go the same way as Hague and IDS. Of course, the reason he'll never do it is because it'll upset the Clarkite/ Cameronite 'modernisers' and split the party, something I believe is inevitable in the long term.

The blunt truth is that the Conservative party is too wide a church ever to be a credible force in British politics again. In the unlikely event of them ever gaining power again, they would be unable to implement the values the party and its followers have held dear due to so many of them being 'modernisers' (ranging from Clarke to Cameron to Maude) who have endorsed the cultural revolution. And more to the point, they will certainly never commit to Britain's withdrawal from the EU.

The Conservative party will NEVER do what you want them to, and to those of you who think of UKIP as some kind of Tory splinter group I urge you to stop now. We are something far greater and far more important than that:

We are the only true opposition party this country now has- and we're here to stay!

Cyburn

I agree, but we must ensure that UKIP is taken seriously, and not just seen as some Anti-EU party

UKIP got 0.3% of the vote in 1997, 1.5% in 2001 and 2.3% in 2005.
UKIP are rising, but need to rise faster.