Reg Anthony

Chikrodah, I would have no problem with the general principle you put forward, but it has to be very carefully applied.

High-profile defections, for example, particularly by sitting MPs, MEPs or councillors, even (or perhaps especially) at the last minute before an election, will nearly always result in the defector being given a plum candidacy by their new party. That will always stick in the craw of a few of their new hosts, especially the long-serving candidate who has to give way for them, but most will at least hold their noses and realise that you can't look a political gift horse in the mouth.

Similarly, cases like that of Kilroy in 2004 back up Chikrodah's point. Irrespective of what happened subsequently, back at that actual moment nobody in the party was going to deny that the sudden opportunity of having such a well-known former MP as a candidate was too good to miss.

However, I say again this principle must be applied only with great care. There must be a strong upside and no downside. Kilroy was one of the most famous people in the country, with a long political CV to boot. Contrast that with the case of Tony Litt. Who on earth is Tony Litt, you ask? Well, exactly. He was the political nobody whom the Tories parachuted into the Ealing by-election a while back. If he had been a political somebody, he might just have been able to shrug off the embarrassing pictures of him taken just weeks earlier at a Labour fundraiser, which completely torpedoed him in the middle of his campaign. Then again, if he had been a political somebody, his past would probably have been known about before he was selected.

Now, I'm certainly not suggesting that there are similar photos lurking out there showing Julie Harrison at another party's events, recent or otherwise. What I am saying is that there is no overwhelming case, as per Kilroy 2004, to be made in favour of parachuting her in from nowhere, whilst there is a very strong case against - i.e. the fact that she is Graham Booth's niece. Taken in isolation, that should not necessarily be a problem, but put it together with her very brief party membership and the attempt to parachute her straight into the European Parliament and it does not look good at all.

It would never look good, but heaven knows, when there is so much negative media interest about MEPs employing family, to find an MEP trying to ease a family member into his own job does not just look bad, it looks potentially plain stupid.

B.A.Ware

What i would like to know is, who appoints the committees that select the candidates especially as regional committees have been reformed and here in the West Midlands are original committee has been transformed to dare i say it party loyalists.

__________________
We’re not just about Europe.

Anthony Butcher

Personally I think that these are the people who should be elected by the membership and then they should be able to list the candidates in order according to their own detailed testing and interviewing, rather than leaving it up to a lottery.

__________________
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

Which members would provide the detailed testing and interviewing? The party (a.k.a MEP) loyalists, the branches that have filled their committees with yes men and placemen for their own pet theories, or the members that vote for the ones they know because it's best for the party?

I don't think UKIP's membership is as active as you want it to be, Anthony.

This isn't meant to criticise the hard-working members, staff and MEPs. It's a recognition of the attitudes re UKIP members that prevail within certain sections of the party. UKIP's intensely partisan approach attracts single-minded supporters. It also produces very focussed sub-groups who seem incapable of agreeing with other groups. You can't have every member of the crew stopping to argue about who gets to be Bo'sun when the ship's running aground. Somebody has to run this; the focus should be on getting the processes both rock solid and clear to all members.

Bob FM

GC if you are going to quote a great man, then please be accurate he actually wrote,
Some circumstantial evidence is very strong, as when you find a trout in the milk. He also wrote:
"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog." There are those of us who are up for the fight where it matters, on the streets and there are those who fight from their keyboards and there are those who do not fight at all but undermine the small dog on the street.

Bob FM

And perhaps the most profound of his quotes:
If a man loses pace with his companions, perhaps it is because he hears a different drummer. Let him step to the music in which he hears, however measured, or far away.

Geoffrey Collier

BobFM: Thoreau repeated the same opinions and sentiments on many occasions. I am glad that you are admittibng to having lost, 'pace with his companions, due, no doubt to hearing no music whatsoever. Late in life you take interest - better late than never - in a subject which had occupied the mind of many for decades. We make every allowance for you, but you seem to have limited knowledge of the real issues, no reliable sources of information, and things like integrity, honesty, trust, etc, are clearly unimportant to you in your assessment of the leadership. Progress can often to slow, but you are making an effort, albeit a very repititious one.

Bob FM

What sanctomy from one who miss quotes a great philosopher and then claims that the man himself used variations of the quote. I guess your sources are the same as all this damming evidence no one has seen. I and indeed many hundreds if not thousands of UKIP supporters are indeed making progress getting the message out there despite the best efforts of those intent on destroying the party. As always you are selective in your analysis, the point Thoreau was making was that just because someone chooses a different path does not make them wrong, and perhaps more committed to their cause than those like you and you cohorts who believe the party and it's leadership are inherently corrupt. It is your narrow view that makes those who 'step to the music he hears', far more likely to succeed than the former. As I penned many years ago, 'Truth is merely a perception of ones own reality', in your case I suspect it is 'evil he who evil thinks'. Or to put it another way would you be doing what you perceive they are, if you were them.

Geoffrey Collier

BobFM: The oft quoted final speech of William Pitt the Younger, has numerous variations, there is nothing wrong in that. To argue that the Party at the top is not corrupt, would be an offence against all the KNOWN evidence. Changing those things and not SUPPORTING them - as you always do - must be seen as a priority. BobFM, you are getting philosophical! When I was at school, we used to be told that those from the Latin countries make excellent waiters and waitresses, but all live under dictatorships.
At the time that was certainly true; Mussolini, Franco and Salazar. Their former Latin Americal colonies were in a similar plight. It has just occurred to me that George Orwell
had an utter contempt for waiters. It could be that he also believed , 'Truth is merely a perception of ones own reality'. You must give this much more thought BobFM. Forget politics, gravitate more towards philosophy; a bit of poetry would be nice as well.

Bob FM

I am sure in your own mind GC your post had some meaning other than to try to insult, using as you always do an historical perspective. You are not that clever, that it is not transparent. As for Orwell, I am sure that given huge swathes of the world population probably thought he was a nut case and many still do. I would hardly think the waiters and waitresses actually care what he thought. I am sure like all arrogant self opinionated people he tipped handsomely, which would be all they cared about. Not to pretend to be intellectual does have it's benefits. One can look at those who do and have a good laugh as I do reading your attempts.