Tony Bennett

Barboo wrote (important points bolded):

-----------------------------------------------

QUOTE

Another possibility is that it would not have suited either Nigel Farage or RKS himself for Kilroy to have won the Hodge Hill by-election. Farage would have been eclipsed by an even better media performer who had in addition won UKIP's first Westminster seat, and RKS must have been aware of the danger of a by-election triumph being very short-lived.

He had been helped in the Euros by massive media attention, probably because he enlivened what would otherwise have been a crashingly boring election, but couldn't hope to enjoy such coverage in a general election. As MP for Hodge Hill he would definitely have had to defend his seat in at most two years, possibly in as little as a few months, and having had to give up his MEPship through not being allowed to hold a dual mandate he would have risked losing both seats almost as soon as he had won them.

UNQUOTE

--------------------------

REPLY: Her comments are perceptive and accurate. There were many in the party that demanded that Kilroy fight Hartlepool as well as Birmingham Hodge Hill.

Kilroy was afraid of winning a by-election and then losing his seat at the General Election, which would have meant losing the income, pension entitlements and prestige of his MEP-ship.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Niall Warry

Glad to see even MDKP says Nigel is drinking in the last chance saloon :wink:

Tom Wilde

I did hear Any Questions, and was depressed by the stupid laughter of some of the audience at that point, especially as it was fairly obvious that Delingpole had the facts at his fingertips.

The only two things I can say in mitigation are (1) that Delingpole had already established himself as a reactionary clown in the eyes of the audience by his answers to a couple of earlier questions and (2) that he prefaced his remarks on waste and recycling by saying "You'll laugh if I tell you this is all the fault of the EU..." which was pretty much an invitation for people to do just that.

tito

Err, no. He didn't say that.

He said he thinks Farage needs to asses the role of our MEPs, actually he complemented Farage

Niall Warry

Ok so he said he was giving Nigel to the yar end to sort out UKIP or he was off. is that better for you Tito :roll: :evil:

tito

Much better. I believe Nigel will do something; especially after the NEC elections when we will probably see a fresh set of executives.

Bluemerle

I wouldn't hold my breath, Nigel will want his friends on the NEC!!!

tito

No he won't. The people we elect will be on the NEC; unless you are referring to Lithgow's balls-up in the first election?

Tony Bennett

Populist Lee wrote:

QUOTE

Interesting post, Tony.

On the point about "holding a referendum". I think that change of tune by UKIP for the 2001 General Election was the point at which I realised UKIP could never win.

I understand you co-wrote the 2001 Manifesto with Aidan Rankin.

Who instructed you to change the committment of immediate EU withdrawal to "holding a Referendum"?

UNQUOTE

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

REPLY:

Barboo has already part-answered this.

To which I would add:

1. I was on the 'Manifesto Committee' for the 2001 General Election. Other members, as I recall, were: Nigel Farage, Tony Scholefield, Craig Mackinlay, Damian Hockney and Jeffrey Titford, plus two or three others.

2. Aidan Rankin, formerly of Third Way, was pulled in at the last minute by Nigel Farage to join the Manifesto Committe and to draft a Manifesto. No-one could quite understand where he came from and why he was given the job.

He had been recommended to apply for a job with UKIP by fellow-homosexual Michael Gove, then a 'Times' journalist and now a Conservative Party MP. I know this because he told several of us.

After the General Election, he published an lengthy article in the 'Guardian' which included a scathing attack on UKIP as a bunch of right-wing racist nutters in which he compared joining UKIP, rather unsportingly, I felt, to (and I quote verbatim) 'engaging in rough trade' - something which of course he knew all about.

During the election campaign he refered to his sexuality in a letter to the 'Guardian' as 'a chap who likes chaps' and - while meant to be fighting William Hague for UKIP in the Ripon constituency - 'forgot' to submit his nomination papers in time, thus meaning that UKIP supporters were denied a candidate in that constituency.

Rankin, at a late stage in the campaign, wrote a very academic Manifesto which was difficult to follow in parts (a bit like an Oliver Letwin speech). Added to that, Rankin, Hockney and Mackinlay kept on trying to get the Manifesto to pitch UKIP as 'pro-gay' e.g. by committing UKIP to end all 'anti-gay discrimination' (e.g. backing gay marriage and gay adoption) - and there were endless arguments about that as we neared the election.

I did not take part in the final meetings and editing of the Manifesto, but I had drafted some sections of it and my name was left on because I had an M.A. and it looked good to the public, it was thought, to have someone with an M.A. having co-written the Manifesto.

3. Barboo has given an accuarte reference as to how the policy of holding a referendum was added to the Manifesto. Actually, I support that policy.

A. The proportion of people who support a referendum on our membership of the E.U is far higher (around 70% to 80%) than those who would vote for us to leave.

B. To offer a referendum sounds much more reasonable than 'Leave Now!' and would promote the party as more sensible and electable.

C. Am I not right in thinking that at the last General Election, UKIP's Manifesto proposed that Britain should start having referendums on all manner of issues? - as they do so successfully in prosperous Switzerland - if a minimum number or proportion of people demand one?

If so, that must in turn mean that it would also be appropriate to hold a referendum on 'in or out of Europe'. IMO that was one of the best features of UKIP's 2005 Manifesto. There's no better safeguard against the politicians running the country than allowing the people to make key decisions directly - examine how the system works in Switzerland. And remember that in 2000, they held a referendum on this question: 'Do you want to allow your governement to open negotiations for memberhsip of the E.U.?' It was defeated 78% to 22%.

D. I actually think we would *win* a referendum on 'in or out of Europe', or at least get so close that our membership of the E.U. would thereafter continue to remain such a contentious issue that eventually we would vote to leave

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

brian lee

A referendum in Switzerland can't be compared to a referendum in the UK. The whole system of government is different.

Tony Bennett should start a 'New Referendum Party' with the policy of having a referendum on everything. But if a party makes its policy subject to a referendum and fails to win, it is stuck.

My political beliefs, and I think as are most peoples, are not subject to referendums. Even If a referendum went against Britain's withdrawal from the EU I would still believe that Britain was better off out.