Martin Harvey

John Page asked me whether the article was unfair or untrue.

The inference is that Kilroy-Silk gave UKIP our 2004 success, that is untrue. It was the strategy and the hard work of the activists at local level that produced that magnificent result. He refers to a 'derisory 2.2% of the vote at the general election. In fact the 2005 general election was a great success for UKIP and we did make a big difference. Ask the Conservatives in Harlow, my own Constituency. The Cons failed to win by 75 votes, and at the third recount on the Saturday morning, one of their acivists Mr Van Orden and his wife lost their temper with me. Our UKIP candidate and another ex-UKIP candidate had polled 1922 votes, which the Cons claimed should have been theirs. In Broxbourne, UKIP polled 1479 votes, and our best result in the East was almost 8%. results like these make people realise that it IS worth voting for UKIP and we will soon return an MP to Westminster. That is why some are ridiculing us.
As Ghandi said, 'First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, next they fight you and then you win.' UKIP is already at stage two.
Martin Harvey.

Britannist

Money was a bigger factor in the stunning success for UKIP at the 2004 EU Election than Kilroy - the financial help of Mr. Paul Sykes and Mr. Alan Bown paid for excellent party election broadcasts (on television and radio), posters and leaflets of a high quality distributed to just about every address from Penzance to John O' Groats. As Martin says above - the work of UKIP activists cannot be understated.

As for Robert Halfon, the Conservative candidate who narrowly failed to win Harlow at the May 2005 General Election - Robert Halfon was a pro-EU candidate in an anti-EU constituency. If he had been strongly eurosceptic and publicised his EU-hostile views (as Bob Spink, the Conservative MP at Canvey Island/Castle Point in the same county of Essex does) he would have won the seat of Harlow with a majority of about 4000.

In fact, the reason why the Conservative Party managed to get within 75 or so votes of winning the Harlow seat (in last year's General Election) was because it ran a national campaign calling for much tighter immigration restrictions - a popular policy in Harlow being so close to Stansted and with the memory of the hi-jacked Afghan aircraft landing at the airport still fresh. Robert Halfon probably didn't agree with making immigration such an issue at the last election - but that is what the national Conservative Party did and it brought the party close to winning at Harlow - running a local strongly eurosceptic campaign would have clinched the seat. Instead, the europhile Labour MP 'Bill' Rammell held on in Harlow at the last General Election. A very similar electoral pattern occured at Crawley - also (like Harlow) a new town close to one of London's airports (Gatwick). Labour held the seat by less than 100 votes. The tighter immigration policy of the Conservatives helped the (Conservative) party come very close to winning Crawley - but they did not fight a local campaign with a strongly eurosceptic 'theme' - and failed to take the seat (in last year's General Election).

The 'new' Conservative policy of 'don't talk about europe' cost the party wins at Harlow, Crawley and in a number of other seats (just under 30 constituencies according to the Bruges Group) at the last General Election.

Andrew Gimson, the Daily Telegraph journalist/columnist, wrote last year that until the Conservatives (the leadership of the Conservative Party) become more eurosceptic or anti-EU and get back the people they have lost to UKIP (voters and members) - it is highly unlikely that they will return to power in a General Election.

Lawrie Boxall

Well he would say that wouldn't he - he's a Telegraph journo - what do you expect him to say?

I think Kilroy had a lot to do with it. Obviously the money was and will be important but so was Kilroy. The interest in UKIP increased exponentially from the moment he declared for us.

Recruiting Kilroy though was a massive gamble which made everyone feel good for a short time and bought short term success, but ultimately proved a disaster for the party. Nigel seems to have learned nothing from the escapade and has placed the recruiting of celebrities high on his list of priorities. He is proposing to make further cheap gimmicks a major part of his strategy. I suppose it beats working for a living.

eublues

The combination of money to spend on billboards and the like plus Kilroy must have doubled the number of MEPs for UKIP in 2004.

UKIP was within a whisker of getting the most votes in Kilroy's region.

The second party political broadcast, which Kilroy fronted, was superb (the first was good).

Kilroy was a liability, but there's no point in denying the short term impact.

May be UKIP needs to take risks like that, because the safe alternative is not promising.

Percy the Poodle

The reasons for success in 04 over 05 in order of importance

1) People felt safe voting for us as the result didn't matter

2) The money

3) Dick Morris co-ordinated and successful message

4) Kilroy

5) Public opposition to the then forthcoming EU Constitution

6) Party activists fighting hard in a co-ordinated campaign

7) The party leadership was going through a good patch

Lawrie Boxall

I am not suggesting a safe alternative at all. There has to be risk taking if UKIP is going to get anywhere. The problem with the Farage and Knapman era is that they have been unwilling or unable to take risks on policy issues and have preferred to stay well inside their comfort zones of pet EU obsessions such as fraud, corruption etc. That is undemanding and very easy stuff which anyone can do - but it leads nowhere in electoral terms and is the antithesis of proper political leadership.

So UKIP needs to take risks of course but planned and calculated and primarily based on UK and world political and geopolitical issues not on gimmicks. The risks I am thinking of are the changes the party needs to make it electable. These are the things the new leader needs to address and at this stage in our fight for democracy and self government we really do not have much to lose.

Of course with taking risks comes taking responsibility and not hiding when things go wrong as they inevitably will from time to time - and that includes putting the party and the members first.

Kilroy didn't exactly do this either and behaved very badly but he would have been very good at reaching out to UK voters and could have made a real contribution had he been handled better.

UKIP should not let the fear of making mistakes stop it from moving away from the single issue comfort zone. Nigel and Roger have been trapped in there for many a year and it is intelectual laziness keeps them there. It is the same laziness which lies behind Nigel's election manifesto I am afraid to say. The poverty of ambition is there for all to see. Nigel does the EU only so that's why he wants us to believe a bit more lobbying in the EU parl will get us out of the EU. Nigel is a one trick pony.

The new UKIP leader should understood that no political progress will be made without some poltical risk. He has to have a vision and not be afraid to express it. But the vision has to be inclusive - not simply designed to appeal to the business classes or the traditional socialists but the mass of people in between.

Provided he gets this right then when mistakes happen it will be the response that matters to the voters, not the mistake itself.

Colin McNamee

Agreed, good post.