Nigel on the ropes already?

ryansoton · 10-10-2006, 10:04 PM

As a recent poll on this forum showed, the question of if we should stand against BOO mps and candidates is one which has split views.
At a time when UKIP cant afford to stand in all constituencies we need to have a plan for which ones we dont stand in. This is a good enough way of targeting our resources.

B.A.Ware · 10-10-2006, 10:35 PM

This targeting of resources is very well , but in reality most candidates at the last election paid for their own campaign if the local branch have a willing candidate and are prepared to run their own campaign i cannot see why they should stand down for a BOO candidate.

Even if they don't stand a chance of winning it is a way to build the local branch and helps in future local campaigns.

Put it this way if we didn't stand in our Tory safe seat we wouldn't have a branch now.

Independent UKIP · 10-10-2006, 11:08 PM

There is no correlation between the inability of UKIP to contest or seriously campaign in seats and BOO candidates contesting seats. I'm not aware of any Scottish BOO MPs but that is the weakest area of the UK for UKIP.

In 2005 UKIP did not stand in some BOO signer seats for what reason I don't know. It might well be appropriate to not stand against them again next time if they choose to stand. But Jeffrey Titford did stand in Harwich and got 4.6%. Neil Hamper stood in Castle Point and got 7.5% which was by far the best UKIP result in the 'eastern region' and one of the top 10 results in the whole of the UK. If I was an activist in Harwich or Castle Point and was told, thanks very much for all your effort in 2005 but this area is now off limits to UKIP but we'd really like you to spend the time travelling at your own expense to another part of the country to campaign for UKIP if that is OK; I don't think I would be impressed with the suggestion and I will be amazed if the local activists in those constituencies will be impressed either.

B.A.Ware · 10-10-2006, 11:28 PM

We got 4.9% first time standing which i thought wasn't bad, we paid for it ourselves, if Andrew Mitchel (our Tory MP)had decided to sign the BOO and we couldn't stand we wouldn't have a branch and i would have left the party.

Perhaps that might be the best for the present leadership but hardly what i call bringing politics back to the people.

Petrina · 11-10-2006, 08:08 AM

Nattrass`s clarification is astonishing ! Farage has given the BOO group an undertaking that we will not stand against any of them ,looks to me like MN said the first thing that came into his head to try and get himself out of a tight corner on the day .It makes the party look very shifty.

I agree with NF on this .We are part of an overall effort to put forward the view to the public that we must get out .To attack co -activists looks like the politics of the playground to me . If we find that any of those BOO MPs are double dealing on the topic then that is a different matter .
We ain`t going to win this battle on our own we need to link in with other groups .

jp · 11-10-2006, 08:34 AM

I support the BOO initiative, but as discussed above it definitely has some drawbacks.

One of my concerns is that the percentage of the vote achieved across the country is seen as an important criterion for success. This is bound to suffer if UKIP does not stand in all seats.

komerad · 11-10-2006, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petrina

.
We ain`t going to win this battle on our own we need to link in with other groups .

Petrina - I absolutely agree. No one orgnisation at present, is big enough to take the UK out of the EU.
The Democracy Movement, BOO. CIB,Freedom Assoc. & UKIP (To name a few) are all marching in the same direction, but along different roads.
I see no point in standing against a member of our own side when we all have the same gaol,out of the EU.
Let's all meet at the cross-roads,discuss our joint strategy and proceed
along the main highway TOGETHER.Then we would get people to sit up and listen!!
As it is now, each organisation is punching as a featherweight, not really inflicting any damage on the enemy, but quite content to plod on doing their little bit. Combine us all & we could have the KO punch of a heavy weight. Unity is Strength :!: :!:

tamashi · 11-10-2006, 01:26 PM

I think on the ropes is a bit steep, unless the thread is titled that to make it seem worse than it is. The principle of not standing against BOO Candidates is one which seems admirable to me since we UKIP and BOO both want the same thing, why fragment the vote? However, the process by which we implement the principle on the ground is what will make or break it.

If UKIP said we wouldn't stand against any actively campaigning BOO Candidate signed up by January 1st 2007 then that would be fine by me. If we said we wouldn't stand against a BOO candidate who decided to sign up on the eve of the next General Election then I'd have trouble with that. Anyone signing up that late would probably only do so if they felt UKIP were a danger to them and would do so with the express intention of ignoring the BOO Pledge once they were safely back in Westminster for another 5 years.

Also if we pull out for BOO Candidates who are members of other parties which don't have withdrawal as their Party Policy then surely we should say to BOO Candidates, stand as an Independent and we will support you or even better, join UKIP and then you can still stand in your old seat but under a withdrawal banner. Any Tory (or Labour) who retain membership of their old party while supporting BOO is obviously more interested in their political career than in actually getting this country back from Brussels.

YES I agree with not standing against COMMITTED BOO candidates, but they must prove it not just say it as a way of removing a UKIP Challen

Martin Harvey · 11-10-2006, 01:44 PM

I am not happy with BOO Candidates/MPs. How could they be selected as cadidates for Conservative or Labour when those two Parties are commited to continued membership of the EU ? What are they doing at present in the way of campaigning in Parliament for withdrawal ?
UKIP's leadership would never allow anyone to stand as a UKIP candidate on a policy of continued membership of the EU, so how would the converse apply in relation to Cons and Lab.
Martin Harvey.

Pat_Pending · 11-10-2006, 04:46 PM

Putting your name to a list in the full knowledge that you will never have to prove yourself by voting against Brussels is meaningless.

Let them leave their own parties and form a coalition Eurosceptic group. (they don't have to join UKIP).

Even if they were regularly speaking up and down the country against the EU I still would not trust them.

Look at Redwood; biggest EUsceptic in Westminster, writes book after book against them, speaks against them, but won't vote against them. He even voted in favour of Maastrict.

One thing he wont give up and that is the nice earner he is on for claiming to be against the EU.

I really don't know what the fuss is about; looking at the list most of them are Labour anyway and they are of no interest to either Nigel or Mr Sykes.

11-10-2006, 01:44 PM	#19 (permalink)
Martin Harvey Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: West Essex Posts: 162	Nigel on the ropes already. I am not happy with BOO Candidates/MPs. How could they be selected as cadidates for Conservative or Labour when those two Parties are commited to continued membership of the EU ? What are they doing at present in the way of campaigning in Parliament for withdrawal ? UKIP's leadership would never allow anyone to stand as a UKIP candidate on a policy of continued membership of the EU, so how would the converse apply in relation to Cons and Lab. Martin Harvey.

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

10-10-2006, 10:04 PM	#11 (permalink)
ryansoton Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: Southampton Posts: 748 Party: Other	As a recent poll on this forum showed, the question of if we should stand against BOO mps and candidates is one which has split views. At a time when UKIP cant afford to stand in all constituencies we need to have a plan for which ones we dont stand in. This is a good enough way of targeting our resources.

10-10-2006, 10:35 PM	#12 (permalink)
B.A.Ware Moderator Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Birmingham Posts: 4,103 Party: UKIP	This targeting of resources is very well , but in reality most candidates at the last election paid for their own campaign if the local branch have a willing candidate and are prepared to run their own campaign i cannot see why they should stand down for a BOO candidate. Even if they don't stand a chance of winning it is a way to build the local branch and helps in future local campaigns. Put it this way if we didn't stand in our Tory safe seat we wouldn't have a branch now.

10-10-2006, 11:08 PM	#13 (permalink)
Independent UKIP Uber Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: London Posts: 2,212	There is no correlation between the inability of UKIP to contest or seriously campaign in seats and BOO candidates contesting seats. I'm not aware of any Scottish BOO MPs but that is the weakest area of the UK for UKIP. In 2005 UKIP did not stand in some BOO signer seats for what reason I don't know. It might well be appropriate to not stand against them again next time if they choose to stand. But Jeffrey Titford did stand in Harwich and got 4.6%. Neil Hamper stood in Castle Point and got 7.5% which was by far the best UKIP result in the 'eastern region' and one of the top 10 results in the whole of the UK. If I was an activist in Harwich or Castle Point and was told, thanks very much for all your effort in 2005 but this area is now off limits to UKIP but we'd really like you to spend the time travelling at your own expense to another part of the country to campaign for UKIP if that is OK; I don't think I would be impressed with the suggestion and I will be amazed if the local activists in those constituencies will be impressed either.

10-10-2006, 11:28 PM	#14 (permalink)
B.A.Ware Moderator Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Birmingham Posts: 4,103 Party: UKIP	We got 4.9% first time standing which i thought wasn't bad, we paid for it ourselves, if Andrew Mitchel (our Tory MP)had decided to sign the BOO and we couldn't stand we wouldn't have a branch and i would have left the party. Perhaps that might be the best for the present leadership but hardly what i call bringing politics back to the people.

11-10-2006, 08:08 AM	#15 (permalink)
Petrina Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: sussex Posts: 942	Nattrass`s clarification is astonishing ! Farage has given the BOO group an undertaking that we will not stand against any of them ,looks to me like MN said the first thing that came into his head to try and get himself out of a tight corner on the day .It makes the party look very shifty. I agree with NF on this .We are part of an overall effort to put forward the view to the public that we must get out .To attack co -activists looks like the politics of the playground to me . If we find that any of those BOO MPs are double dealing on the topic then that is a different matter . We ain`t going to win this battle on our own we need to link in with other groups .

11-10-2006, 08:34 AM	#16 (permalink)
jp Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 1,000	I support the BOO initiative, but as discussed above it definitely has some drawbacks. One of my concerns is that the percentage of the vote achieved across the country is seen as an important criterion for success. This is bound to suffer if UKIP does not stand in all seats.

11-10-2006, 01:26 PM	#18 (permalink)
tamashi Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 515	I think on the ropes is a bit steep, unless the thread is titled that to make it seem worse than it is. The principle of not standing against BOO Candidates is one which seems admirable to me since we UKIP and BOO both want the same thing, why fragment the vote? However, the process by which we implement the principle on the ground is what will make or break it. If UKIP said we wouldn't stand against any actively campaigning BOO Candidate signed up by January 1st 2007 then that would be fine by me. If we said we wouldn't stand against a BOO candidate who decided to sign up on the eve of the next General Election then I'd have trouble with that. Anyone signing up that late would probably only do so if they felt UKIP were a danger to them and would do so with the express intention of ignoring the BOO Pledge once they were safely back in Westminster for another 5 years. Also if we pull out for BOO Candidates who are members of other parties which don't have withdrawal as their Party Policy then surely we should say to BOO Candidates, stand as an Independent and we will support you or even better, join UKIP and then you can still stand in your old seat but under a withdrawal banner. Any Tory (or Labour) who retain membership of their old party while supporting BOO is obviously more interested in their political career than in actually getting this country back from Brussels. YES I agree with not standing against COMMITTED BOO candidates, but they must prove it not just say it as a way of removing a UKIP Challen

11-10-2006, 04:46 PM	#20 (permalink)
Pat_Pending Junior Member Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Ashford Posts: 51	Putting your name to a list in the full knowledge that you will never have to prove yourself by voting against Brussels is meaningless. Let them leave their own parties and form a coalition Eurosceptic group. (they don't have to join UKIP). Even if they were regularly speaking up and down the country against the EU I still would not trust them. Look at Redwood; biggest EUsceptic in Westminster, writes book after book against them, speaks against them, but won't vote against them. He even voted in favour of Maastrict. One thing he wont give up and that is the nice earner he is on for claiming to be against the EU. I really don't know what the fuss is about; looking at the list most of them are Labour anyway and they are of no interest to either Nigel or Mr Sykes.