Ukip in crisis: Nigel Farage could resign again

[claig]

Oh my God, what are they doing to the people's party?

They've done us up like a kipper for the second time in less than a week.
There's 4 million votes on the line and they are playing us like a fiddle, having a right laugh.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/11605216/Ukip-in-crisis-live.html

'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?'

claig
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.

Hard to believe. Can you provide some evidence to support this UKIP/Tory agreement? From Dr Robert Ford, co-author of the UKIP book you previously quoted, on possible 'UKIP friendly' seats:

Clearly, we are not saying that UKIP will enjoy strong support in all of these seats. It might be that they do not target these seats, or the local Conservative MP has a formidable majority that makes a Ukip insurgency unlikely.

The 'formidable majority' would have applied to the Tory held Clacton, before Carswell defected.

'If 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'

claig
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.

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.

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.

What about the more general measures that were outlined, with the objective of reducing unnecessary costs at Westminster and providing value for money? Employing 15 people to support one MP would be completely out of keeping with the thinking behind the measures listed in UKIP's manifesto.

ex-Tory Carswell

You used that expression twice. Don't you consider him to be a kipper? (As others have said elsewhere, it is quite a feat to stage a back bench rebellion with a party consisting of one MP.)

This is standard security procedure. the police often infiltrate groups in a similar way

Standard practice for political parties? The police have entirely different powers. Besides, using an infiltrator to incite protesters takes it to a different level. Especially given UKIP's complaints about the behaviour of (genuine) anti-UKIP groups. The contradiction does not sit well when a selling point of a party is supposed to be their straight talking, honesty etc.

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.

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."

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.

"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

claig
"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."

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

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.

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.

The fact that the Clacton electorate remained with UKIP is a testament to their fortitude.

That's a very positive spin on a very reduced margin. I don't think fortitude comes into it.

'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.'

As previously mentioned on more than one occasion, it was not a case of rejecting all the short money, just the excess. It doesn't take £650k to support the parliamentary activities of one MP. 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?

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.

Quite a few UKIPers seem to be ex Tories, Farage included. What are 'true UKIP instincts'?

"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.

Not by amateurs from a political party, getting involved in the very thing they had complained about; going the extra mile by inciting protest against their own party.

"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."

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

What I think is happening is that the Establishment want Farage out before the EU Referendum

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

'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.