Bromley...like the plot from the film Rogue Trader...

BASILDON BOY · 30-06-2006, 10:57 PM

From the BNPs website

http://www.bnp.org.uk/reg_showarticl...contentID=1072

Kent correspondent reports.

Our Kent correspondent has been feeding us “titbits” on UKIP’s extraordinary “money pit” campaign in Chistlehurst for the last month – causing us to increasingly conclude that the anti-EU group was going to end up seriously embarrassed on polling day. The result, announced earlier this morning, would appear to entirely vindicate this conclusion.

Just like the film “Rogue Trader” - claim!

Our correspondent, who is a former UKIP member from West Kent, still retains contact with former UKIP colleagues in Bromley Borough. His comments – from the “horse’s mouth” so to speak – suggest that UKIP’s campaign managers knew things were not going to plan weeks ago – yet they apparently continued to spend money in the hope – or expectation – that “something will turn up”! Well, quite clearly, nothing much did!

Our correspondent also informs us that it all reminds him of the plot from the film “Rogue Trader” – where an out-of-control stock market futures dealer throws ever-larger sums of good money after bad, hoping that each new cash injection will turn things around to his advantage! It didn’t work in the film either!

Yet if it can be claimed that the Tories suffered a bloody nose because of voter apathy and an effective Lib-Dem campaign, then it must be equally true that UKIP is in Intensive Care – having been bled-white through its apparently unbridled, irrational and pointless haemorrhaging of member’s money!

The fact that they clearly expected to do better – a lot better as it happens – is attested to in the following quote from a BBC report of just a week ago (23rd June):

”UKIP is also throwing everything it has at the seat, in the hope of capitalising on what its candidate, MEP Nigel Farage, describes as the "large number of traditional Conservative voters who are very disillusioned with David Cameron".

The party is flooding the constituency with activists and attempting to scare up a bit of old-fashioned by-election fun.

The first sight that greets us on exiting Bromley South station is Mr Farage waving at voters from a vintage open-topped Alvis decked out in party colours.

UKIP activists excitedly talk up the party's chances, even suggesting they could snatch a spectacular victory.”

£75,000 spent for 800 extra votes and 8.1% of poll.

When the election expenses forms are completed and available for public scrutiny it is thought likely that they will confirm that UKIP spent more on its campaign than the Conservatives and Lib-Dems combined!

Indeed whereas the cost of a Conservative or Lib-Dem vote (arrived at by dividing estimated campaign expenditure by number of votes won) is estimated to be around £2.5 – the cost of a UKIP vote is thought to be in excess of a staggering £30!

This is probably a record for post war British politics and a possible contender for an entry in the Guinness Book of Records! All that money spent – just to add a further 800 votes to the 1400 won during last year’s General Election and a very poor third place - due not to UKIP's efforts but to the total collapse of the Labour vote!

Chistlehurst is “UKIP country”!

But, in a very real sense, the damage done to UKIP is even greater than this uninspiring result suggests.

Had UKIP contested a hopeless, run-down, inner city Labour constituency then their appalling performance (taking into account effort and money expended) could perhaps be excused – but Chistlehurst is supposed to be prime UKIP country par-exellence and this at a time when both support for Blair’s Labour Party and Cameron’s Tories are at an all time low!

In addition they stood their best-known figure and, as already described, spent a bizarrely huge amount of money in promoting him! Under the circumstances what electoral hope is there for UKIP anywhere?

Indeed despite UKIP’s colossal efforts and the uniquely favourable opportunity afforded to them through this by-election, they could not even poll five times the vote of the despised, “potless” and unelectable National Front! One inevitably wonders what further embarrassment they have been spared through the absence of a British National Party candidate!

BNP intervention saved UKIP from an even worst drubbing.

During the recent council elections the BNP polled more strongly than UKIP in the borough. Undoubtedly many local BNP members and supporters would have responded to BNP Chairman Nick Griffin’s call to “hold their nose” and vote UKIP earlier this week. Under the circumstances it is entirely possible that it was BNP support that enabled UKIP to finish 422 votes ahead of Labour and even, perhaps, saved their deposit! Certainly BNP intervention in UKIP’s favour did them no harm at all and the absence of a BNP candidate almost certainly saved them from losing their deposit and finishing, perhaps, in fifth place!

How will UKIP's leadership explain this away?

Our Kent correspondent also wonders how UKIP’s top brass are going to explain away this, the latest in a lengthening line of electoral fiascos, to their visibly shrinking and increasingly despondent membership.

The problem is obvious – the scale of expenditure is grossly unacceptable to most members – but electoral law requires that it be accounted for accurately. Now whereas, under “normal circumstances”, it may be possible to fob the rank and file off with assertions of “media exaggeration” – or simply to expel “troublemakers” - the difficulty arises in that the Party has now to prepare an accurate and detailed breakdown of campaign expenditure by law!

Such a document will, we suspect, prove invaluable to at least one faction within the bickering anti-EU group - as a bludgeon with which to clobber another!

More news as it develops.

mkpdavies · 30-06-2006, 11:18 PM

Man they love us. Sooooo much attention.

Independent UKIP · 01-07-2006, 12:36 AM

Quote:

Indeed whereas the cost of a Conservative or Lib-Dem vote (arrived at by dividing estimated campaign expenditure by number of votes won) is estimated to be around £2.5 – the cost of a UKIP vote is thought to be in excess of a staggering £30!

Again the quote of how much money spent per vote. Presumably every Lib Dem penny was wasted as were labour, UKIP, green, nf, ed etc? I guess the smart BNP in not standing & the tories who almost lost were the only ones who gained value for money? How much publicity did BNP get at Bromley - Zero. More likely their hard core supporters ARE furious that they did not stand and this is the pathetic BNP response to that decision. I'm sure Farage would have beaten the BNP by a wide margin though the tory majority would have been a bit lower than it was.

Intbel · 01-07-2006, 05:15 AM

I wonder who is the nameless "Kent Correspondent"?

mkpdavies · 01-07-2006, 09:56 AM

And did they mean Kent or was it a case of crossed wires?

Intbel · 01-07-2006, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mkpdavies

And did they mean Kent or was it a case of crossed wires?

Says West Kent & ex-member - so what would someone not being a member and therefore not being involved know?

Unless they meant West Sussex ... mind you, nameless correspondents are often imaginary, rather like undisclosed sources...

30-06-2006, 10:57 PM	#1 (permalink)
BASILDON BOY Uber Member Join Date: May 2005 Location: N'Djamena, Chad Posts: 2,060	Bromley...like the plot from the film Rogue Trader... From the BNPs website http://www.bnp.org.uk/reg_showarticl...contentID=1072 Kent correspondent reports. Our Kent correspondent has been feeding us “titbits” on UKIP’s extraordinary “money pit” campaign in Chistlehurst for the last month – causing us to increasingly conclude that the anti-EU group was going to end up seriously embarrassed on polling day. The result, announced earlier this morning, would appear to entirely vindicate this conclusion. Just like the film “Rogue Trader” - claim! Our correspondent, who is a former UKIP member from West Kent, still retains contact with former UKIP colleagues in Bromley Borough. His comments – from the “horse’s mouth” so to speak – suggest that UKIP’s campaign managers knew things were not going to plan weeks ago – yet they apparently continued to spend money in the hope – or expectation – that “something will turn up”! Well, quite clearly, nothing much did! Our correspondent also informs us that it all reminds him of the plot from the film “Rogue Trader” – where an out-of-control stock market futures dealer throws ever-larger sums of good money after bad, hoping that each new cash injection will turn things around to his advantage! It didn’t work in the film either! Yet if it can be claimed that the Tories suffered a bloody nose because of voter apathy and an effective Lib-Dem campaign, then it must be equally true that UKIP is in Intensive Care – having been bled-white through its apparently unbridled, irrational and pointless haemorrhaging of member’s money! The fact that they clearly expected to do better – a lot better as it happens – is attested to in the following quote from a BBC report of just a week ago (23rd June): ”UKIP is also throwing everything it has at the seat, in the hope of capitalising on what its candidate, MEP Nigel Farage, describes as the "large number of traditional Conservative voters who are very disillusioned with David Cameron". The party is flooding the constituency with activists and attempting to scare up a bit of old-fashioned by-election fun. The first sight that greets us on exiting Bromley South station is Mr Farage waving at voters from a vintage open-topped Alvis decked out in party colours. UKIP activists excitedly talk up the party's chances, even suggesting they could snatch a spectacular victory.” £75,000 spent for 800 extra votes and 8.1% of poll. When the election expenses forms are completed and available for public scrutiny it is thought likely that they will confirm that UKIP spent more on its campaign than the Conservatives and Lib-Dems combined! Indeed whereas the cost of a Conservative or Lib-Dem vote (arrived at by dividing estimated campaign expenditure by number of votes won) is estimated to be around £2.5 – the cost of a UKIP vote is thought to be in excess of a staggering £30! This is probably a record for post war British politics and a possible contender for an entry in the Guinness Book of Records! All that money spent – just to add a further 800 votes to the 1400 won during last year’s General Election and a very poor third place - due not to UKIP's efforts but to the total collapse of the Labour vote! Chistlehurst is “UKIP country”! But, in a very real sense, the damage done to UKIP is even greater than this uninspiring result suggests. Had UKIP contested a hopeless, run-down, inner city Labour constituency then their appalling performance (taking into account effort and money expended) could perhaps be excused – but Chistlehurst is supposed to be prime UKIP country par-exellence and this at a time when both support for Blair’s Labour Party and Cameron’s Tories are at an all time low! In addition they stood their best-known figure and, as already described, spent a bizarrely huge amount of money in promoting him! Under the circumstances what electoral hope is there for UKIP anywhere? Indeed despite UKIP’s colossal efforts and the uniquely favourable opportunity afforded to them through this by-election, they could not even poll five times the vote of the despised, “potless” and unelectable National Front! One inevitably wonders what further embarrassment they have been spared through the absence of a British National Party candidate! BNP intervention saved UKIP from an even worst drubbing. During the recent council elections the BNP polled more strongly than UKIP in the borough. Undoubtedly many local BNP members and supporters would have responded to BNP Chairman Nick Griffin’s call to “hold their nose” and vote UKIP earlier this week. Under the circumstances it is entirely possible that it was BNP support that enabled UKIP to finish 422 votes ahead of Labour and even, perhaps, saved their deposit! Certainly BNP intervention in UKIP’s favour did them no harm at all and the absence of a BNP candidate almost certainly saved them from losing their deposit and finishing, perhaps, in fifth place! How will UKIP's leadership explain this away? Our Kent correspondent also wonders how UKIP’s top brass are going to explain away this, the latest in a lengthening line of electoral fiascos, to their visibly shrinking and increasingly despondent membership. The problem is obvious – the scale of expenditure is grossly unacceptable to most members – but electoral law requires that it be accounted for accurately. Now whereas, under “normal circumstances”, it may be possible to fob the rank and file off with assertions of “media exaggeration” – or simply to expel “troublemakers” - the difficulty arises in that the Party has now to prepare an accurate and detailed breakdown of campaign expenditure by law! Such a document will, we suspect, prove invaluable to at least one faction within the bickering anti-EU group - as a bludgeon with which to clobber another! More news as it develops.

30-06-2006, 11:18 PM	#2 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 32,078 Party: Libertarian Party	Man they love us. Sooooo much attention. __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Lib Dems

01-07-2006, 05:15 AM	#4 (permalink)
Intbel Uber Member Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: In a field near you - look for the yellow and purple tent ... Posts: 4,665	I wonder who is the nameless "Kent Correspondent"? __________________ We are all free to choose - every step of the way - no exceptions.

01-07-2006, 09:56 AM	#5 (permalink)
mkpdavies Uber Member Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Woking Posts: 32,078 Party: Libertarian Party	And did they mean Kent or was it a case of crossed wires? __________________ http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/ http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/ http://lpuk.org My ignore list Labour, Lib Dems

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode