Ukip in crisis: Nigel Farage could resign again

'Speculation from the Telegraph. What leverage would the Tories have had to achieve this?'

I am finding it difficult to google for definitive quotes but I heard good Tories like Peter Bone saing on TV that they would liek a pact where UKIP didn't stand against Tory MPs who wanted to leave the EU.

The leverage is creating good relationships for possible collaboration in the future or even ossible defections etc

This is something similar

"Farage offered to stand down candidates in the general election if the Conservatives promised a binding referendum on EU membership. The offer was refused. There have also been discussions within UKIP on whether it should field candidates in Westminster constituencies which have a Eurosceptic MP. The 2004 conference voted to contest seats held by Eurosceptics. In Farage’s first spell as leader, the position was that UKIP would not stand against MPs who supported the Better Off Out (BOO) campaign. But it would stand against candidates who supported BOO because their position had not been tested in parliament, and against non-BOO Eurosceptic MPs because they had not proved their commitment to withdrawal.
The position became less watertight under Pearson. UKIP chose not to stand against five Conservatives and one Labour candidate in 2010. But it fought some BOO supporters (e.g. Austin Mitchell) whilst not standing against some Eurosceptic who did support BOO (e.g. David Drew). Pearson also angered some local associations by requesting publically that more candidates withdraw. None stepped aside and some threatened to call an extraordinary general meeting."

www2.le.ac.uk/departments/politics/documents/centre-right/UKIPCandidatesandSupportersworkingpaper-1.pdf

'Very convoluted reasons for voting Tory if someone really wanted to vote UKIP. Are you saying that the first priority for would-be UKIP voters was to vote in the Tories? That they were prepared to donate one of only two UKIP seats to achieve that aim? A highly improbable theory. If it were true, it would suggest that UKIPers are not very committed to UKIP.'

I am UKIP through and through, to the end, so I voted UKIP even though I knew they would not win in my seat. But I know voters who agree with UKIP who did not risk voting UKIP because they feared that the Tories (who they don' like much) would lose ot to Labour/SNP nationally. Lots of Ukippers are not committed to UKIP because theknow that under FPTP that UKIP won't determine policy so when it comes to the crunch, they vote for the best of what is left i.e. the Tories. Under a PR voting system it would be a completely different stry and that is why the Establishment won't give us that.

Here is Farage on South Thanet

"I knew the result yesterday [Thursday]. I could see the wards in Broadstairs were 80% turnouts and people queuing to vote. I spoke to people and they were saying "look Nigel, we love you, but we can't have Nicola Sturgeon running the country."

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/05/13/thanet-south-fraud-nigel-farage-_n_7274172.html

"You haven't answered the point about the hypocrisy that taking all of the money would have engendered - totally out of keeping with UKIPs plans on Cutting the cost of Westminster. Have you read that section of the manifesto?"

There is no hypocrisy in following the rules that all parties abide by. Unilaterally denying your own pary funds based on rules that apply to all parties is ex-Tory type behaviour. I haven't read the manifesto.

'What are 'true UKIP instincts'?'

Common sense, no political correctness, populist, anti-establishment, anti EU, pro sovereignty, pro democracy, pro freedom.

'Sounds rather autocratic and out of keeping with UKIP's supposed libertarianism.'

Farag has said he is going to start getting more autocratic and it is about time. We are a common sense party, we don't want politically correct ex-Tories who lack common sense undermining Farage and the People's Army.

'Who are you including in 'the Establishment'? How would they wield control over Farage and UKIP?'

The entire governing elite of the country who want to stay in the EU. Just as Farage's security team infiltrated the protstors, th Establishment will have placed lots of infilytrators within UKIP in order to end UKIP, topple Farage and stop the People's Army.

"Revealed: Ukip manifesto chief backs David Cameron on Europe

Asked “if you could negotiate reform you were happy with would you stay in?” Suzanne Evans replied: “Yes probably.”

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11490794/Revealed-Ukip-manifesto-chief-backs-David-Cameron-on-Europe.html

What I think is happening is that the Establishment want Farage out before the EU Referendum which Farage told us he thinks Cameron will call early in May 2016. They know that Farage will wipe the floor with them.

Farage lulled the Establishment into a false sense of security by saying he would resign if he lost, but he then astounded them by his resignation being refused. So there has now been an immediate coup attempt to depose him, led it seems by some ex-Tories.

The argument they are using is that Farage is toxic and the EU Referendum should be led by those non-entities instead of Farage. If they lead it, then the Establishment will beat them easily, if they don't defect back to the Establishment side beforehand anyway.

Farage won the European elections in 2014 on immigration mainly. The Establishment want to stop him talking about immigration because they fear he might beat them again in the real EU Referendum.

I agree with millionaire backer Arron Banks. There was a time when I wasn't too sure about Banks because an article said that he was backing the tiny politically correct wing of UKIP (which I presume must have been a mistaken article). But now that he has said this, I know he is UKIP through and through.

"Banks has called on Douglas Carswell, Suzanne Evans and Patrick O’Flynn, the three main figures who do not want Farage to remain as leader, to be thrown out of the party."

This was in 2013, and the position had hardened after the 2014 European election victory

"Mr Farage said that the party would field a candidate in every single one of the UK's parliamentary constituencies, including Northern Ireland.
...
The news will alarm Conservative MPs who will have been hoping that they can persuade Ukip not to stand candidates against them to try to win their seats."

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/10320211/Nigel-Farage-we-will-fight-every-seat-in-2015.html

'I don't think that's plausible. If you look at the Labour votes for the recent elections in Clacton, you would see that Labour had no chance of winning the seat.'

Correct. Labour didn't have a cat in hell's chance of winning seats over most of Essex, but what you are missing is that voters did not want to give UKIP the seats in case it meant that the Tories would not have enough seats to form a coalition or government. They were terrified of a Miliband led shambles on the economy, a bacon sandwich Ed Balls up, and the SNP keeping them in charge. Therefore they panicked across most of Essex and returned to the Tories. The fact that the Clacton electorate remained with UKIP is a testament to their fortitude.

'What about the more general measures that were outlined, with the objective of reducing unnecessary costs at Westminster and providing value for money? '

The short money is allocated to all opposition parties so it is suicidal to unilaterally deny it your own party while allowing the Greens and labour and Plaid and the SNP to have it. Only an ex-Tory could think that was a good idea. If the rules were changed for everyone then that would be OK.

"Don't you consider him to be a kipper?"

No. I don't think he is UKIP through and through and I said that I don't think the metropolitan media-hyped ex-Tory Suzanne Evans is either. I don't think they have true UKIP instincts. I even said before all this happened that I thought Carswell would defect back to the Tories, only I thought he would have done so before the election.

"Standard practice for political parties?"

I don't know. But I presume that is how security is carried out in high risk situations. They gather intelligence to prevent what may occur.

'Is 'Tory friendly policy' a euphemism for (positive spin on) not wasting money/resources and saving face, where there is no chance of a victory?'

No it is a policy that some Tory MPs wanted in order not to have to compete with UKIP candidates who would take some of their vote and let Labour in the door. But for this election, UKIP asked what is in it for us and the answer was nothing.

'f Clacton was the 'most UKIP friendly seat in the country', it's odd that Carswell's majority as a UKIP candidate shrank from 12.5k'

Yes because in a FPTP general election former Tory voters went back to the Tories in order to stop Labour getting in with the SNP. Under a proportional system, this would not have happened.

'Did Farage forget/not read the UKIP manifesto section on 'Cutting the cost of Westminster'? (Interesting that UKIP are now rejecting the money altogether - a belated attempt to take the moral high ground or just petulance?) '

No because Farage wanted to cut the Department of Energy and Climate Change etc but not unilaterally cut the money that opposition parties are entitled to. My guess is that some of the UKIP thinkers have realised that ex-Tory Carswell has put them in a spot and may not back down, so the best way out is to say OK we won't take any of it and thereby take the wind out of ex-Tory Carswell's sails. He wanted some of it for his office, but what this means for that I don't know.

'Farage, the London dwelling, privately educated ex city trader, dining at the Ivy for lunch? Very 'metropolitan elite'.'

Absolutely not. The Ivy is open to the entire British public, not just the publicly paid for metropolitan elite. Bob Crow dined at the Ritz and that is how it should be. If it is good enough for the publicly funded metropolitan elite then it is good enough for the people.

'only to find UKIP has infiltrated one such group'

This is standard security procedure. the police often infiltrate groups in a similar way and Farage's security team presumably needed to know what protest groups were intending to do.

Article right from the top, the Guardian's executive editor, Jonathan Freedland. Panic among the metropolitan elite.

"Ukip looks hilarious. But soon we won’t be laughing"
...
One donor called for Farage to be replaced by “something quieter”. Farage, that scourge of the metropolitan elite, could not be reached because he was lunching at the Ivy – and was said to be “only on his first bottle”.
...
The reaction of the Question Time audience was telling. No longer chuckling at his politically incorrect jokes, they turned on him for being a hypocrite
...
The threat [to Labour] would become sharper still if Ukip evolved, forging a message that looked left on economics and right on culture – with, say, the party’s deputy leader, Paul Nuttall, taking over at the top. In continental Europe, similar movements have thrived, even supplanting the traditional parties of the working class. That could happen here. It could happen to Labour.

The events of the last week may look like a joke – the hapless antics of a fringe party. But given what’s at stake, pretty soon few of us will be laughing."

www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/may/15/ukip-party-labour-heartlands-left

The metropolitan elite aren't laughing, but UKIP voters are ROFL. The people's revolution continues.

They thought they had done us up like a kipper with their plots, they thought that UKIP were a bunch of mere clots, they were having a laugh in their metropolitan mansions, but now there is panic when UKIP is mentioned.

The Establishment and the teenage advisers are laughing up their sleeves saying "that will slow UKIP down", but Farage has trumped them and Carswell by saying we won't take any short money and will get all the funding from other sources. But I think it is wrong that UKIP have had to do that while all the other opposition parties will take their short money.

Yes because those are the rules and the Greens will take all their money and so will Labour. Why should 4 million voters be denied their party of choice (the people's party) being denied what they are entitled to under the rules which are made by the metropolitan elite because one MP thinks it is wrong to take money that the party is entitled to.

I agree with millionaire UKIP backer, Arron Banks, that Carswell is effectively letting nearly 4 million voters down. The Greens will benefit from their money and our ex-Tory MP will deny the people's party what they are entitled to.

.”Carswell’s opposition to accepting the full £650,000 of Short Money that Ukip are entitled to after the general election incited fury among many in the party who believed that the party needed the money to represent the four million who voted for Ukip last week.

“He's shown his intention that he's prepared to do that type of thing and for that reason I'd rather have no MPs than one whose interests don't like with Ukip,” Banks said. “No one is bigger than the party and the kind of shenanigans that are going on don't give me any confidence.”

Good points, Icimoi. They are public servants and it is good that they are held to account if they don't help constituents out.

"Mr Farage told Sky News: “There is one person within Ukip agitating for a change and for a leadership election – he hasn’t had the courage to break cover but he must make his mind up; is his future with Ukip or not?” He also insisted he had full support from most within Ukip, and condemned the rift as a Conservative party attempt to damage the party. “To read the ludicrous headlines in some of today’s newspapers makes you realise that actually this is really about a conservative attempt and a Conservative lobby to try and destabilise Ukip and to use one or two people within who are disaffected,” he said."

www.politicshome.com/party-politics/articles/story/farage-puts-pressure-anonymous-ukip-rebel

Teenage whizzkids at it again? They need to get up earlier in the morning to outwit Farage.

'But a vital part of politics is MPs representing their constituencies/constituents'

This is what the metropolitan elite keep telling us but I don't agree. What percentage of a constituency ever seek help from their MP? Couldn't a party just have an office with a contact that is supposed to sort constituents' problems out? When you write to an Ombudsman, you don't care which individual deals with it as long as it gets sorted out.

'As for caring about policies and parties rather than individuals - you care about Farage'

Yes, but only because I agree with most of his policies and most of what he says. It has nothing to do with how excellent a performer he is. He makes sense to me, he speaks common sense, that is why I like him. Cameron is a fairly good performer, but he is a moderniser who wanted to hug hoodies and who installed a rooftop wind turbine on his roof and wanted to introduce minimum alcohol pricing, and thatdoesn't make sense to me, smacks of teenage advisers from Oxbridge in think tanks and metropolitan elites in W1A third sector charidees, and is too progressive for me.

'You say he's 'exceptional' - as a UKIP salesman'

He is exceptional in his ability to speak common sense and in his courage in facing down the tricks of the metropolitan elite and outwitting them at every turn while articulating what the majority of ordinary people think. We have seen nobody like him in British politics. That is why he terrifies the entire Oxbridge Establishment. They know he resonates with the people and that their whole game could well be up.

'I don't think he'd make a good MP. (What has he achieved as an MEP?)'

I don't really care because I think the metropolitan elite overdo how important a constituency MP is. I think an office and a customer support representative could deal with constituents' problems. Farage on the other hand is a voice for common sense in a barren desert of metropolitan political correctness and W1A Westminster lunacy. As an MEP, Farage has articulated a common sense foreign policy, appeared on numerous TV channels lambasting the Brussels bureaucracy and pointing out their foreign policy mistakes and has taken UKIP to being Britain's largest party in Strasbourg while being constantly vilified by the Oxbridge Establishment and their well-funded teams of metropolitan minions and helpers.

'please explain why UKIP chose not to field a candidate in 'the most Ukip-friendly seat in the country' against Carswell (then Tory) in the 2010 general election.'

My guess is because at that time, UKIP were pursuing a Tory friendly policy of not standing against candidates who wanted to leave the EU. But in 2015, UKIP ignored the pleas of Tory MPs who wanted to leave the EU and who asked UKIP not to stand against them, and UKIP told them, join us or we will take you on. Panic then set in in Tory safe seats and some MPs thought hard about whether they should join UKIP. After the success of the European elections, Farage decided that the gloves were off and UKIP was coming and that they better watch out. The rest is history.

'It really is blatantly obvious that UKIP are more than capable of messing things up and imploding all by themselves'

Not one week after an election success of gaining nearly 4 million votes. It is the teenage whizzkids in their think tanks at work, the ex-Tories and the politically correct crew waiting to strike when the iron is hot.