Anthony Butcher

You are looking at it entirely from one perspective. If Knapman believes that Farage is doing nothing, then it is Farage who is endangering the cause and hence the country. UKIP's entire purpose is to fight the EU, yet it did nothing about the Lisbon Treaty. The membership is falling slowly. There hasn't been a single electoral success since 2004. After 18 months, Farage has achieved sod all. There is no sign of good things to come or a plan to rescue the party. If UKIP isn't achieving anything, and isn't running anti-EU campaigns, then there is no cause and UKIP is just acting as a vote sink. Maybe this is how Knapman is looking at it?

Maybe they really are thinking about splitting off - this was certainly suggested some time ago in one of the papers. I can't see that this will work, and Knapman is an experienced politician.

Perhaps, more likely, Knapman is making noises to apply pressure to Farage to force him into action?

Or maybe relations have become so bad, they simply can't work with him any more. Fortunately I can't think of anyone who has ever fallen out with Farage before, so this can't be the case.

One man's hissy fit is another man's declaration of something important.

I see that you have already gone out of your way to make an ex-member rejoining feel most welcome. That's the UKIP feelgood factor that just keeps on giving.

__________________
If you care about what's in your food and where it comes from, then get it labelled!
Label My Food - http://www.labelmyfood.org.uk

chikrodah

Both Knapman and Del emphasised that they wanted UKIP to succeed. Knapman told the attendees that he loathed the EP.

The general message was that UKIP SW were working well and that the rest of UKIP could learn from the region. There was little doubt amongst attendees that Knapman wanted UKIP to be successful.

IMHO, there was no coherent view of how that would happen or what function UKIP would adopt. There was no obvious anti-Farage message.

Anthony Butcher

I think that it is fairly blatant though. Obviously Knapman can't be seen to be out and out attacking Farage. Even just the discussion about how to improve the party at an 'alternative' conference insinuates a strong level of criticism of the party under Farage. It is Knapman placing himself as the champion of the members, as opposed to the aloof Farage, who is disconnected from the troops.

__________________
If you care about what's in your food and where it comes from, then get it labelled!
Label My Food - http://www.labelmyfood.org.uk

douglas denny

I look at all angles. Or try to.

As daft a comment as my saying: if I put my hand in the fire will you too?
To try to suggest NF is doing nothing is to be totally ignorant of the vast time and effort he makes scurrying around the country for UKIP as well as the Brussels stuff ... How he does it without a breakdown I do not know.

What you really mean though is you and others don't like his strategy for leading UKIP - and call it "nothing". This is patently silly. You Tony, should know of the immense difficulties facing any leader to "do something" - when there is little that can be done in the face of insuperable odds - mainly money. You do what you can.

Roger Knapman was criticised for exactly the same thing - not "doing enough" - so that is an irony if he is complaining the same now.
Perhaps he is. And perhaps not. Nevertheless, NF is the leader at present and deserves the same loyalty that NF gave RK when HE was leader.
If anyone is unhappy at the direction NF is taking the party then we shall see if his strategy is 'working' when we come to the European elections. And if, as I suspect, we have a massive showing for UKIP - will you (and others) eat your words then?? I'll remind you.

If there is one thing I can say about NF which I am sure of - he is a shrewd politician,and his political antennae are fairly well tuned to what can and cannot be done. He makes mistakes, but not too many compared to others in the political world. He is still the best asset UKIP has - leader or not as leader. His leadership will finish in due course, then someone else can take up the poisoned chalice as he did after Roger Knapman.

I do not buy into this idea that because you do not like what a leader is doing that gives you a God-given right to upset the apple cart. The leader has his strategy which he is pursuing - and not only emanating from his brain but with the combined considerations of a number of others - it is called collective responsibility - and that is what we have in UKIP - despite yours and others trumpeting it is not the case. YOU are wrong.
Nigel's leadership is his elected position for the duration - it is given by the membership to act as he sees fit, and can be rescinded by the usual methods - until then he deserves loyalty if only to keep the only show on the road doing the job we all want. As I see it, if individuals do not like the direction and cannot stomach it they should just quietly leave and let the rest get on with the job. Note the word - 'quietly'.

If there was a split it would only harm the individual(s) concerned and the cause. The cause is what is important; the individuals hardly count.

Roger has the group to appeal to if not happy - and should abide by group decisions - or simply abstain. (quietly).

I don't see a hissy-fit as appearing important at anytime. I see it as pure self-indulgence. If he wants to re-join that is fine by me, more members are always welcomed. I merely pointed out that if his ideas are to rise above membership and take part in elections for NEC/leadership/chairman whatever - he has an uphill task now - of his own making !

DED.
-

kernow

Hear! Hear! If you want to destroy UKIP bring back Ski! Or is that the plan? Can Ski finish the job Kilroy set out to do?

Anthony Butcher

Yes, I was trying to present how Knapman might be looking at it.

We will have to agree to disagree on that one. Being busy is not the same as achieving things.

I really meant that he has done little/nothing in relation to the LT. This is a major decision from Farage, and it can't have been popular internally.

That doesn't make it any less likely though .

We don't have to wait that long. There are three major sets of elections in a few weeks.

Perhaps you could outline the strategy for us?

Absolutely. Farage says he wants to double the vote. If UKIP even manages to keep just the same percentage (i.e. half of his target), I will issue a grovelling apology.

As for the word 'quietly', this forum is designed to be of interest to everyone, especially the anti-EU and UKIP brigade. That means news, speculation, opinion, criticisms and insights. It is not meant to be quiet.

__________________
If you care about what's in your food and where it comes from, then get it labelled!
Label My Food - http://www.labelmyfood.org.uk

chikrodah

Interestingly enough, it was Del's speech that drew approbation from a couple of attendees, one of whom apparently left at lunchtime after interrupting Del to declare that "he hadn't come to this conference to hear attacks on UKIP" shortly after Del stated his fears that alternative views were being stifled rather than listened to.

The meeting was, as much for geographical reasons as anything else, very much a SW rally. It might be worth considering it in that light. Those who heckled and disrupted the meeting tended to be supporters of Gerrish's Common Purpose/UK Column initiatives or Burgess/Barnby's Treason initiative. Both Geoffrey and Piers were incredibly professional in their handling of these interruptions.

I still feel that this meeting was not as billed. I did not leave with a pleasant feeling that UKIP was a viable and electable party that was prepared to meld the various factions into a workable whole.

I'm not sure what UKIP can do to sway experienced politicos like myself. Watching a Life of Brian rerun was not how I had planned spending my Saturday.

douglas denny

To hammer home the real advantages we posess when and where it really counts and will definitely have effect - at the next major elections.
And no, it was not popular with many - not to go Hell-for-leather for attacking the LT as soon as we could - when it would have little effect and fritter away the advantages; but the decision was, to hold fire until we see the whites of their eyes and we can make an effective kill without expending valuable and scarce ammunition on targets which are currently out of range.There was little we could do when the media were only listening to the Conservative Party as the official opposition. We cannot force them to listen and publicise our point of view.

NF predicted the LT would go through parliament without a whimper - and he was right. He predicted the Lords would succumb - and he was right. He predicted the public would know nothing about the treaty, and be crueley misinformed - he was right. He predicted they wouldn't care a fig about the LT - he is right. He predicted that if we spent our money on a big campaign it would be completely wasted - he was right. He predicts the public will be amenable to listen about the LT when the EU elections arrive and not before - let us see if he is right ..... and what effect it will have on the voting public.

I shall look forward to you keeping this promise.

Agreed - but we are talking above about individuals making public noises not on this forum.

DED.

This is an interesting thread but I must hit the hay ...... NEC tomorrow and trip to London.
-

Anthony Butcher

That hardly takes a genius . That is EU politics in Britain over and over again.

What he may not have predicted is the way that the Tories have taken advantage of UKIP's absence and made the Referendum issue their own. We will have to see how costly that will be in 2009.

He might well be right, but the discussion is how might others see it (i.e. Knapman), not about the actual merits of his decision.

__________________
If you care about what's in your food and where it comes from, then get it labelled!
Label My Food - http://www.labelmyfood.org.uk

Geoffrey Collier

Douglas Denny: I agree with you that in a democracy, we are all have an equal right to our opinion; but not even in a democracy, are all opinions of equal worth. Informed opinions, for example, are worth more than ill-informed ones.

On Saturday we had a choice of two meetings; Bar Hill, Cambs. or Loxley in Somerset, you were not seen at Loxley Douglas, presumably, therefore, you were at Bar Hill. What pearls of wisdom were gleaned from that consortium of intellectual wealth? Share them with us, Douglas!.

I had to go to Loxley, to take Albert's part, should Aardvark decide to, 'beat him up'; mine in a way, therefore, was a mission of mercy. Why did you go to Bar Hill instead, Douglas; Who were you protecting?