Reflections on UKIP and LPUK

All parties have functionaries at the top who get into power and try to retain it, seeing themselves as kingmakers. UKIP has these just as much as any party. LPUK has just come though its own turf wars, deeply divided.

In fact, the moment you say the word “party”, you’re getting corruption, incompetence, lack of transparency, lack of communication or reply, lack of funds, factions, backstabbing, tingoddedness etc.

If they do get their noses above the parapet, in step the moneyed donors and they want something in return. Only natural, stands to reason.

What if  “Say No to the Big Three” succeeded?

Let’s just say a whole lot of independents got in, instead of the Big 3. For a start, many pollies would have seen the writing on the wall in the lead up and jumped ship, suddenly becoming champions of their local constituents as independents – the advantage being that they’re incumbent.

In there, as well as the unfortunate Galloways, would be a smattering of UKIP and a lesser number, maybe their first ever, of LPUK.

The problem then with parliament would be having enough clout to change things, e.g. repealing RIPA and thousands of other pieces of insane legislation, rebuilding the armed forces and so on. Then the job of tackling the corrupt culture at Westminster, dismantling fake charities – it never ends.

Inevitably, someone would start to dominate and a party would centre around him/her. Fragmented politics didn’t stop Berlusconi doing as he did, mainly because he had the real power behind him.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the issue.  If we fail to see who the real power is, the real enemy, then all of our utopian ideas fall to the ground or are subsumed into a new round of corruption and ineptitude, only under a different name.  Those names which, if they’re uttered, immediately condemn the utterer to tinfoil hat status, won’t go away.  Those names are named for a very good reason – they are the PTB.

Yes, the Rothschilds, Rockefellers, C300, Bilderbergers, Tavistock, Royal Institute, Royal Society, Shriners, Freemasonry’s upper echelons, BIS, IMF, WB, UN, EU and so on.  Throw in Force Femmes and the Green Scammers.

And a Christian can easily name who is behind them but let’s not get off track here.

How UKIP can succeed

UKIP, as it stood around the time of the last GE, was hopeless.  Disorganized, too many strange people [in the perception of the common man], seemingly uninterested in the political game.  Up here, I tried to get in touch with my local UKIP man and couldn’t. Apparently he was on his last legs anyway and was in it for the hell of it.

No contact details, no dialogue, no presence locally and I had to go through some UKIP bloggers I knew to even find out who he was.  UKIP HQ completely ignored my written request, so how many others did they ignore?

As you can gather, I said f*** em and voted for an independent, a local businessman who was on about reforming our corrupt, now CP dominated, council.  It was then that, as one x millionth fraction of the voting population, little old me was only ever going to vote for someone I could speak with and ask his views on two or three issues of concern at the time.

There was no LPUK presence whatever.  I asked people around the area if they knew UKIP and LPUK.  LPUK they’d never heard of but thought they were anarchists by the sound of their name.  UKIP they’d vaguely heard of through Farage’s stunt in the aeroplane and one tele spot.

Another thing apparent was the north/south divide.  It’s very, very real, if only for our high rainfall and full dams – you should see the lush, verdant vegetation at the moment – but more politically, the lack of LPUK up here is because it seems a very south-centric movement.  I’d not necessarily say London based but certainly south.  Ditto UKIP.  I’m only giving people’s impressions, not saying this is so and am certainly not against them – after all, next time I’ll be voting for one of these or an amalgam.

But they really need to get their act together.

I believe UKIP will get its act together first, harnessing the Tory discontent and having more high-profile people come over to it.  The Tory anti-UKIP rhetoric is good because it shows they’re worried Dave is decimating the party.  I also believe they shouldn’t jump on stats putting them ahead of the Lib Dems because it is a reactive figure.  Hell, people go for the BNP in times of trouble but no one sees them governing.

Again, not putting them down and well done for a hard road but to be a truly alternative government, they need to recognize some things:

1.  The PTB will try to corrupt anyone likely to gain power.  They’ll get CP graduates to contest party positions and so on – party politics is their field and they have the dirty tactics sewn up.

2.  The name – they need to change it to more than a one-policy name and sorry but that’s how it’s perceived, whatever the reality or what progress has been made.

3.   They need to broaden their platform to bring in disparate elements such as LPUK and all the fragmented, unrepresented, small government, pro-industry, pro-freedom people, in a very welcoming and accessible way.  They need to persuade all these elements that it might be better to get behind and throw in their lot with this crowd, even if they’re not perfect – than the alternative.

They need to co-opt the former Tory ex councillors and that type to come in as the voice of conservative libertarianism in the area.  The monolithic socialist Labour is an excrescence but one with a long history of destruction, they’re deep in the land and they’re organized.  Everyone knows the tribal mentality.

4.  As a result of this, the party has to really look like a government in waiting, to speak like a winner, not a bleater.  Not enough to be happy with one or two people getting in and everyone slapping themselves on the back.  To the retort “we have to start somewhere”, no party who accepted a lesser position ever took government.  They need to come in as a fully fledged party with a raft of policies largely stolen from old small c conservative platforms but mixing in a certain amount of Labour’s winners.  If you’re going to have a party at all [and I don’t like parties], then at least do it right.  The only way the media will get on the bandwagon is if there is a concerted, coordinated push up and down the country, media bombarded, people wandering around with party symbols, e.g. a flower of some kind in their lapels [or pinned to their hoods].

The other day, at work, so many people came in wearing a yellow flower in their lapel, I just had to know what it was about – cancer apparently.  That sort of thing.

5.  I like Nigel a hell of a lot but sadly, he had his run against Bercow and people did not buy.  If a poisoned dwarf could get back over Nigel, then either the tactics were wrong and his judgement comes into question … or people just don’t like him.  I do but who TF am I?

6.  They’ll need a proper party structure where people in contested constituencies can make contact and who feel that this is a viable alternative government.  This is especially tied in with the public perception that the conservative voice [small c] is now with UKIP and not with the iDave Pink Tories.

I mean, what a double-whammy for the Tories – seen by one side as the toffs, seen by the other as pinkos.  No integrity.

7.  Related to N1 above – this party needs to understand what it’s up against.  It is, in fact, reconstituting society, back to how it was before the quislings got into key positions up and down the country and never forget those quislings have the vote too.  I’ll never vote for a party which is in it just to be in power and enjoying the gravy train.  It needs serious candidates of integrity.

Will this new “party” succeed?  If sufficient Tories of good name [with the public] come over – perhaps.  If people of note in other professions come in – also perhaps.

Will UKIP or LPUK on their own succeed?  Can’t see it.  Somewhere along the line, they’re going to have to talk to each other and to disaffected Tories, without turning up their noses and somehow thrash out a new political force.

15 comments for “Reflections on UKIP and LPUK

  1. cuffleyburgers
    April 18, 2012 at 9:21 am

    Excellent post and I agree 100%

    • April 18, 2012 at 10:32 am

      If there were sufficient heavyweights, genuine achievers in other fields, if the platform was basically sane – industry, small business, protecting pensions etc. etc. – I’d join and pay money I don’t even have [obviously I’d take a current loss against the later advantage] to the party. If a hundred thousand people did this, the party would be well on their way.

      It would need PPCs who could at least persuade us [and we’re very cynical] that they were after restoring sanity to the country. Sure there’d be perks along the way but if the public saw these PPCs as genuine, there’d be a mass swing towards them – I’m sure of that, given the mood of the country. Spine, honesty, some sort of brain – that’s all that would be necessary to get it moving.

      • Saltimbamba
        April 18, 2012 at 11:15 am

        “…if the platform was basically sane….”
        “…they were after restoring sanity to the country…”

        Excellent post. Makes so much sense. But what makes you think the PTB desire sanity in society??

        Being a well-adjusted individual in an insane society is probably not an indication of good mental health.

        Have you ever considered a higher agenda??

        • April 18, 2012 at 11:40 am

          Very much so but what can we then do? If it’s a done deal, which my religion suggests it is, then is there any point?

          I think there is – they can be thrown off their game for short periods of time, when surprised. Example is Kennedy, one of their boys, turning on them and getting statesman-delusions [in their eyes]. Ditto Lincoln.

          We do have one thing for now – the net. It’s the new Samizdat but in the end, there must be a will for change in the community, even if that change is only to return to sanity.

          The end game’s not a utopia but basically people leaving each other sufficiently alone to get on with it, without asphyxiating interference. You know the score – the feeling, for example, that I can start up a business and if I have half a brain and work hard, it can succeed.

          There can be none of that today in the UK. Westminster does not want small business to thrive. If I thought there was the slightest chance, I’d be off my butt and setting one up. I have my eyes on the venue, I think I can get the money – the government and council absolutely kill it off.

          • Saltimbamba
            April 18, 2012 at 12:36 pm

            A wise man once said to me “Once you’ve got all the money, what else is there left to do apart from control people?”.

            As you quite rightly point out, the PTB do not want small business to thrive. The PTB see competition as a sin. They believe monopoly is theirs by divine right. They pursue control of others as the ultimate endgame, and therefore it is my belief that we are on a course back to feudalism. At some point we may need to justify our very existence to those who rule us.

            “The end game’s not a utopia”….but it certainly seems to be a dystopia. Why are there currently many current movies and books which focus on dystopian futurisitic visions and post-apocalyptic worlds? The cynic says this stuff sells, but could it be “predictive programming”?

            Things seems to be lining up nicely for ‘them’ this year, economic crises, political unrest, general fear among the population, etc. All they need is the right ‘crisis’ and complete control can then be implemented.

            I have no solutions. I’m just an observer, perhaps an idealist like you seem to be. We’re trapped in a system where people seem only to want to fight for further enslavement.

            Problem – Solution? Charlie Chaplin explains it better than most, which is why it’s considered one of the greatest speeches ever:-

            http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WibmcsEGLKo

  2. April 18, 2012 at 10:18 am

    We have the same problem in Australia. Lots of grass-roots dissatisfaction but no coherent alternative. Lots of tiny parties on the right but too fragmented.

    • April 18, 2012 at 10:36 am

      It’s a danger for one man or woman to have the charisma, integrity and organizational ability, not to mention the stamina to help get this off the ground. The PTB would target this person from the outset. He or she would be nobbled, bumped off but he/she could have done some good work and started a rolling stone before that happened.

      The sort of person I have in mind is Witterings from Witney.

  3. April 18, 2012 at 12:57 pm

    While not a member of UKIP I got off my backside and campaigned for Nigel at the last election. Anything to get rid of a pompous dwarf.

    Nigel and his team struck me as more libertarian than I expected from hearing him on the MSM.

    His mistake in the election was fighting one of the largest, mainly rural, constituencies without the manpower or money to succeed.

    The issue of course is party politics v direct democracy. The only solution is a constitution similar to Switzerland, the country with the highest per capita wealth in the world. 100,000 Swiss people can call a referendum to overturn any government legislation.

    • Mudplugger
      April 18, 2012 at 1:50 pm

      The fact that you are right is also the reason why we will never be granted the direct democratic power with which the Swiss Government entrusts its own people.

      But without it, is it feasible for any new political force to break through the cartel of the Big 3 ?

      The fragmentation of the ‘protest’ parties is the very thing which keeps the Big 3 in power – sometimes they nick votes from the Left (like the Greens), sometimes they nick from the Right (UKiP), sometimes they nick from both (BNP), but never enough to gain seats and thus to destabilise the established groupings. In many ways, the Big 3 are happy to see the current mish-mash of minority and single-issue protest groups, as this keeps them away from their own membership while never representing a real threat to the status quo.

      So, short of violent insurrection, how is that to be broken ?

    • Paul
      April 20, 2012 at 1:21 am

      DisenfranchisedOfBuckingham: The issue of course is party politics v direct democracy. The only solution is a constitution similar to Switzerland, the country with the highest per capita wealth in the world. 100,000 Swiss people can call a referendum to overturn any government legislation.

      Sounds like you’d be quite a fan of the Swiss SVP. Would I be right or not?

  4. April 18, 2012 at 2:20 pm

    Call me a pessimist, but I think “corruption” is a normal part of the human character, and it will never go away. That’s why politics will always be an evil business.

  5. TDK
    April 18, 2012 at 3:32 pm

    Just a presentation point.

    Don’t say you are “going back”, especially not in conjunction with phrases like “quislings” et al.

    You are “going forward”. Yours is a vision of a better tomorrow, not a better past.

  6. DerekP
    April 18, 2012 at 4:47 pm

    My opinions:
    UKIP could do with emphasising they are not the Conservative party from years ago.

    That association can put off people who have voted Labour or Liberal in the past. Push the future (policies and reform), don’t let recent history dictate an immediate rejection from a sizeable part of the electorate.

    Currently plenty of people are hacked off with the dictatorial controlling perverse LibLabCon but most don’t know LibLabCon policy is mainly EU driven, so that dissatisfaction doesn’t automatically change to supporting UKIP.

    Give them a chance/reason to respond to specific problems rather than the EU in general, especially where the LibLabCon have ‘previous’ on going along with the problem.

    Regarding your points 2 & 3:
    – UKIP might benefit from a slight name change to UK Independents Party, as opposed to the emphasis on independence from the EU, as this will help move from the idea of a single-issue party so other UKIP policies can be aired in the MSM (hopefully). Also, what would happen after leaving the EU – would UKIP still have a use (the answer should hopefully be ‘yes’)?

    – UKIP could try to reach arrangements with other small political groups or any independents standing for particular local issues, especially anti-corruption. Rather than broaden their scope, UKIP could have core UKIP policies which allies sign up to, and UKIP aspirations which allies would not have to sign up to completely. This should benefit both, with increased presence.

  7. Peter Whale
    April 19, 2012 at 9:25 am

    One way UKIP could get more votes is by trying to turn the next G.E. into the referendum that was promised. Start now to tell people that this is their referendum. Go to the places that took a pseudo referendum and ask them to vote ukip as the referendum.

Comments are closed.