THE FUTURE OF UKIP: A Voice For The Patriotic Working Class

You may also like...

12 Responses

  1. Russell Hicks says:

    Some truths in there but I don’t buy this ‘party of the working class’ idea – UKIP is a party of straightforward COMMON SENSE and that appeals to ALL classes. ALL classes of people don’t want unvetted chaotic immigration (only Labour/DimLib/Anna Soubry idiots and BBC lefties want that). ALL classes of people don’t want thieving levels of tax paying funding the bloated public sector. ALL classes of people don’t want gender nonsense shoved down their kids throats at school. And ALL classes of people don’t want Sharia law challenging British Law. And so on. UKIP could be/should be the party for ALL CLASSES of decent, sensible, civilised people. Let’s not paint ourselves into one demographic.

    • Stanley Cutts says:

      I agree Russell – and this is an important clarification but in making this new approach, it is surely the disillusioned Labour voters who potentially will be most attracted first by the sentiments and policies expressed. I think it’s going to be an uphill slog but it’s definitely worth the effort. UKIP just has to tread very carefully to make the electorate understand that it is the party of (all) the British people.

    • Ian Edwards says:

      Agree, yet (per my bloggy note somewhere below) I would add that survival of British people (in the traditional sense) and their traditions (what made them what they are/were) is massively under threat by enemies that include our own political class. So I think UKIP needs to be tougher in its stance and I don’t think UKIP will be. I’m talking serious stuff: 1. I’m pleased certain UKIP MEPs are taking on George Soros. I would put destruction of his influence in European society as highest priority and No.1 in the manifesto. We are in WWIII and do not know it as a society. (I won’t go on here!). 2. I would ban Islam in the UK (unspeakable, but I think the debate must be had), for those who apostate its a different matter. 3. I would limit miscegenation of the European race within the UK and re-define what we mean by Multiculturalism (10%? Or 100% ethnic of white people from the UK as some would wish it? The debate must be had). 4 – Solving poverty (no government has done this. Have they tried as surely this is one of the biggest things that really matters?). 5 – Reconciling the UKIPs occasional love of double-speak – saying UKIP are Libertarian and yet Welfare Statists at the same time. What kind of economic policy is that? This is all in the spirit of friendly debate by the way I am not trying to get anyone’s hackles up – though I imagine it will for some!

  2. Anthony Trotter says:

    This new Party, under the [Interim] leadership of Gerard Batten MEP, is the one that thousands of veterans are joining. Is this actually happening , or is it still just a good idea?

  3. Ian Edwards says:

    A great article Darrell. UKIP is dead, Long Live UKIP!
    I think the party does have it’s challenges however, as well as finding a suitable leader, and I list them as I see them, below:
    1 – UKIP is having difficulty changing its spots. It needs to imagine (academically speaking) exiting the EU from its manifesto and re-write itself as if already outside the EU and a government of a sovereign nation. I sense UKIP have been in the trenches so long they cannot see clearly beyond the next trench and will feel naked when the EU is a legacy. (Having no plan to Brexit was another indicator of that in my view).
    2 – UKIP are great at ‘contol immigration’ slogans – but are blind to the out of control immigration that is already resident here and which is intensely anti-European in outlook and unassimilateable. What is UKIP going to do about that? Furthermore UKIP are colour blind to new immigrants of non European ethnicity and origins and when combined with the declining white population we will achieve a European ethnicide within the UK probably within 100 years; we are already a massively misegenated and displaced race in large tracts of our society. UKIP does not address these factors and doesn’t want to. UKIP loves rainbow multiculture Britain as much as bashing the EU. It takes a very weak stance on Europeans as a race compared with emerging European political voices such as the visegrad block who take the view that Europe is the homeland Europeans not the homeland of the Kalergi plan.
    3 – Ironically leaving the EU will in itself be UKIP’s undoing. When the full-time 24 MEP’s and their assistants and budgets ‘evaporate’ it will bring about a seismic loss of hard assets to the party and diminish its ability to professionalise further unless major backers (or millions of new members) come forward to fund the necessary full-timers and party HQ that will be required.
    Lastly, on another note, dropping membership price is a good thing when you are a party for the poor, as a pensioner I’m not knocking it, but momentum probably gained when the unemployed begrudged marxist contingent could afford to join and influence the vote so there may be constitutional dangers there – remember the group of Tories who joined Labour (allegedly) just to spoil the vote at the AGM. UKIP does not want to be a populist party that doesn’t represent all decent people no matter their class, nor allow just one power faction to dominate, and yet have a strong direction.
    I sense this post Brexit moral and organisational compass has yet to be calibrated. Feel free anyone to criticise my opines.

  4. Rhys Burriss says:

    I am not clear quite what you are advocating.

    Are you seeking to give priority to ‘Reform of the NEC’ ? Or changes in UKIP’s policy positions ?

    Whilst I have long argued that there need to be changes in the mechanisms via which the NEC is elected I cannot believe that effecting such change has any direct bearing on UKIP’s popularity. Only a tiny minority of people in the country belong to ANY political party, and even of those who do, the abstruse mechanisms by which internal party self government takes place do not cause most of them to lose much sleep.

    And the proof of this is that during 2013~16 UKIP enjoyed what can be seen in retrospect as its glory years, when much was achieved, despite the universal, and relentless, contumely heaped upon us and our Leader by the whole of the Great British Establishment : yet this was done whilst the NEC as it still is was in place, however much its method of election might have needed reform, then as now.

    SO infelicities amongst how the NEC comes to exist cannot, themselves, be a cause of UKIP’s decline since June 2016. It follows ( it must follow ) that remedying these infelicities ( however important in itself ) will not, of itself, improve the party’s fortunes.

    What the electorate more generally thinks about when deciding which party to vote for is surely the broad thrust of a party’s policies ( or what the electorate understands, often subliminally, to be that broad thrust. )

    Thus most people , certainly amongst the working class, people who have little or nothing by way of savings, or equity in property ( and this latter segment is increasing almost visibly amongst all but a few 20 and 30 somethings ) still see the LABOUR Party as being the one most closely concerned about them ( the clue is in the name ~ a fantastic recognition point for Labour which no amount of money spent on management reforms or publicity spin, etc could ever have paid for.)

    Somehow UKIP has to break that stranglehold on the imagination of the working class which Labour still exerts in its northern fastnesses especially. We were half way there in 2015 and we got a bit further forward in June 2016. But fell back precipitously since then, in my view because of class treachery amongst the hierarchy of the Party ( mostly the MEPs who chose to forget on whose backs they achieved their overpaid sinecure positions ~ I cannot express the extent to which I despise these self serving incompetents .)

    SO ‘What is to be done?’ as Lenin asked.

    In my view the Party needs to MAJOR on just a few core policies which are distinctive ( because no other Party advocates them ) and which would, certainly, benefit the great mass of ( currently mostly Labour voting ) people who have little or nothing.

    I believe this needs to be done as a matter of real urgency ~ it cannot wait for years of public education ~ as the country’s make up is being transformed before our eyes by mass uncontrolled immigration – Labour’s resurgence in 2017 was largely in such areas : RB Kensington and Chelsea went Lab last summer and some are predicting even Westminster Council may go Lab in May this year. ( One could laugh and say ‘Serve the Tories right’ but unfortunately the Tories are taking the rest of the country down with them.)

    I urge therefore that UKIP’s Leadership get behind these few core policies, which if advocated unapologetically ( with a special educational mission to the under 40s who would love to move on from shared flats and even rooms ) would I believe resonate with the patriotic working class.

    These CORE policies are :

    A complete (or almost complete) Moratorium on all and any new immigration (not only from the EU but all other countries also) for a period of five years whilst we attempt to alleviate the misery caused by the housing crisis;

    Full, total, clean BREXIT, with zero leaving payments to the EU and with full reclamation of our 200 mile EEZ (Exclusive Economic Zone), both to boost the coastal communities and to signal that we are a sovereign nation again ;

    Proportional Representation in Westminster and also all local Elections, so we can never again endure the scandal of a Parliament which is so disconnected from the concerns of ordinary people ;

    A complete revamp of the criminal justice system, favouring victims and intended to deter criminality, including increasing the powers of Magistrates’ Courts to 3 years imprisonment per offence, so that they can deal adequately with burglars, car thieves, unprovoked thuggery and so on, and do so within days of offences being committed

    I have expanded on these ideas here:
    http://kippercentral.com/2018/02/14/debate-core-ukip-policies-can-agree/

    NEC reforms may be a very good idea, but Core Policies as described are what can win over former ( and increasingly hostile to its Islingtonisation ) Labour voters. Maybe we could get Frank Field / Kate Hoey to come on board.

    rhys burriss

    • Simon Platt says:

      I go along with all of that except PR. So far as I can tell, nearly all PR systems in place are party list systems (and that reflects most people’s concept of “PR”, including mine). That gives power to party hierarchies, not to voters. It’s a bad system. It’s against everything I think UKIP should be standing for. I understand the temptation of looking at, say, Germany, and thinking “if only we could have x% of seats in parliament”, but I don’t think it’s wise for the long term, nor is it principled.

      • Rhys Burriss says:

        The form of PR I would like to see ( though I would accept almost any form provided it was truly proportional ) is basically the same system that we have now for the Euros:
        1) Regional PR on a party List basis
        but with this extremely important modification:
        2) That the Parties present their Lists on the ballot paper in alphabetical order, and there be a second box on the paper ( within each party List ) where voters could if they chose exercise preference.
        So ~for example someone voting Conservative could choose between Anna Soubry and Jacob Rees Mogg.
        Someone voting Lab could preference one or other of Frank Field or Sir Keir Starmer.
        There would still be a degree of Party control in that the Parties would indeed present lists of persons acceptable to that Party ( which surely is fair enough ).
        BUT the final say as to which of those candidates was elected would lie with the Voters.
        Yet the outcome would still be proportional.
        http://kippercentral.com/2018/02/14/debate-core-ukip-policies-can-agree/

  5. MIKE MAUNDER says:

    I have known some good Labour people, that would not be at all happy with their Party today, due to core value change with a so called modern approach. It might be interesting to get a view on this from ‘ Labour Leave. ‘

  6. Matthew Goodwin says:

    What I think he is arguing for is UKIP to be a party that is in line with the economic desires of voters who’s income are average and lower than average. They don’t support a ideologically driven socialist big government for the sake of big government nor do they support a laisez-faire capitalist system – a system which is in fact responsible for many blue collar jobs going overseas and supports the free movement of Labour.

    Thus, rather than be reactionary to other parties we put out our ‘stall’ for having the policies that are attractive to ‘Middle Britain’, and not some libertarian niche.

    UKIP’s political positions will have to cross with the (unfounded) almost demi-god status of Margaret Thatcher and Thatcherism is held in British Conservatism. Well that’s a whole new rabbit hole in itself being more ‘Toff than the Tories’ is not a viable electoral strategy, especially when the people who most support immigration reform and leaving the EU come from ex industrial areas which did very badly under Thatcherism.

  1. 4:00 pm, April 4, 2018

    […] therefore, be wise to put the celebratory champagne on ice at least for now. However, as I have previously pointed out, the tailspin of Labour into a spiral of Marxist madness does present a clear strategic opportunity […]

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *