John Page

UKIP seeks out Conservative voters with domestic agenda
By : Fraser Nelson January 15, 2006
http://tinyurl.com/8wahg (The Business Online)


THE UK Independence Party, which campaigned for Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union, is to lay out a domestic agenda aimed at wooing Conservatives dismayed with the leadership of David Cameron.

The party has appointed David Campbell-Bannerman, great nephew of the former Liberal Prime Minister Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman, as its new chairman with a remit of conducting a radical libertarian policy review.

It aims to recast itself as a party campaigning for independence from government “whether in Brussels or in Westminster” and believes it can win funding from disgruntled Conservative donors.

After last week’s conferences, UKIP – which finished third in the 2004 European Parliament elections – decided to pitch itself as the only alternative to what it will call the “social democratic consensus” in Westminster.

Its policy review is likely to result in calls for a flat tax in Britain, and full liberalisation of the state health and education apparatus using a voucher system. This will in effect position it as a protest party for libertarian Conservatives.

Nigel Farage, leader of its MEPs, said some Conservatives fear they are too right-wing for Cameron’s new party and that they are going to be expunged.

Since being elected last month, Cameron has made several policy changes – signalling that he does not believe in helping people “go private” if the National Health Service cannot treat them in time.

Specifically, he has abolished the “parents passport” policy that would allow children to go private if the school charged less than the state. This has caused ructions among Tory MPs who all fought on a platform of implementing the passport system.

UKIP fared badly in last year’s general election, finishing fourth with just 2.2%.

==========

Good news - presaged only by the Chairman's press release as far as I know?

John Page

This comment appears on one of John Youles' boards
The writer (not me) then quotes the piece from The Business.

I agree. We have now had this three times, once from the chairman in a press release, once from Nigel, and once in The Business.

Two points -

1. We would be most ill advised to start off with immigration, if only for political reasons of presentation.

2. The party will have to change the way it works, since the MEPs will not have the time to do all the work themselves. It is up to the NEC to make sure that the party changes its working practices to make the new strategy effective.

I am hoping to have more to say on this

Millennium3

This may well be the start of an important change in the strategy of the Party which, judging from the general comments made on this forum, would be welcome by the majority.

However, it is vital that this change is made through consultation and agreement with the membership. Whether this can be achieved by altering the composition of the NEC or through the leadership election remains to be seen. For it is certain, an altered party, totally in the grip of the leadership, is just another tyranny which, if successful, will seek despotic solutions and worsen the conditions for the majority rather than improve them.

There needs to be ‘top down’ so that the leadership can convey its ideas to the membership, but we also need its counterbalance ‘bottom up’ so that the members views are fully taken INTO phpbb_account.

One Londoner

Perhaps Nigel can point out when this strategy was ever communicated to anyone.

I joined UKIP in 1995 (in preference to the better-funded but single-issue Referendum Party) on the strength of an excellent full manifesto. All UKIP literature has always been at pains to point out that UKIP is a fully fledged political party with a full domestic agenda. This is also clearly stated in the party constutution under Aims.

I think what Nigel actually means is that it was HIS intention that UKIP should only be an anti-EU pressure group, despite what the rest intended. Nigel's statement is more revealing about who really runs UKIP than he can ever have intended.

Tom Collier

This sounds like reactive politics of the worst kind. People like the NHS and a distinction between the public and private sector. They don`t like mass immigration. I know a few politicos shout at you but the mass of ordinary people don`t like mass immigration for very good, non racist reasons. When are we going to listen to the people and not the political commentators. I am all in favour of being against the social democratic consensus and I count myself as a libertarian. But you don`t use public funds to line the pockets of the public sector. Period. I am sick and tired of saying this in UKIP. The people at the top of the party all too often are small businessman maverics who do not know the common man. Titford for all his reasonableness and common sense has a strange past and strange leanings.

eublues

(I think you meant to type private sector when you said public.)

This muddling of the private and public sectors by the government ("partnerships" in the code) is bad. Public sector has good and bad points, private sector has good and bad points. Put them together and you usually get the worst of both.

What is UKIP's position on PFI? I think we should say that except in very limited circumstances we are against it. No mention of this in the 2005 manifesto as far as I can see.

Tom Collier

True

Phat Boy Fat

We should rephrase the way we speak of immigration. The problem being as soon as anyone dares to criticise the governments open border, pro mass immigration policy the inevitible knee jerk shout goes up "Racist, racist, you're a dirty racist!" If it isn't actually said it is implied.

We need to sell a limited immigration policy as something along the lines of 'near zero population growth strategy'. That way we avoid the 'I' word. Emphasise the population pressure we are under, crowded roads, crowded schools, poor water supply for new housing, increasing population density etc. I believe if we sell it this way it avoids the negative associations associated with politicians/parties speaking out against immigration.

C_steam

To OL - absolutely agree-my response on the ind-dem was

"where was this strategy written and who shared this view? I think Nigel, frankly, is seeing the way the wind is blowing and changing his own personal agenda to suit. After all, it was/is nigel and a few others who have tried so hard to control the direction of UKIP"

And I was being as polite as possible.

John Page

So who forced through the change, then?