Churchmouse is a contributor at OoL on top of his own blog and his posts are always well thought out, content-rich and intelligent. I’d like to count CM as a friend.
But when it comes to something like UKIP, fairness appears to list a little to starboard for a few moments. It is so with many Tories as well. It’s a little matter, IMHO, of failing to give credit where it is due.
This post contained the following excerpts. I stress that much of it is CM quoting others, not his own words. You’d need to visit his post to determine that:
While the overwhelming majority of UKIP voters and supporters are responsible, well-meaning people who are rightly concerned about the changes they have seen in their local areas over the past 15 years, there is a kernel of support from a handful of extremist-sympathisers. I have read many comments over the years from this tiny faction of UKIP supporters discussing their attendance at fringe/extremist marches.
The Kilroy-Silk factor and National Front factor was there there all right but UKIP is the only party which specifically bans hard-right and that was not mentioned in the post.
Also, the dismissal of a party on the basis of its early fringe ignores the host of unprincipled MPs in the Tories and as for Labour – Sarah Champion is all one needs to say. Pot-kettle-pot?
All parties have a fringe – the views of some of the Lords are eye-watering. But this does not speak of the grassroots and the UKIP grassroots stood at 3.8 million at GE15. Not all were ‘loons’. In fact, the influx of ordinary people can be legitimately said to have swamped the fringe.
There’s a new breed of Kipper or is supporting one’s nation’s withdrawal from the ravening EU an act of loony-cy in itself?
So far, there is something to be said for David Cameron’s referring to UKIP as ‘loonies, fruitcakes and closet racists’. He said that in 2006 and again in the run-up to the 2015 election.
Fellow Conservative Michael Howard, Cameron’s predecessor, also labelled UKIP as ‘cranks and gadflies’ during his time as party leader.
Farage, who is married to a German, did his best to cleanse that image but with his MEPs and councillors saying silly and stupid things, the tarnish remained.
Quoting Cameron as an authority on UKIP? When so much personal enmity exists? Really?
Then there is an examination of Cameron himself and his u-turns, reneging, his lack of moral fibre, lack of ethics, his shameless politicking on matters important to the nation, such as Brexit, his returning the epithet ‘nasty’ to a party which could be so good if it stuck to universal conservative principles.
Praising Cameron with respect to UKIP is dodgy in the extreme. It’s like asking HRC for a fair assessment of the Donald – it ignores the whole nature of grassroots support for the UKIP movement. There is a similar thing happening across the pond with the Donald and the establishment is being just as narky there.
However, UKIP have gained strength in parts of the South East and the North in recent years among voters who have legitimate concerns.
Yes it has and as was written further up in CM’s post, without Farage, there’d be no Brexit. I’m not a UKIP member but I do give credit where it’s due and there’s a hell of a lot due to UKIP for what they’ve managed to achieve.
I think the whole attitude among many of the right is along these lines:
Personally, I really do hope UKIP sink like a stone. The party was weird to begin with and never changed.
It’s quite personal. This below however, is more constructive and speaks of trying to build something good, a viable alternative to the egregious and treacherous May and her Remainer cronies, currently thumbing their noses at the British 52%:
Businessman and entrepreneur Arron Banks has given much money and time to UKIP. He also gave £5.6 million toduring the referendum campaign.
Banks told The Guardian that UKIP might be pruned back, but he seems to favour a brand new party in a Brexit era. Infinitely preferable, in my humble opinion.
“Ukip grew so rapidly it had problems with personnel and all sorts of issues and I believe that could be better tackled with a new party,” he said …
“I think we have a good shot at taking over from Labour as the opposition because Labour are imploding and Labour voters for the first time ever have defied their party, voting for leave,” Banks said on Wednesday.
But he hinted Farage might not be his choice of leader for any new party, saying: “He may have had enough. And by the way, going out at the top is a good way in politics.”
Indeed. Banks should start afresh. He understands what is needed:
Banks has been credited with professionalising Ukip’s referendum push through thecampaign. He deployed senior executives and staff from his insurance companies and hired the Washington DC political campaign strategy firm Goddard Gunster on a multimillion-pound fee to sharpen its message.
“It was taking an American-style media approach,” said Banks. “What they said early on was ‘facts don’t work’ and that’s it. The remain campaign featured fact, fact, fact, fact, fact. It just doesn’t work. You have got to connect with people emotionally. It’s the Trump success.”
I wish Arron Banks the best of luck in putting his project together.
This is therefore about Nigel again – detested by Tories for actually connecting with the people – 3.8 million of them at least. I personally agree that Nigel’s time as leader has passed but that is not written from a standpoint of detestation but rather of a flawed man who stood firm for his country.
To attempt to say he did not connect with people is tosh. He connected in a similar way to the Donald and don’t forget that the Donald has half the country [just under] still agin him. My beef is not with who is leader or not, nor on where the party is going – I’d agree with CM and Banks here. My beef is with the dismissal of what UKIP was and what it achieved. It created a revolution in this country and that’s not to be sneezed at.
As for his expenses, at least Nigel’s defence was quoted, which was that yes, he raked off large amounts but he ploughed that back into the success of UKIP. In that outburst, he was illustrating the waste in Brussels and therefore some of that waste was going to be turned back on Brussels itself, towards its demise.
That was not made clear by the interviewer at the time.
Let’s give credit where it is due.