Martin Harvey

mkp Davies wrote;
' If UKIP knocked out one the the tiny minority of MPs who IGNORE their leadership, burning their careers when there were other seats with utter traitors in that it could have fought instead, then I would be disgusted. '

1 . Will a Sitting MP who 'ignores their Leadership', seriously be selected by that Leadership as a Candidate for the next election, in the knowledge that that individual would vote against his Party manifesto when crunch-time arrives?
2 . I was recently told by a retired ministerial Parliamentary secretary that a sitting MP will do anything neccessary to climb the Political ladder in order to advance his career. Does this explain why an MP votes in favour of the Maastricht Treaty in his early days, and then when his seat becomes 'marginal' signs up to BOO ?
What sort of legal obligation is there in signing up to BOO, and what is UKIP getting in return?

Martin Harvey.

Bluemerle

Cameron has already stamped out some candidates in order to have his politicially correct team ready for the GE.

see http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=16793

It is a "lick my boots or you will not be selected" situation.

It will be interesting to see what happens come the GE.

mkpdavies

It's not UKIP gets, it's what the country gets. Until UKIP is capabable of winning seats in Westminster, these are the only people willing to ignore their leaderships and advocate EU withdrawal.

Therefore they deserve to be abosulte bottom of UKIPs list of seats to fight and in reality, that means UKIP don't fight those seats yet.


One day I hope it will be different and UKIP or another party perhaps made up with UKIP, will be strong enough to attract these people and finsih with the deals.

At the moment, UKIP are not near that position.

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

euromutiny

Not all anti-eu Conservatives get deselected, very few in fact. The case mentioned is the first I have heard of. Cameron has already stated that MPs and candidates are allowed to campaign on the EU either way, but cannot join the shadow cabinet. This is standard in all parties due to the tradition of collective responsibility, and is the same for all parties. This is why anti-war ministers such as Robin Cook and eventually, Clare Short, had to resign from the cabinet. The only time collective responsibility was suspended was during the 1975 Common Market Referendum, and only during the campaign itself. The reason is because otherwise statements by one minister can be interpreted as government/party announcements and policies, and therefore cause confusion/damage (just look at the Geodfrey Bloom fridge fiasco). I imagine Ukip now has the same policy among its cabinet/MEPs.

Not standing against anti-eu candidates will give a big incentive to party members to select eurosceptic candidates, and oppose europhiles. It also gives them a good question to ask at selection hustings: "Do you BOO?"

Ukip must realise it cannot win the next general election, so must focus on its winnable seats and on building an anti-eu coalition in Parliament. A lot more people would vote Ukip if they knew it was safe (i.e. not going to result in a Labour government), so Ukip should only contest the nationally irrelevent seats (like SW Lib Dems) where the other candidates cannot say "Vote Ukip, Get Labour".

As for the Ukip effect at the general election: see
Chameleond On Bicycles
So Ukip has the potential to hurt Conservatives most, but only marginally, although the focus of the Ukip campaign will vary the results hugely (look at Bromley).

Andrew Constantine

Not sure why I am trying to help UKIP but here goes:

1. I used to think the Tories were the most anti-EU of the three main parties, but when you look at which party was in power when we signed up to the Common Market, the SEA, etc then you begin to wonder. In contrast, New Labour has not put us into the euro and it promised a referendum on the Constitution. True that UKIP must take real credit for pushing New Labour to make these concessions.

2. My guess is that at the end of the day, almost all the present serving MPs will put career before country, and whatever the issue. Our political elite worry about losing their pay, perks and pensions - and not about the fact that they are signing away ever larger chunks of democratic accountability and national sovereignty to Brussels.

3. If any of our anti-EU MPs were really so against the EU, they should have resigned the party whip and moved to be UKIP or English Democrats MPs. None have.

4. The few anti-EU MPs at present in Parliament seem to have no real influence. So even if UKIP and English Democrats take votes away from them and they lose their seat, so what?

5. My conclusion is that UKIP and the English Democrats should go flat out to build up mass parties, with sensible policies across the board. The message to the present political elites is the English people are tired of these corrupt time servers. We should promise to sweep the lot away.

In conclusion, if the above is valid, UKIP in promising to protect BOO MPs may have made a well-intentioned but incorrect call. I suggest that the more pressure is put on MPs by our two parties, the more anti-EU we force them to become and the better chances of getting our own candidates elected. Is it not as simple as that?

Andrew Constantine
English Democrats

euromutiny

To be honest, why would they? It would mean losing their seat. They are more use in Parliament as Anti-EU Conservative/Labour, than outside.

We need a majority in favour of withdrawl in Parliament. A coaliton is the fastest way of doing this. They may not have much influence, but they have more than if they weren't MPs. Plus if they lose their seats, we end up with a pro-eu MP instead.

True, but they must target winnable seats, and welcome defectors as well as BOO coalition partners from other parties.

This doesn't make sense. They become more anti-eu, so Ukip/ED stands more chance of getting elected? Surely them becoming more anti-eu means them taking Ukip/ED territory? So more chance of Europhiles getting elected.

Rome wasn't built in a day. Ukip and ED must work with others to build a broad BOO coalition.

Andrew Constantine

[quote="euromutiny"]Euromutiny

I cannot disgaree with your rejoinder - your comments were very reasonable.

What is of concern to me is that we anti-EU parties may not have yet worked out which constituencies we should be going for and hence should be focussing our resources on. I do not know if this is the same with UKIP, but would not be surprised.

We know the Tories are carefully targeting key marginals at present held by Labour/Lib Dems so as to win them at the next general election - our parties should be identifying our best chances of doing the same.

Andrew Constantine

Richard Allen

This is the world of adult politics. In Kettering boundary changes have made the seat, currently held by Phillip Hollobone, exteremely marginal (Anthony Wells calculates his notional majority at just 108). A strong UKIP campaign could see this most excellant and principled man out of parliament. Can anyone tell me why this would be a good thing?

michael mcgough

MKPDAVIES and RICHARD ALLEN say it for me.
Cause and country first.

UKIP MAN