Farage is new UKIP leader

More later.

10am update on 13/9: In fact I've got nothing to add to the wide-ranging discussion on the thread below.  Only 7,574 votes were cast in the election of Mr Farage and it doesn't appear the press could work up that much enthusiasm either.  There's very little coverage in today's newspapers. 

Comments

[Tony Barton]

Some of the playground abuse on here says all that is needed about the deluded self-important idiots who have infiltrated the Conservative Party.

I will definitely consider voting for UKIP again. I did vote for them in the European election where they took a significent number of Tory seats.

If it helps get rid of this buffoon Cameron they can certa8nly count on my vote.

[Chad]

"He runs something called ukiphome.com which appears to have an intense agenda against the UKIP oriented www.democracyforum.co.uk"

As I am sure you are perfectly aware Albert, that forum has caused enormous damage to UKIP and is loathed by the leadership as it allows unverified members to sport a UKIP (or Tory) badge thus allowing them to fool people they are members of the party etc when in fact they could be and often are just troublemakers.

The fact that it is run by a current UKIP NEC member gave it an air of legitimacy that has been particularly damaging and UKIP has taken and is taking steps to negate this damage.

UKIP will soon have its own official forum, ukipforum.com and the members area will be directly checking to party member lists on a periodic basis, not just one off, to ensure the same kind of potentially damaging infiltration does not happen again.

Yes, the founders of the forum loathe, me, and yes, I will hopefully be helping UKIP forge a positive agenda on the internet.

ukiphome.com is a new site, but it has been welcomed by the people who actually matter in UKIP, the leadership.

[Chad]

"There is a timestamp of 7.57pm on Chad's website which refers to him eating a bacon sandwich before he will place his report there. Fair enough but he then made several posts to this place before his report was posted on his website! "

Simple truth is always more straight-forward than conspiracy I'm afraid; I needed to download and crop the photos from my phone to use on the count blog report so I could add comments here and elsewhere early but delayed my own blog.

It was a very good bacon sandwich though thanks! :-)

[Deputy Editor]

I don't want discussions about/with Chad to hijack any more threads, but just a couple of notes on what he's said in this one:

Why would you be seeking to point your guns at fellow conservatives rather than socialists etc?

One rule for us, one rule for you?

ukiphome.com is a new site, but it has been welcomed by the people who actually matter in UKIP, the leadership.

From what I remember, a lot of your opposition to Cameron was to do with leadership vs members...

[Chad]

"Why would you be seeking to point your guns at fellow conservatives rather than socialists etc?

One rule for us, one rule for you?"

My beef is with the nonConservative elements within the Conservative Party.

For example, 81% here agree with my stance against the extension to state funding of political parties, however your leadership proposed just this in March.

Conservatives exist in all parties and in many countries. We are friends and share an overlapping ideology.

I do not believe your leadership is currently pursuing a conservative agenda, and hence, my criticism is simply values-based.

[Chad]

"From what I remember, a lot of your opposition to Cameron was to do with leadership vs members..."

No I resigned over the use of positive discrimination which was facilitating racism in candidate selection and the lies over the EPP pledge.

[Joubert Beto]

I have to say that as a former active member of the Labour Party and now a Lib Dem member, I can think of nothing more amusing than to watch as you squander your small chance of regaining power by bickering over Europe.

The fact that a thread on UKIP, who are to the overwhelming majority of the population pointless, has had c. 100-150 replies indicates how worried you all are.

It is one thing to self-destruct in power, but to do so when in opposition, when 3 years away from an election shows how ridiculous you all are. It's almost like as soon as you get a bit of popularity you think that you must be doing something wrong!

Funny that the Lib Dems are the low tax party at the moment isn't it!

[Chad]

There is actually an effort to keep this thread alive by UKIP members - just go to the UKIP forum!

[tapestry]

Many Conservatives have dreamed the UKIP dream. Most have now woken up. The Party is controlled by a small cabal. Farage like any UKIP leader is mainly a figurehead, in his case influential but not in power to do much to change things.

Kilroy would have easily won a democratic contest for the leadership, and gained control of the Party, but the cabal was too heavily dug in, and wouldn't release the levers. That blew their best moment to move ahead to become a mainstream party.

UKIP's not a political Party. It's inevitably become an ego trip, which defeats its own declared aims - a chance for people to be a big fish in a small pool. Farage knows that only too well. He is unlikely to get much support from those in control to change things. Yawn.

[James Maskell]

Lets not forget Chad wrote half those messages...

The Lib Dems want to substantially increase environmental taxes. Dont be fooled by the spin that they want lower taxes. Its bunkem.

[Chad]

Do please check the email address though James, as like the post above from 'chad' they're not always from me, but from those up to no good too!

[James Maskell]

Still, point stands...

[Chad]

Well, to be fair, almost all of them of them are me simply responding to various insults and accusations.

I want the c-r to work together to defeat the left, and want conservatives in both parties to work together.

I'd much rather see Cameron work with UKIP and strengthen the whole c-r than cosy up with the left-wing LibDems.

[malcolm]

Bit of a dull thread this.Interesting to see many of the usual suspects come out as closet UKIPers. What a suprise! I feel a bit sorry for you Chad if these are the kind of people you have to deal with,and also think that if these people are representative of UKIPs membership you've no chance at all in making your laudable progcon ideas a reality.

[Chad]

They're far from the norm Malcolm, thankfully.

Yesterday I spent half the day in a room full of ukippers, and I'm sure we'd both be equally comfortable spending time with them all.

It's fair to say, that for UKIP, the internet is currently not a reflection of the vast majority of its membership and active steps are being taken to address that.

I want progcon to flourish in both parties of course as it is values-based and not tied to a rosette.

[John Coles]

"Bit of a dull thread this."
Well, if this is dull, heaven knows where you find your blogging excitement, Malcolm. Ostentatious yawning does not make UKIP any the less a vital factor in the future of Mr Cameron's "conservative" party.
Well done Chad for fighting the good fight.

[Mark Fulford]

Ostentatious yawning does not make UKIP any the less a vital factor in the future of Mr Cameron's "conservative" party.

UKIP is totally irrelevant. It's a tail without a dog. Any Conservative who thinks that UKIP fits them better than the current Conservative party has got a very obvious option, and I wish you'd do us all a favour and exercise it like Chad did. Don't just praise him, join him!

[christina speight]

Tapestry - "Farage like any UKIP leader is mainly a figurehead, in his case influential but not in power to do much to change things."

Sorry but you're SO wrong. Farage has controlled the party 100% since he and his pals [his THEN pals] hijacked it in 2001.

True there have been press reports that the security services were using the party to destabilise the Tory party though, not surprisingly, this was never proved. The then press officer (Chris Jones) resigned making complaints of such infiltration

[tapestry]

Sinn Fein attempted to back UKIP with funds too.

Why is Farage described as a founder member of UKIP in The Guardian? Newspapers know so little.

If Farage is in control, why does everything run through Mike Nattrass' business premises in Birmingham?

[christina speight]

Tapestry - The party moved its HQ to Mike Nattrass' business premises in Birmingham because he SAID it would be cheaper. Divide and rule left Farage in charge via the phantom Ashford centre. I believe, though am open to correction, that they have moved again =- to Devon

[michael mcgough]

UKIP sure draws the interest here;hardly irrelevant then.

[TomTom]

120 comments for a Party derided by David Cameron..............it must be a real irrelevance to get so much attention !

[Nob Chiddle]

Most of these posts are from UKIP members as there is a dedicated campaign to keep the thread alive!

[christina speight]

Well of course it's alive. Cameron is exhausted by his efforts and hasn't said anything daft today - in fact he hasn't said anything at all so the opinion polls will probably improve for him as a result.

[tired and emotional]

Is it only me that sees us ahead in the polls by a considerable margin... unthinkable pre-Cameron.

Perhaps I'm looking at the wrong polls...

[Wallenstein]

I think you mean; unthinkable pre Blair's fall from grace.

If any of the last three Tory leaders were in charge now the party would be ahead.

The question is; how long will it last?

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

Chad Noble does seem to occupy a lot of this lists time for someone who would seem to have no consequence beyond Virtual Reality - I note he first emerged in Holland a couple of years ago - then it seems had close association with the EU seeking grants.
Are you also the Chad Noble who seems not to have lodged accounts for his company for some time? The same Chad Noble who is or was running an internet betting organisation taking bets on the date of the next terrorist (allegedly) outrage and howmany people would be killed?
I doubt I would trust your existence without sight of your birth certificate since you seem not to be on the electoral role and if one remembers Mr. Chad you may well be a spoof or if named after St. Chad one must remember St. Chad was descendent of a Noble house!
All looks a bit of a cunning weeze - that may be running out of breath!
Regards, Greg L-W.

[tired and emotional]

Maybe, I am not sure that IDS or Hague would have surmounted the nasty party tag enough to translate revulusion for Blair into actual votes for Tories, Howard's dogwhistle campaign would still fail today despite the public greater willingness to accept the raising of the issues. Of course the acid test is how we will fare against the Brown policy onslaught that is sure to come... I still believe that we are in the best position that we have been in since Blair took office, and that is because of DC, not Blair's inevitable decline. And, though this is very far from certain, it may be that perceptions have been changed sufficiently to allow revulsion for Blair and Labour to get us voters, rather than the Lib Dems or stay in bed parties.

[John]

Even though I hate to admit it, most of the people who live in my area (rural) seem to have views more akin to BNP/UKIP. They dismiss the three main parties as 'being all the same'. There is truth in this argument, DC's description of himself as a 'Liberal Conservative' means at the next GE what is the choice, LibCon, LibLab, Libdem. When it comes to the EU, be honest!, Cameron is not going to be any different to Brown (if it is he) Brown is a Euro-sceptic, probably more so than Cameron is. The Tories took is in, in 75 fought tooth and nail to keep us in, have signed every piece of legislation that took us further in. If you read the Labour manifesto for 83 on Europe, its promise to take the UK out is identical to the Tory Euro-sceptic position today. Remember Leon Brittan, sent to Brussels by Mrs Thatcher in the wake of the 'Westlands Affair' as 'one of us' in six months that man made Roy Jenkins look like a Euro-sceptic.

[Chad]

Hello Greg!

Yes, I was working on an innovation, originally conceived by DARPA (invented the internet etc) in the US to use trading technology as a means to identify terrorism risks but they had to drop it due to political pressure in the USA.

The aim was to create a single international framework for sharing key information to acutally predict likely attacks. All very hi-tech, a bit too hi-tech really.

Unfortunately, my rocket scientist didn't get the algorithmns complete to make it workable, however I believe there is a university in Poland seeking to use similar technology.

But yes, you are right, I do have a silly name. Sorry, I had no input during the selection process!
:-)

[christina speight]

Tired and Emotional (surely that's Private Eye's euphemism for "blind drunk" ? I'm only asking!) - nobody had thought of the term "nasty party" till that idiot (now a Cameroon) Theresa May thought it up. THANKS for that Theresa!

[David Banks]

Campbell - Bannerman is a big bloke in UKIP ? I thought he was a dead PM from way back?

Chad darling, can you advise

XXX

[Dreg Lance Boilkins]

Are you the same Greg Lance-Watkins who described the murder of the Swedish foreign minister Anna Lindh as the act of a "patriot"?

I mean, can you be the guy who called upon other anti-euro campaigners to be prepared to take similar action against government figures here?

Nice chap aren't you?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/09/14/wlind14.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/09/14/ixhome.html

[David Banks]

well, the Lib Dems are all euro Quislings , so if they weren't already self destructing it would be a patriotic act to put a bomb under them..

[tired and emotional]

Christina, that is correct. Shurely shome mishtake etc etc...

No-one had coined the phrase but we are deluded if we think that no-one was thinking it.

[Chad]

"Campbell - Bannerman is a big bloke in UKIP ? I thought he was a dead PM from way back?
Chad darling, can you advise"

Hi David,

He's the ex-chairman of the Bow Group, joined UKIP four years or so ago, became Chairman in Jan, a real small government supporter and is a distant relative of Sir Henry CB as you mention. He is also a really decent guy, and I had the pleasure of meeting him for the first time at the count yesterday.

It was a bit like being at a kind of UKIP eurodisney as suddenly all the faces you have seen on TV etc were coming at me from all directions. It was great.

[David Banks]

Thanks Chad , as ever very interesting, thought i'd seen that name before.

So Chad, i'm feeling UKIP friendly at the moment. Can Mr Farage broaden its appeal do you think , or is it going to be an exercise in retrenchment?

[Chad]

Well I bloody hope so David otherwise I wouldn't have joined to help the process along.

The biggest challenge, as far as I can see it will be:

#1 For Tories: To see that broadening the overall conservative voice is a good thing not something to destroy as then we will be fighting the left in our terms.

#2 For UKIP to move beyond the old "destroy the Tories" rhetoric and to actually accept that we are a small c conservative party too with a core unequivocal aim to exit from the EU but also a clear small gov, low tax vision.

In this, I want them to focus on a positive small gov agenda, and to realise that "exit the eu" is not a goal but a path to a goal. We need to sell the vision, and for me, that is one of internationalism, ie consigning regionalism to the dustbin and addressing our biggest challenges, which are international in nature, internationally.

#2 is looking good based on Nigel's statements so far but we have a long, long way to go.

#1 I sense some more friendly comments but equally, there is a long way to go.

As we head towards what many expect to be a period of hung parliaments, the only way to deliver conservative policies is for conservatives (small c as always) to work together.

Why would wooing the left-wing europhile LibDems be preferable to working with a small gov centre-right party?

It's time to think differently and perhaps that way we can actually deliver our goals rather than split the vote and deliver victory to the left.

[David Banks]

Well that seems to make sense , thanks. So really its all about a wider vision of a conservative movement broader than one party, in which we develop a vision combining key elements such as small gov and internationalism as opposed to the statism which is presently the dominant thread of Whig 'progressive' theory.
thanks for mking sense of it all Chad

[SavetheUK]

The Conservative Party under the present management has absolutely no intention of resisting (never mind leaving) the EU.

In these circumstances a Labour government led by Brown would probably be preferable.

[Simon Chapman]

"It was a bit like being at a kind of UKIP eurodisney..."

Can't think why Chad's Micky Mouse analogy seems oh so appropriate, but it does.

[David Banks]

UKIP Plastique fantastique i assume. I am not alledging that Mr Farage has large round ears , a squeeky voice and a dog called Pluto! Hey hey have just heard Jeremy Vine say something about clare short leaving Parliament. Great can't be soon enough can it! No wait , i'll miss her , the self righteousness , that voice, the hair. Still, she opposed Page 3 . She's gone but Page 3 remains. I thought people reckoned that feminism was a good thing. Yeah right. Oh hello , i'd better walk to work.

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

Hi,
David Banks said:
"Oh hello , i'd better walk to work."

Is it now mandatory for any good conservative to have his own driver to bring the car?

Regards,
Greg L-W.

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

Hi Dreg Lance Boilkins,

with an ill informed childish cheap shot like that it is hardly surprising you are ashamed of your name though I note your eMail is: curtis67@yahoo.co.uk

Regards,
Greg L-W.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Just a couple of brief observations:

- A few people on this thread and elsewhere have commented on Nigel Farage being a nice guy.

I'm not sure his long-suffering wife would agree. Reports published in the News of the World earlier this year alleged that Farage had a fling with a Latvian mistress behind his wife's back. It is claimed that this was not the first of several such dalliances, and follows reports of chauffeur-driven (i.e. funded by European taxpayers like you and I, folks) champagne-fuelled misbehaviour in seedy European nightclubs.

- Chad Noble defected from the Conservatives to UKIP (via the short-lived Imagine Party), claiming that the introduction of the priority list conflicted with his 'no preference, no prejudice' values, and has welcomed the election of Farage as the new UKIP leader.

The founder of UKIP has stated that Farage once declared: "We will never win the nigger vote. The nig-nogs will never vote for us". I'm not sure that such a statement can be squared with a 'no preference, no prejudice' agenda any more than the introduction of the priority list can.

[Chad]

Oh Daniel, grow up.

We could all go into Cameron's time in pr, cocaine allegations, all the Tories jailed for child sex offences and racism etc, etc, but we are discussing issues here.

As I have already commented, David Campbell Bannerman, the chairman has already endorsed and embraced No Preference, No Prejudice and I hope Nigel will too.

I've only been in the party 3 months, and have got the chairman to agree, so you'll forgive me if it takes me a bit longer to spread the message fully through the whole party.

On Tuesday, I was chatting to UKIP NEC member, Delroy Young, who is backing Nigel and was the voted onto the NEC with the second highest total, without any positive discrimination. Yes, guess what, he's black.

However, for further progress on NPNP, I'll say this; watch this space.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

"Oh Daniel, grow up."

Oh Chad, lighten up. Why such a tetchy response to pertinent observations about Nigel Farage's character?

"We could all go into Cameron's time in pr, cocaine allegations, all the Tories jailed for child sex offences and racism etc, etc, but we are discussing issues here."

I'm sure you could Chad, but this is a discussion about Nigel Farage. I note you didn't object when people were commenting that he seems like a nice guy, but all of a sudden, you don't want me to discuss his character.

"As I have already commented, David Campbell Bannerman, the chairman has already endorsed and embraced No Preference, No Prejudice and I hope Nigel will too."

Do you think 'no preference, no prejudice' is consistent with a statement from the UKIP leader that UKIP "will never win the nigger vote" or that "the nig-nogs will never vote for" UKIP?

"I've only been in the party 3 months, and have got the chairman to agree, so you'll forgive me if it takes me a bit longer to spread the message fully through the whole party."

Well congratulations on your progress with the chairman, and I will forgive you if the whole party fails to embrace your agenda because I am somewhat sceptical that UKIP will embrace such an agenda.

"On Tuesday, I was chatting to UKIP NEC member, Delroy Young, who is backing Nigel and was the voted onto the NEC with the second highest total, without any positive discrimination. Yes, guess what, he's black."

I'm quite aware that Delroy Young is a UKIP NEC member Chad, but don't let that get in the way of your shameless name-dropping. Using the 'Ron Atkinson defence' to counter the observation about remarks attributed to Farage about black voters simply won't wash I'm afraid.

[Chad]

Well you appear to have a litte bee in your bonnet as Malcolm pointed out the other day, so, to stop you disrupting a thread any further, I'll ignore all future posts from you and just takeit for granted that you are sh*t-stirring.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

I don't have a bee in my bonnet Chad (unless you consider a strong distaste for hypocrisy to be a bee in my bonnet) - at the moment I'm just trying to ascertain whether you think 'no preference, no prejudice' is consistent with a statement from the UKIP leader that UKIP "will never win the nigger vote" or that "the nig-nogs will never vote for" UKIP?

The fact that you can't find a better response to my observations about the character of Nigel Farage than "grow up" or "I'm ignoring you" (please do, it'll be one less irritation for both of us) is rather telling, I feel.

[Chad]

OK last post - of course it is not consistent.

I've joined a party that I am seeking to change. Rather than seek to attack UKIP, why not ask why the Tory Party has not adopted NPNP, then ask yourself why, according to the UN's own definition, Cameron has introduced a racist policy.

I tried to encourage the Tories to adopt NPNP, but the strong views on race and homosexuality by many members made me realise that would be impossible.

Now, so for someone who declares that he hates hypocrisy, how do you square your allegation from a disgruntled ex-colleague of Nigel, with Cameron's deliberate and open introduction of fixed ethnic quotas that the UN itself, defines as racist?

[Chad]

.and also Daniel, just for the record, please would you confirm that every Tory who has been convicted of a racism or child porn offence has now been expelled from the party?

[Oberon Houston]

Regarding the Euro elections, I think that they are after all a single issue party, and its absolutely fine, no complaints. But to put forward people for Westminster annoys me, they do leech away votes from us, and for no real purpose other than to hurt the party most closely aligned to them. What with Lib's and Labour stitching us up with tactical voting, and UKIP looking for votes fromthe right, I think that someone voting UKIP at westminster is a pillock. How many deposits did the lose last May? 450 I think at a cost of £225,000.

[Chad]

So you support UKIP moving away from a single issue party to one with a full small government, low taxation agenda then Oberon?

[Oberon Houston]

UKIP in power at Westminster? Oh ha ha ha.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/vote2005/html/scoreboard.stm

[Chad]

What that a yes? :-)

Remember, UKIP are the only party of the top 4 that oppose the extension to state funding Oberon.

Surely, it is a good thing to have one party supporting small government policies that 81% of members here support, but the Tory Party and the others have rejected?

[Oberon Houston]

So which UKIP MP's are voting on these issues Chad?

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Thank you for your honesty Chad in acknowledging the inconsistency between your 'no preference, no prejudice' agenda and the UKIP leader's remarks about black voters.

I've no doubt that there are elements within the Conservative Party with unpleasant views on race, gender, sexual orientation etc but surely this is true of all large political parties?

I wouldn't say it was indicative of a problem specific to the Conservatives and, forgive me for being blunt, at least in this party such unpleasant views have not (to my knowledge) been attributed to our leader.

With regards your last point, I'd like to make it clear that I do not support the imposition of the priority list by the party leadership as I abhor 'positive discrimination'. Having said that, I can see that the motives behind the priority list are well-intended, unlike the remarks attributed to Nigel Farage, and that, in terms of the overall picture, my political interests and values are best served by remaining within a party that is best placed to cater for them even though I do not agree wholeheartedly or unwaveringly with everything the party and its leadership say or do.

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

And the honest answer to your question about expulsions from the party is I don't know.

[Oberon Houston]

Its also interesting that you say that 81% of 'members here' support UKIP. I thought that this was a site for members of the Conservative party, and that you were UKIP and yet still feel that this site is your 'home'. By the way UKIP supporters support 93.7% of our policies when compared to Labours, and this is close to the 87.5% of statistics that are made up.

I simply don't understand UKIPs position when it comes to Westminster 450 deposits lost, votes are overwhelmingly from natural conservative voters. Nothing achieved, except Labour-Liberal positioned is strengthened. No Chad, UKIP don't do good, they do sensless damage, which leads me to believe that they are lead and supported by dissafected reactionaries.

[Chad]

Oberon, I said 81% oppose the plans to extend state funding of political parties.

UKIP are the only party of the big 4 to also oppose this.

"thought that this was a site for members of the Conservative party"
when did that occur? I thought it was a site for conservatives? Let me know and all us non-members will disappear immediately once we realise it is actually just a Tory propaganda blog and not a discussion forum both for and against.

"By the way UKIP supporters support 93.7% of our policies when compared to Labours,"
Well, just pledge to withdraw from the EU as soon as you come to government and UKIP will be finished.....

"No Chad, UKIP don't do good, they do sensless damage,"
Like standing up for the vast moajority of the country who oppose state fuhding?

Like passionately supporting lower taxes and small government?

Interesting, what Tories like yourself define as damage these days..

Daniel,
I forgive you!

As we know the Tories will always win the "who has the most convicted sex offenders and racists" contest, so it would be helpful if in future you could focus on policy discussion rather than mud-slinging!

[malcolm]

I think Chad was refering to a Conhome survey on State Funding where 81% voted against Oberon.

[Oberon Houston]

Oh okay, sorry guys getting confused. but that aside, my point still stands, UKIP at Westminster is a poor idea.

[Oberon Houston]

Sorry not 'at Westminster', but involved in GE's for Westminster, I'm sure you get the point.

[Oberon Houston]

Finally, if this site is a tory blog (as it principally is), don't you have a site of your own Chad - which sounds like a perfect platform for your UKIP interests? No?

[Daniel Vince-Archer]

Chad, the points I raised about Nigel Farage's character were relevant to this discussion, not mud-slinging.

The fact remains that Nigel Farage is a hugely controversial figure and the points I have raised will be small beer compared to what the media will throw at him, as they have done in the past.

As for your assertion about having the most sex offenders and racists, I have no idea if it's true, but the fact that the Conservatives are the party with by far the largest membership renders it statistically irrelevant for comparison purposes - a bit like saying Greece has more professional footballers than Cyprus, for example.

[Mark Fulford]

I really don't know what all the fuss is about. UKIP benefits the Conservative party by giving the wingnuts a home. Without them we are far more attractive to voters.

Chad has wild dreams about turning UKIP into a conservative Utopia, but they are totally fanciful. I'm tempted to run a book on how long Chad stays with UKIP before flouncing off because they betray his ideals.

[UKIP Sleaze Buster]

Interesting post on UKIPhome:-

http://www.ukipforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=14296

If 45.5% of members voted this would make our current membership something like 16,646 - which means our membership has dropped from 29,000 to 16,646 in just 2 years - a loss of nearly 13,000 members -or about 43%.

What can be done to recruit and retain members so we can be taken seriously as Britains 4th political party?

[Chad]

Mark Fulford wrote:
"I'm tempted to run a book on how long Chad stays with UKIP before flouncing off because they betray his ideals."

OK Mark, give me some odds that I'll still be with UKIP on 31st December 2009 and I'll place a £500 bet with you (with profit as usual going to the TPA).

[Oberon Houston]

So, UKIP lose half of their membership in 2 years. In those quiet moments Chad, do you ever wonder that your wasting your time?

[Mark Fulford]

OK Mark, give me some odds that I'll still be with UKIP on 31st December 2009 and I'll place a £500 bet with you (with profit as usual going to the TPA).

LOL - a somewhat one-sided bet!

[Big Tad]

Bugger - a loss of 43% of members in 2 years! Interesting that UKIP still quote the 29,000 figure in their lealfets.

Does anybody know how many members the Green Party has or the BNP or Respect, SNP or Plaid Cymuru?

[Russell Long]

As a long-term Tory voter and party member, I recently cancelled my membership and picked up a UKIP membership. My protest.
I don't like Cameron's Big Government attitude. I want to pay less tax, I want less interference, and I want fewer civil servants. The Conservative party always offered that, but now they don't. Cameron also seems like a fundamentally insincere person - I voted for David Davis in the leadership election because I didn't trust Cameron.

That said, I don't think UKIP have the clout to achieve much, if anything. As said above, they need a good domestic agenda and to stop being seen as standing for just one thing.

[Chad]

I agree, UKIP has been an organisational shambles, one issue pressure group, and often just an anti-tory whinger.

No wonder its membership fell after its successes in 2004.

However, I can also see the enormous potential of the party, and that is why I have joined it to play my small part in guiding it towards a more progressive conservative, small government, low taxation agenda.

Just watch this space, I think some exciting things are happening within the party and I hope they are adopted and help take the party forward.

[Chad]

Oberon.. I joined the Tory party when it was on its knees in June 2005 and I can tell you, the task for UKIP is no where near as difficult.

It's amazing what a difference 12 months can make, isn't it?

[David Banks]

Yes, i agree. i think. So Chad , i'm a bit surprised you didn't go for the top job in UKIP yourself, has Nigel Farage offered you a post in his shadow cabinet to stay out of the running or is there a Granita style deal going on ? :-}

[James Maskell]

If a Granita deal has been struck my advice would be to get it written down, the sooner the better...

[David Banks]

........On the tablecloth!

boom boom

[Greg Lance-Watkins]

Interestingly:
Posted by: Chad | September 14, 2006 at 16:22
>"Remember, UKIP are the only party of the top 4 that oppose the extension to state funding Oberon."<

Coming from a self appointed spokesman in Virtual Reality surely it is worth noting that he puts forward the policy of the new Tory right EUKIP without the Reality of Virtue that they are the most heavily tax payer funded political group in Britain - being, they claim, funded by donations from their MEPs, fraud on the EU and one in house backer of consequence.

The amount they lost in running Ashford as the fiefdom of a clique collecting in cash, when less than 15% reached the party, made the entire operation look like a scam and when their new leaders regional accounts list 55% of the income as 'other expenses' - one wonders just what does happen to tax payers money, let alone that of the unfortunate members!

No wonder it was so clearly to the advantage of the ruling clique to lie, cheat, dissemble, smear and corrupt the election so that their man could steal the result.

Farage is clearly very Tory in methodology - where Vapid Cameroon lied about the EPP to pretend to EUroRealist credentials and defeat the better man and ensure that Conservatives were the losers.

Regards,
Greg L-W.

[Monday Clubber]

Thank you for your honesty Chad in acknowledging the inconsistency between your 'no preference, no prejudice' agenda and the UKIP leader's remarks about black voters

The allegation of racism was made by Alan Sked, an extremely bitter individual who was expelled from UKIP and subsequently joined the Conservatives.

Nigel Farage has repeatedly denied the use of racist language and I have every reason to believe that he is telling the truth.

[NAD CHOBLE]

UKIP are using breathtaking hypocrisy to criticise European Union waste. Perhaps they should take a close look at their own party and remember the old saying about those in glass houses not throwing stones!

UKIPs 10 MEPs are nothing more than massively expensive parasites with their snouts deep in the trough of EU cash. The EU provides UKIP with £1.5 million of EU money to fund their party and once you add the cost of staff and facilities, wages and expenses then UKIP’s 10 MEPs cost the taxpayer a staggering £5 million every year.

Last year UKIP received £170,000 in EU money to pay for a 2 million signature petition on membership of the EU. After a few months this petition campaign was quietly abandoned after only a tiny fraction of signatures were collected. UKIP wasted £170,000 of taxpayers money - will they be giving the money back?

For a party who have lost half their membership in just 2 years and now have a little over 16,000 members they must be very grateful for the EU subsidies that keep them running.

We should also look at the financial incompetence of those that run UKIP. At the recent Bromley by-election people who paid donations towards the campaign found it being paid to a UKIP MEPs credit card! The campaign cost £75,000 and UKIP only got 2,300 votes.

UKIP had a fund raising call centre in Ashford that took 85p of every £1 raised in ‘expenses’ and ‘running costs’ so if somebody donated £100 only £15 would go to UKIP!

And for people who think they are backing a separate political party I would like to ask why is the new leader of UKIP Nigel Farage making deals not to stand UKIP candidates against certain Conservative MPs?

Since being elected in 2004 UKIPs MEPs have done very little to campaign to get Britain to quit the EU - still you wouldn’t want to bite the hand that feeds you would you!

[Yet Another Anon]

I would like to ask why is the new leader of UKIP Nigel Farage making deals not to stand UKIP candidates against certain Conservative MPs?
The deal relates to members of the Better Off Out campaign and it isn't just Conservatives who are signatories, 10 so far:
Conservative: Douglas Carswell, Christopher Chope, David Davies, Philip Davies, Philip Hollobone, Richard Shepherd, Bob Spink, Ann Winterton, Nicholas Winterton

Labour: Austin Mitchell

MEP's Roger Helmer and Daniel Hannan are also members, but given that that is a vote using a list system and apart from anything lists are likely to include a mixture of people with different views it is unlikely that UKIP will not field afull list of candidates throughout Britain in the Euro Elections, it is true that it perhaps rather works against UKIP's aim to establish themselves in the public mind as a party on issues other than Europe that they commit to not field candidates against a those with a range of views on economic and social policy without regard to those views.

More may well follow, the DUP probably will not sign up because they are suspicous of campaigns external to their own party and of course the Northern Ireland Unionist Party (which is affiliated to UKIP) is anyway a seperate party and has broader objectives relating more specifically to Ulster than UKIP does.

[Chad]

Greg,

If you were sitting in an empty room you'd convince yourself that the four walls were conspiring against you.

[John Edwards]

Please somebody please tell me more of the Ashford Call Centre that took 85% in expenses of every £1 raised.

The donantions that went to an MEPs credit card.

The £170 grand of EU money (ie taxpayers) that UKIP wasted on a petition.

This would be great if it was backed with facts and links to attack UKIP.

[Chad]

Why John,
Do you think it would even get close to being as uncomfortable as the identity of those Tory donors that the party has sought so hard to hide?

[John Edwards]

Nad Choble has made some pretty serious allegations. Anti-immigrant UKIP appears to be wasting and squandering tax payers money and there appears to be some very dodgy going ons. When you look at the number of UKIP members (16000?) they receive more funding per member from the taxpayer than any UK political party!

[Chad]

Yes, I'm sure it concerns you enormously John.

I just wonder why it concerns you more than the millions of pounds pouring into the Tory Party from anonymous donors.

If there is a serious allegation, then I agree, let's not hide behind anonymous postings, get the accusation on record and investigate it in a transparent way.

Will those who accuse remain anonymous, it's clear it is nothing but shit-stirring.

[John Edwards]

http://www.pcc.org.uk/news/index.html?article=NDA5OQ==

Complainant Name:
Mr Roger Knapman

Clauses Noted: 1, 3, 10

Publication: The Sunday Times

Complaint:

Roger Knapman MEP, the leader of the UK Independence party, complained to the Press Complaints Commission that an article, published in The Sunday Times of 7th May 2006 headlined “Anti-migrant UKIP leader hires Poles”, was inaccurate in breach of Clause 1 (Accuracy), intrusive in breach of Clause 3 (Privacy) and followed the use of subterfuge in breach of Clause 10 (Clandestine devices and subterfuge) of the Code.

The complaint was not upheld.

The article reported that the complainant had been employing Polish workers to renovate his house. It suggested that this was hypocritical, given his party’s stance on immigration.

The complainant complained that subterfuge had been employed by the journalists. One reporter had approached his son – who runs a Polish-registered company that sources East Europeans for jobs in Britain – pretending to be interested in buying a property. Another reporter came to the complainant’s home, claiming to want to use the same builders as he was using. The quotes from the conversation were used in the article. The complainant argued that subterfuge was clearly unnecessary as he had never made any secret of the fact that his house was being renovated by some Polish workers, who were temporarily living there. Had the journalists spoken to him openly, he would have given all the necessary information, and they should at least have given him the opportunity to do so. There was no possible public interest to justify the subterfuge, which related to an activity that was both legal and private.

The complainant also alleged that the article contained inaccuracies, primarily relating to the length of time of the employment, the pay, and living conditions of the workers. He said that they had not been working for the past 11 months, but on two contracts of 12 and 10 weeks; were not living ‘dormitory-style in [the] attic’ but in an attic guest suite; and were earning nearly double the ‘£50 a day’ figure quoted in the newspaper. In fact, he said, the wages worked out at around £12.50 per hour or £4000 for six weeks per worker. The complainant offered to provide all necessary documentary evidence to prove the point. He added that UKIP was not “anti-migrant” as its policy was to limit immigration to around 150,000 a year and welcome guest workers on a work permit basis. The Polish workers, the complainant made clear, were not immigrants and remained ordinarily resident in Poland. The foundation of the article, and the newspaper’s justification for the subterfuge, was therefore incorrect. Finally, he objected to the claim that he had ‘boasted’ about his ability to help to supply Polish labourers.

In reply, the newspaper said that the purpose of its enquiries was to determine whether the complainant was guilty of political hypocrisy. UKIP had forthright views on immigration, arguing that ‘the first responsibility of a British government is to its own population, not to those who would like to settle here’. It pointed to a recent party leaflet which contained a cartoon entitled ‘Overcrowded Britain’, showing East Europeans pouring into an entrance labelled ‘Channel Funnell’. The newspaper suggested that a direct approach to the complainant would be bound to fail, as no political leader would be likely to assist in a newspaper exposing his own hypocrisy. The newspaper enclosed examples from a UKIP unofficial forum of those who considered the complainant indeed to be guilty of hypocrisy.

Similarly, it argued that any claimed intrusion under Clause 3 of the Code was justified by the fact that it was in the public interest to reveal the difference between the complainant’s private behaviour and his public political stance.

Turning to the complaints of inaccuracy under Clause 1, the newspaper offered to publish a correction on the amount of time for which the workers had been contracted. It provided a transcript of the recorded conversation between the reporter and the complainant’s son that touched upon the amount they were paid. The transcript showed that, while the complainant’s son had initially quoted a figure of £12.50 per person an hour, he had subsequently suggested that two workers would receive £4000 for six weeks work, consisting of six 10-hour days a week. This came to around £50 a day. The newspaper also did not consider it to be a matter of dispute that the workers lived in the complainant’s attic or that UKIP was ‘anti-migrant’. Moreover, the complainant’s effusiveness about the Polish workers justified the article’s claim that he had ‘boasted’ about his ability to help supply such workers.

Decision:
Not Upheld

Adjudication:

The thrust of the complaint fell under Clause 10 of the Code, which states that ‘engaging in misrepresentation or subterfuge can generally be justified only in the public interest and then only when the material cannot be obtained by other means’. The Commission noted that it was not in dispute that the reporters had used subterfuge to obtain information about the complainant’s employment of Polish workers.

The reference in Clause 10 to subterfuge ‘generally’ only being justifiable when the material cannot be obtained by other means allows the Commission to find no breach of the Code in some circumstances when material obtained by subterfuge may otherwise potentially be available. It may take into consideration, for example, the seriousness of the alleged subterfuge and whether or not it was proportionate in terms of the story, or whether there were reasonable grounds for concluding that pursuing other means would jeopardise future enquiries.

There was no way for the Commission to determine whether a direct approach from the newspaper would indeed have been successful and have removed the need for misrepresentation, although it did note the newspaper’s argument that a politician would be unlikely voluntarily to reveal information that would expose him to charges of hypocrisy. But in any case, the Commission was satisfied that there was an element of public interest in the newspaper’s pursuit of this story, given the perceived difference between the complainant’s political position as leader of UKIP and his practice of employing non-UK workers. The subterfuge used did not strike the Commission as being disproportionate or unnecessarily intrusive in the context of confirming a story of some public interest. It therefore did not conclude that there was a breach of Clause 10.

Neither did the Commission consider that there were any issues to pursue under Clause 3 of the Code. In stating that he would have been happy to discuss the matter with the newspaper, the complainant had clearly suggested that he did not regard the matter to be private. Indeed, he had said that the details were well known, both locally and to senior members of UKIP. Moreover, the Commission would not normally consider that publicity about renovation works at an individual’s home would amount to an invasion of privacy.

In terms of the complaint under Clause 1 of the Code, the Commission was satisfied that there was one point of established inaccuracy: the length of time the workers had been employed. The newspaper had rightly offered to correct this point, something the Commission considered to be a proportionate remedy under the Code.

On the outstanding complaints of inaccuracy, there was no breach of the Code. The newspaper had provided evidence – in the form of a transcribed conversation between the reporter and the complainant’s son – in support of its claim over the amount the workers were paid, which appeared to substantiate the figure quoted in the article and demonstrated that care had been taken by the newspaper to avoid inaccuracy on this point. Additionally, it was clearly the newspaper’s opinion, distinguished as such, that UKIP was ‘anti-migrant’ and that the complainant had ‘boasted’ about his employment of Polish workers, and it was not in dispute that they had stayed in his attic.

[Chad]

Um, and?

[Chad]

It certainly looks a bit hypocriticial doesn't? Gosh, a politicians being hypocritical, this must be a first.

Not quite, of course, on the scale of making an leadership pledge to withdraw from the EPP then breaking the pledge after the election, but I can see why you are so full of anger...

Face it, UKIP is reorganising and has learned a lot of its lessons. All these attacks are very, very reassuring as we know the irrelevant is always ignored.

[John Edwards]

UKIP are hypocrites and massively expensive parasites and spongers who appear to be funded mostly from tax payers money. Waste massive sums of money on a petition - have a dodgy call centre that swallows 85% of any donantion in 'expenses'. Wasted £75 grand on a by election to obtain 2,300 votes. Donations that get paid to an MEPs credit card, have 16,000 members after losing half their membership in a yea, announce new policies which are just re wqrites of Conservative policy - and they want to be taken seriously as a political party?

[Chad]

OK, you've convinced me!

I won't vote for the party that opposes the extension to state funding, in line with the wishes of 81% of members here, and will vote for one of the big three that wants to plunder millions and millions of pounds from the taxpayer.

[rolls eyes] Sheesh.

[Chad]

"announce new policies which are just re wqrites of Conservative policy - and they want to be taken seriously as a political party?"

Well it sounds a more attractive plan than Cameron's approach of rewriting Labour policies, don't you think?

:-)

[John Edwards]

Isnt that what UKIP are doing - plundering million and millions of taxpayers money? If it wansnt for taxpayers money UKIP would collapse! UKIP needs the EU to survive - dont bite the hand that feeds you Chob Nibble!

[Chad]

Indeed, maybe you are right John.

Now, I'm confused.

So what should I do if all the big four parties are plundering millions of pounds of taxpayers money?

Hmmm. Think, think.

I know!

I'll vote for the one that support low tax, small governmment, grammar schools and eu withdrawal and opposes the extension to state funding.

That's UKIP, btw.

[John Edwards]

...so your happy for UKIP to sponge of the EU for funds to keep your party ticking over! Just a tad hypocritical.

UKIP and hypocrits are somthing your anti-migrant party is getting well know for lately!

[Chad]

Do you support more grammar schools John?

[John Edwards]

Do you support 85% of every £1 pound donated by unsuspecting members of the public via your Ashford Call Centre being gobbled up in 'expenses' with only 15p in the £1 going to UKIP? I wonder whose idea that was?

Whose idea was it to give up on the £170,000 petition campaign when only a fraction of the 2 million signatures were collected?

Why was money donated for the Bromley by election end up being paid onto one of your MEPs credit card?

[Chad]

I've know idea, I wasn't a mamber of UKIP then so I don't have the info to judge yet, but I certainly don't support the way all parties squander money so if UKIP really wasted money in that way, then of course I would not support that action.

But you didn't even try to answer my question, so I'll try one more time. Do you support more grammar schools?

Why are you too afraid to answer?

[John Edwards]

Avoid the simple truth exposed by Nad Choble.

If there was a grammar school thread I would answer you - but this is a UKIP thread.

Are the same Chad Noble who is or was heavily involved in online gambling sites?

[Chad]

No, I'm the Chad noble who was working on using trading technology to help prevent terrorist attacks, using this technology aimed at providing zonal risk information with other universities that were building personnel tracking technology.

It was an international effort, and I spoke to a group of 400 in Brussels about it.

You might have read my interviews in Congressional Quarterly or Futures & Options world?

All I am trying to do is to discuss policy. Funny how that is the only subject you seek to avoid.