tamashi

I'm sure the fact that UKIP Leadership cabal is in the secret pay of the Tories to neuter the anti-EU movement will be exposed eventually, just as soon as the Illuminati decide the time is right because we all KNOW The Illuminati Run the World, because all the world's corporate and political leaders are all members of the ancient cabal, or Bilderburghers, or Rosicrucians or Freemasons, or the Trilateral Commission, or the New World Order or Yale's Skull and Bones society or maybe even COMMON PURPOSE and only they know who was on the grassy Knoll the day Kennedy was shot and who was the driver of the white car seen in the tunnel the night Dianna was killed. (Or was she, maybe she faked her death to escape the media's glare). Of course she could be in Area 51 because we all know a space ship crashed near Roswell when it came to take Elvis back to the secret moon base, the one near the World War II Bomber that crashed on the moon and anyway we all know Nasa Faked the Moon Landings, The US Government Was Behind 9/11 (or was it the Jews in the US government?) just don't expect a blockbuster film about it as long as the Scientologists Run Hollywood, vetting deals, arranging marriages, and spying on stars, or is it the Jews (again) that run Hollywood, and the Scientologists have to settle for running Tom Cruise. Regardless of that did you know Paul McCartney died in 1969 and was replaced by a look-alike, AIDS Is a Man-Made Disease, KFC is secretly run by the KKK and their Fried Chicken Sterilizes Black Men and anyway it doesn’t matter one way or the other because as revealed by one time BBC reporter David Icke certain powerful people, like George W. Bush and the British royals, actually belong to an alien race of shape-shifting lizard-people and this was about to be confirmed by Princess Diana which was another reason she had to die.

Don't worry, we are controlling the vertical, we are controlling the horizontal, welcome to THE TWILIGHT ZONE

Geoffrey Collier

Mikeuk: No. I am talking about honourable people. Why should that include dishonourable ones?

It is a written and recorded fact that (film archives and press film) there were frequent violent clashes and fights in Brick Lane. Are you seriously doubting that? Seek confirmation in the National Archives and Police records.

Apologise for inadvertently including an extra 'e': yes, I was identifying Sir
Oswald Mosley Bt. He was incarcerated for part of WW2 with many others.
Section 18b. if my memory serves me correctly.

When you back horses, back them on form. The extreme 'Right' in Britain
has never been good at political analysis historically, and that defect remains with them to-day. All consequence are the result of multi-causes, albeit not all the causes have equal importance due to a host of factors. Do you hold a contrary opinion?

You are getting somewhat confused; I merely mentioned one or two reasons
why different opinions in UKIP, are not comparable or causally related to any divisions, which may exist, in the BNP as clearly implied by Rosie. She has been unable to provide any- at least so far- and I endeavoured to assist her by identifying, shall we say, a different historical evolution within the two groups.

I listened to Mr Noakes for about 20-25 minutes while he quoted verbatim from the Lisbon Treaty. Not being a student of his wider deliberations, as you appear to be, I am not familiar with any 'conspiracy theory' which he may subscribe. Personally do not subscribe to the Conspiracy Theory of history. I do not doubt some could be persuaded to engage in micro-theory conspiracies; macro-theory, by contrast, would be difficult if not impossible to apply.

I thank you for your contribution to this debate, and trust that I have been able to clarify some points for you.

McLean

tamashi seems to have it about right. Great post!

Independent UKIP

Thanks for clarifying how you go that 0.03%. I don't think it is credible for you to just lump all the elections as if they were one. For example in London local elections I get 3 votes. I get one in a general election. So by your measure each Londoners local vote is is considered 3 times more important than their vote in a general election. I'm not suggesting that UKIP does not have problems but if there are 17,000 seats (for example) and 1,000 UKIP candidates by your measure we are not selling to 16,000 of them at all. In Euro elections for example we sell to all the seats.

I have no problem with a judicial review if it is considered likely to succeed for the cause on whichever level. As you lump all elections together are you suggesting that the next UKIP local by-election candidate should put this review at the centre of their campaign. Or do you oppose them standing in the first place? Either way I am certain with that strategy your 0.03% will be going much lower.

I have no master plan & have never suggested otherwise. I agree with the view that one of the reasons UKIP has not succeeded nationally is that it has not been a credible party of local government. That is changing (slowly) and I am happy about it. You may disagree with that change so we will have to agree to differ on that. I consider myself to be on the libertarian side of the party. I trust you do not consider that pathetic. Even if you do I can assure you nothing you do (except becoming leader ) will stop me being a member or supporting UKIP. You will be happy to know I am not on UKIP's payroll or anything that anyone might consider to be a UKIP payroll. I also don't have anything to do with elections. But back with your 0.03%, if I did that % would go up so you are being inconsistent in your position.

That is a separate discussion and some of what you say is perfectly fair.

Independent UKIP

Street lighting was just a single, simple example I mentioned in reply to Geoffrey. I'm not sure of your point here Prober, sorry. If it is, for example, that UKIP should oppose the reduction in rubbish collections and in so doing highlight the EU connection to this & the fact that the liblabcon are at national level at least in denial about it then I would completely agree with that. And I have quoted media reports on this kind of thing on this forum in the past. If that is not your point I would be grateful if you could elaborate. Thanks.

Mikeuk

Such as? They were nearly all raving leftists. Of course there was the Duchess of Atholl, but she was run out of the Tory Party for supporting the Reds.

Citations please.

I think she suggested that your attempt to split UKIP parallels the current split in the BNP. I guess that was just a comment on the coincidence, but you seem remarkably touchy about it. I wonder why?

Has she touched a nerve?

Read some of his posts on here about 'Common Purpose' etc.

prober

Ind D, yes I agree with your view on raising reduction in rubbish collection as a macro EU caused issue with LDs/Tories/Lab guilty. What I think is a dead end is diverting energy to UKIP's advice for years of "dont mention the EU in locals and spend energy in taking up individual cases of poor collection as a good Lib dem type councillor in waiting " . LDs can always do it better & have charmed life as cuddly local democrats cos no one rips their anti democratic smugness apart ( LD/Cons in scratchy backy dont rock the boat) . People vote mostlyfor /against a party not for/against a dog turd collecting individual ( except in the extremely rare cases of someone who wants to devote their life to such things) . UKIP is the only party that wants to hide what its all about ( or supposed to be about) and the only party that seems to be embarrased by its name .

kernow

Well said Rosie! I couldn't agree more!

Millennium3

It is easy to lose sight of the fact that if a voter is to turn from their usual pattern of voting for one of the big three then two factors are important. One, the new party has to have policies which are a significant improvement on their usual party and apart from opposition to the EU, UKIP's policies generally, appeal only to a smallish band of the voters and two, the leader of the party has to have an image which fits a fairly conventional norm. Enjoying being spanked does not fit into this convention. This is not a value judgement - just the objective truth.

UKIP, if they are going to have a role to play, needs to deal with these issues - this won't happen, obviously, whilst NF is leader and he is not the type to sacrifice himself so that the party can play that role. Even if he were, the parties reputation [like that of the BNP, but to a lesser extent] excludes it from serious politics until it demonstrate it is a serious party - this would take quite a number years of sober activity.

If UKIP members do generally want to play a significant role in changing our relationship with the EU - then a new organisation without baggage is needed as the vehicle, certainly to oppose the Lisbon Treaty. This again is not a value judgement - just the objective truth.

Geoffrey Collier

Independent UKIP: You can contemplate your navel, dream dreams, scheme schemes; do what you like, but time and time again the UKIP membership have been marched up to the top of the hill only to be marched down again.

I think there can be little doubt, Ukip has become a Party consumed by the interests of the MEP group alone. They should be quite separate. The membership want independence from the EU. We are not against the EU, we merely oppose our membership of it. Nothing for us has been planned, no referendum of our own just fatuous talk on 'chat shows', histrionics in the EU Parliament: is this the total sum of our managements contribution and organisational talent. Professors must not talk about the Lisbon Treaty etc. Unless you can appreciate the disappointment among the membership, you have fallen at the first fence. At what point are you prepared to agree that we have problems involving a discontented membership and corruption from above? Those who identify these problems are not given any assistance to remedy those ills, but denounced as trouble makers. Those, so called, trouble makers offer the only hope for this Party.


We used to hear constant pleas from the leadership, for an amicable divorce from the EU. Now, increasingly, we are being implored by those same people to take a Pan-European view of our problems. No more talk of an amicable divorce, a bit of marriage guidance and we can struggle on as we are; so it appears.

It requires little perspicacity to see the problem; the aspirations of the membership are in direct conflict to those of a salaried political group. Our magazine, for example, is paid for by the membership, but we have virtually no control over the editorial content. That cannot be justified. Initiatives by the membership, Grasroots, Phoenix Forum, etc. are harmed by the salaried staff from day one. Agreements not to contest particular constituencies are made without the consent of the 'autonomous' local constituency parties.

Are these things going to change, are the problems finally to be recognised, admitted, addressed and changed? Let us deal with the real issues.