Lewkip

I see no reason to change my opinion here. If we truly caused the Tories such damage last year, and some may wonder whether an absent UKIP candidate would immediately see such votes going to the Tories (and let's not rule out the effect UKIP votes had on other parties).

To be clear: We bring a plague on our own houses if we keep sticking to the same old backers and hoping for new and different strings if we are still the same old party. A bigger and diverse group of support, be it votes and/or backers, will inevitably put us in a different light in the eyes of our traditional backers.

Come on, people. You know this isn't rocket science: Nothing attracts new admirers as success. And that is what we should be doing on the ground on our own patches.

Millennium3

If our membership fee was £5 per month [with concessions] and 12,500 paid it we would have half a million a year more.

Lewkip

And we have to make a compelling case why someone should set up a direct debit for £60 per year. As things stand now, I would not pay this. But I might be persuaded otherwise in the presence of a good project.

Millennium3

It would seem a good idea to me to ask the membership what they thought [a questionaire in the next circulation] and perhaps on a few other matters too. The cost of having big backers is that there is a price. The value of having higher membership fees is that the Party can then be run more in line with the membership's wishes.

The direct debit could be for £5 pm.

Populist Lee

Well. I meant the naivety of UKIP collectively. So I apologise if my remark is interpreted as you specifically.

Nevertheless. A lot of people will not vote for a Mainstream candidate whether they are signed up to *BOO* or not.
UKIP will lose votes to other rival parties; and - - perversely - - *some* will go to the Tories. Hence Mr Letwin's smile.
Get it?

arden forester

Until UKIP defines what sort of a party it wants to be, then I doubt if Paul Sykes or anyone else will risk the venture! It does appear that there are some "ex-Nationalists" either pulling strings or hovering in the wings. UKIP should realise that those who are opposed to/have doubts about/want to reform the EU make up a sizeable coalition. At least Kilroy recognised that fact, even if he overreached himself (as usual!).

I'm still not sure if UKIP is the correct party for being a standard-bearer for those of us who feel the three main parties have corrupted political life and British democracy! :shock:

Lewkip

I see what you are saying but to me it is simple:

Option 1
Field five candidates with a sizeable budget to give non-BOO candidates a hard time.

Option 2
Field ten candidates with meagre budgets against both BOO and non-BOO candidates and struggle.

Option 1 is the clear winner. And unlike the political animals we are, such decision-making is not the domain of the average voter. They won't crucify us if we are unable to stand in every constituency, and may even warm to such a strategy if they see why we do it - don't sell them short.

Populist Lee

Yes. If a party is not contesting every seat available, a process of choosing the correct ones is a must do.

The concern I have is that the priority ought to be where UKIP believe they will do best. Using a *BOO* MP as one of the parameters has a serious risk. This risk may be compounded if it is done at the insistence of someone who happens to have given the party Two Million Quid [perhaps].

Where I live it won't affect UKIP as it happens. I can't see my sitting LibDim MP signing up to *BOO*.

Lewkip

Given the bruising leadership campaign we have had, I think it would be a bit rich to ask the membership to just cough up more money in a vacuum. Let the leadership create a compelling business case for more money that members can both support AND identify with on the ground.

For example, a prospective donor could be tapped up to give us matching funds to a fund that ordinary members would contribute to in return for a bunch of custom-designed leaflets and four paid leafletters to deliver them. The idea being that this leaflet would also aim at getting unknown supporters to commit to something like an NSPCC-like £2 per month (and the leaflet would show what that £2 could do for us).

Millennium3

What you suggest would be one way to bring in extra cash. However, what UKIP needs is a regular income so that improvements can be put in place and remain because we have the funds to keep employing the staff. I doubt if the majority of the membership have found the leadership contest bruising - only those directly involved and contributors to forums like this.

The issue I was trying to address is that if we rely on large donors they will demand a price - many of the complaints on this forum may well be because the leadership has to do what they have agreed to, to get money. By consulting with the members there would be a clearer idea of what their priorities are - addressing these is likely to make the party more appealling generally and incline the members to pay more for their membership.