Britannist

I notice that Veritas keep giving out results of their various internal elections in percentage terms only - is this to disguise the small number of people participating in these votes?

Their website says that all those who put their name forwards for the Veritas NEC (due to meet on 12.11.2005) are elected because there were not enough candidates.

If it is the party of 'truth' then they should honestly say how many fully-paid up members they've got.

One Londoner

The fact that a dedicated anti-EU activist leaves UKIP (along with many others) after many years service surely indicates that there is a problem, which brings us back to the original point of this thread. Maybe I should have entitled it "Who does the leadership of UKIP want to run the country?"

Lawrie Boxall

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.

Sarumano

Wasn’t there an awful lot of debate on precisely this subject last year…that started off as a ‘where are we heading/what goes in the Manifesto?’ question?
What were the answers then?
I agree with those who say we should be a fully fledged Political Party, and not just a bunch of pigmies sharpening pointy sticks.
Pygmies with pointy sticks have their uses in poking politicians with uncomfortable EU facts until they finally fall off their fence, but the long-term aim should be to get MP’s INTO phpbb_Parliament, where they can do damage to EU diktats, and ultimately influence a complete Government INTO phpbb_falling off the fence.
How do we get there? There must be a long-term plan (road map?) for the NEC and leadership.
First I’d say look at the manifestos of all the other anti-EU parties, see what they want, find out if UKIP has common ground, and whether we could form alliances. We already know e.g. that Veritas has common ground with UKIP, we should be talking to them, saying come back, all is forgiven, (even RKS can come back; if he wants to put himself forward as Party Leader of UKIP then he can put himself up in exactly the same way that I can – and probably get rejected in much the same way as I would).
(But think of the publicity!) 8)
Maybe we should be looking at such people as Democracy Movement and Freedom Alliance and trying to address why their people do NOT wish to vote with UKIP.:idea:

Hartlepool

Why do you miss out the CONS Party in all this alliances talk? The CONS and progCONS claim to be Euroskeptics dont they? :roll:

mfaithfull

Perhaps we've been CONned once too often. We're not interested in false claims and not at all convinced by those who claim to be against the European Project but won't leave a party dedicated to its continuance. If you don't believe in a single European State then stop supporting it with your membership fees and your credibility.
Don't think I'm being reasonable :?:
Check out whether CON MEPs money went to the YES or the NO campaigns on the European Constitution referendums in France and Holland!

That's finance with the pupose of influencing a democratic vote in a foreign country. Definately against Tory policy and possibly illegal although I'm happy to admit we helped the NO campaigns.
That's support for a constitution they say they are against.
That's a complete waste of money which does square with their 'Thatcherite' 'principles'.
That's dishonest.
That's a con.

Need I say more...

Hartlepool

You said it all! Spot on as well,mfaithfull. Thanks.

Sarumano

I wasn't pointing at any particular Party; after all, we are supposed to be a cross-party movement, aren't we?

The best we can do, I think, is keep showing the Cons (and Labs, and Libs) everything we have on the Euro feet of clay; some of our thinking is penetrating, if my parents and parents-in-law are anything to go by.
Fifty years of voting Tory, but they are now very dubious about the Tory propaganda, and they are talking to others, too!

And if they wish to stop voting Tory, and vote UKIP, who am I to argue? :twisted:

No doubt others can report similar for the other two parties.

White knight

UKIP is a PARTY! It is the party to take us out of the clutches of the EU Goverment and lead this country and return the Powers and freedoms to the electorate, and give the British people the democracy to rule our country's destiny!

We have a Manifesto!
http://www.ukip.org/index.php?menu=m...nifesto2005top