UKIP Uncovered

UKIP Uncovered
What motivates the leaders of the United Kingdom Independence Party?

Thursday, November 25, 2004

Political Expediency? Who we really are?

Please take the time to read and ponder this well considered, clearly deeply felt and for me worryingly important analysis of what we in the eurorealist movement, and particularly those believing in the importance of the UKIP, are trying to achieve. It was written by Sandra Robinson and republished as received :

Quote
I feel this is relevant to the ongoing debate about UKIP and wider issues on Blog.

As a UKIP member, former Branch Chairman and Regional Organiser, I became and remain shocked at the re-curing too late or non existent strategies or political actions of the UKIP, that Robert Kilroy Silk also discovered along with many others over a considerable time. I remember, as 'a voter' asking several of our then Prospective MEP Candidates what the strategy was once they became MEP's. Or, as in one case, what were UKIP going to do with a big vote. The answers I received were" I don't Know", "I will start thinking about that on the 11th of June", I don't know what the strategy is", " A vote for UKIP will influence the Tories and that will affect their policy", and a repeat of my question back to me with no answer. Clearly there has to be some sort of strategy at work to achieve even late, out of time, or non existent political practice. The trouble is it has never been shared with, or made clear to the members and party as a whole, whatever it is. It may be the most unifying strategy and argument one could ever think of; yet instead, an exclusive, harmful divisive culture has been perpetrated, achieving the very opposite. It has seduced many to its methods, arguing it is for the good of the party, yet I see more of what we already have in politics and which I believe is now endemic in Labour, a culture of deceit. Labour and the Conservatives both believe the EU is good for them and us and have willingly and actively deceived the British people from the very beginning when Edward Heath signed our original entry. It has always been a case of their believing it will be good for us, the people of the UK, and therefore justifiable in giving us this bad tasting and flawed medicine in constant drip, drip, drips, heavily disguised in syrupy spin and denial. But why would the UKIP operate like this when its members and the British people want honesty, not only in what we say and purport, but in all our actions and dealings, including with each other. If we can behave like this, 'out of office' and with our own colleagues and members, what chance of decency when in office.?

Of course, as one individual member and past paid official, it is a drop in the ocean, arguably only of interest to me and my family, who gave me every support. However, it is important in that it is an example of others, and whilst various claims can be made about the ownership and size of leadership support of the UKIP, it is its nature that is of most importance. Nature and behaviour, especially by choice, is the essence of who we are and what we represent. When it is a party and philosophy, how we behave is crucial. We are expected to lead by example, fall on our sword if wrong or we cannot support or sustain something. Not betray our core principles, philosophy and each other by something I have heard described as, 'political expediency'. I do not know how all of this is going to turn out, so I obviously still have some reserve of hope, but my experience so far of the premier anti-EU party, it's ability to work honestly with its own members and unite the wider movement, has been one of disillusionment. However much some may continue to pour scorn or put a different complexion on my, and others experience, it does not eradicate it or it's cause. Perhaps all there was, was a pressure group to influence the Conservatives and if this was the case we were all grown up enough to receive and understand that. This would at least have enabled anyone who thought and hoped for more to address the issue from a different angle. What it seems we have is not a united party, but almost different parties within a party, held together in denial. I think it is better to be in a minority of one, but believing something sincerely, than with twenty thousand other people in a glued kaleidoscope. The trouble is I'm not sure that all the components of this Kaleidoscope know what the pattern they are making is. I am certain, however, that the further we get from being absolutely honest with each other, even if we disagree about very important things, is the further we get away from the electorate and have to rely on this thing called 'political expediency'. The electorate have lost faith with Tony Blair and do not have much faith either in Michael Howard or Charles Kennedy. There are further numerous examples in the EU and beyond that have in common, the disillusionment of the people. This is the one thing any serious party must have, the belief of the people and it has to have earned and practised it within as well as without.

posted by Martin |5:58 PM