Tom Wilde

1997 UKIP leadership election - conducted professionally and cordially.

2000 UKIP leadership election - conducted professionally but acrimoniously. The runner-up (who had expected to win) flounced out of the party announcing that it had been "taken over by extremists".

2002 UKIP leadership election - to save expense and prevent acrimony, two of the three candidates were persuaded to withdraw after close of nominations, ensuring that there was no vote. This resulted in the leader having far less credibility to draw on two years later during the...

2004 UKIP leadership crisis - very acrimonious and marked by hostility on all sides, and resolved by a split which gravely damaged the party in the general election the following year.

2006 UKIP leadership election - ???


I am very pleased that we are having a leadership election on schedule when required by the party constitution and not as a result of some crisis or upheaval.

I am very pleased that we have three good candidates, any one of whom would be a credible leader. (Sorry, I'm not sold on the 4th candidate, the "EU police state" guy - though it is obvious that he too has some valuable talents) Yes, they have different strengths and different weaknesses, and different visions for the party, but that is all to the good as it means party members have a genuine choice this time.

Some folk have seemed to suggest that DCB is not a genuinely independent candidate because he has said that he would work amicably with Nigel Farage if elected. I do not think this means he isn't a genuine candidate. On the contrary, I would like to see all candidates make clear that they will work amicably with one another regardless of the leadership election result. If they said that, then I'd really think UKIP had grown up.

As I'm not a party member I don't have a vote and I don't feel I have a right to pontificate about whom others should vote for. But as a friend of UKIP I do urge all the supporters of all the candidates to conduct themselves towards each other and towards each candidate with respect and charity.

But of course I'm stating the obvious.

Aren't I?

Mikeuk

I've raised this before. Although I have some regard for your intellect I certainly don't share your left-of-centre opinions and I think it's quite amazing that you do in fact frequently pontificate (about 'racism' etc etc etc) when you are not prepared to lay out £15 for a sub.

I was a politically-restricted civil servant for years and that didn't stop me paying my sub to the Tory Party. I simply do not believe that there is any valid reason why you are not a card-carrying member of UKIP and your cloak-and-dagger secrecy about the matter simply adds to my suspicions.

Tom Wilde

You are probably the only person in the known universe, let alone this forum, who would describe my broadly classical liberal opinions as "left-of-centre". Still, I personally have no hang-ups about that description. Call me left-of-centre, call me right-of-centre, just don't call me late for lunch. And I'm not put out that you don't share my opinions.

Yes, looking back at my 1,500+ past postings that amazes me too. Still, this forum is a pontification-friendly zone and now you mention it, he who is without sin...

Maybe you simply have a suspicious nature? As I attempted to indicate on earlier occasions, I don't feel any particular urge to justify myself to you, though ta for the invitation.

But Enough About Me...

Tom Wilde

They've all been posted on this forum individually, but here are links to all four candidates' websites gathered handily onto one page and propagated on the information superhighway via the medium of the Open Directory Project (dmoz to its mates):

http://www.dmoz.org/Regional/Europe/...Election_2006/

In my unaccustomed role as an advocate of sweetness and light, may I say that all four websites look highly professional. Good to know that whatever its other failings, UKIP does have at least four really good website designers.

Incidentally, you can see the number of websites listed on dmoz for each party in Britain on this page here:

http://www.dmoz.org/Regional/Europe/...itics/Parties/

Presumably there is some sort of correlation, however shaky, between the number of websites a party has and the amount of activity going on in that party. (Or at least, the amount of hot air generated by that party?) Calculated on this slightly dubious basis, the five biggest parties in Britain today are:

1st: Liberal Democrats (635 websites)
2nd: Conservative Party (612 websites)
3rd: Labour Party (435 websites)
4th: UK Independence Party (114 websites)
5th: Green Party (34 websites).

SponPlague

No wonder we're short of cash! It's £20 for a sub, £10 for pensioners etc! :shock:

Mikeuk

Whatever. The demand comes in and I pay it, as I have every year since UKIP was founded. I also forked out yet again the other day when someone phoned up conducting a whip-round for Nigel's by-election.

As. I'm sure, would 99% of other UKIP members and supporters asked to assist.

No. What annoys me about Tom's attitude is that he is happy to pontificate about the predominantly conservative views of fully paid-up UKIP members, which he consider to be in some way morally inferior to his own, yet he's not prepared to dip into his pocket and pay just twenty pounds to help the party.

I know he's ultra-touchy about this because the last time I raised it he stopped posting for several days afterwards!

As for left wing/right wing, Tom is an egalitarian; a classic left-winger in other words. There were no socialists and communists when the anti-traditionalists first took up their position on the left of the Assemblee Nationale. He'd have found plenty of other 'classical liberals' there. I'm not sure about Robespierre's views on Adam Smith but I do know that when he was a magistrate under Louis XVI he was passionately opposed to capital punishment, which I guess makes him a liberal too. (A certain lack of inconsistency is par for the course with the liberal-left).

Furthermore Tom - a non-member - claimed to be actively involved in the liaison with the Marxist rag Searchlight. With the exception of a tiny rogue element no UKIP member would want anything to do with these scum - the thuggish mirror image of the BNP.

Tom's confusion doesn’t surprise me. Many months ago I suggested that the classic phrase most likely to be uttered by a grassroots UKIP member is 'I'm not a racist but...' (As opposed to BNP - 'I'm a racist ')

Tom, on the other hand, suggested that a typical UKIP member would be more likely to say 'I'm not a racist and...'

Dream on, Tom. Why not join UKIP and put yourself in touch with reality? :twisted: :twisted: :twisted:

Tom Wilde

Given the title of this thread, I find Mike's two postings about me particularly droll. Not being an egomaniac, I want to keep this thread on the topic of the leadership election and not let it be turned into a discussion of moi. Therefore won't reply to most of Mike's nonsense here - though Mike, if you want to repost it in a new thread in the Talk About Anything area I will respond there to whatever bits take my interest. However, one remark I must correct straight away is this one:

I have never claimed any such thing! Just to make doubly clear, I've never had any involvement whatever in any such liaison nor claimed any such involvement. Mike, you must have misunderstood one of my postings on the subject. Perhaps you might like to indicate which one? I'm totally baffled as to how you got this idea. I did repeatedly argue that Mark Croucher was right to be in touch with Searchlight - but giving him my complete moral support on this issue hardly qualifies as being "actively involved in the liaison".

Mikeuk

I'm sure you're right. It was some time ago now, but even 'approving' of relations with Searchlight is beyond the pale. It's a far-left militant Marxist publication that has frequently attacked UKIP in general and UKIP politicians in particular.

If Searchlight 'help' UKIP it will only be to feed misinformation and cause damage. Incidentally Searchlight has a vested interest in bigging-up the BNP. It's the BNP and the rest of the real far-right that keeps the paper going and pays the salaries of its staff.