The election result though unexpected it not really inconceivable. The Conservative and Labour core voters are still something of the order of 13 million electors each. The core vote of smaller parties like Liberal and UKIP is also 100 times the paid up membership. 40% of voters, that is around 2.4 million, were and are unattached.
In the past some of these voted against both the major parties by giving the vote to the Liberals. The remainder either elected the Conservatives or Labour. The winner normally is the one holding the centre ground of politics, such as Tony Blair or David Cameron. On this occasion it definitely wasn’t Ed Miliband and Labour.
UKIP was hoping to hoover up floating voters and some from each of Labour and the Conservatives who wanted our country back from the EU. Unlike the SNP of course that doesn’t actually want nationality it wants Socialism, and if it can’t get it from the UK it will try to get it from the EU.
When I joined the local UKIP group in March 2013 it was like many of us in the belief that I want my country back. It came as a bit of a surprise when two of our members stood as paper candidates in the local elections. Then in 2014 there was of course the European Parliamentary Election so that was an opportunity for all to vote for an anti-EU party.
Immediately following the success in that election the focus started on obtaining a prospective parliamentary candidate for 2015 and as 2014 progressed there was pressure from the group to have candidates for local councils again.
It is clear that many members of the local UKIP constituency branches were not interested in parish, town, and district council positions because such things can be incredibly boring and don’t in the short term aid us in getting our country back. So this brings us to the purpose and future for UKIP as a political party.
Nigel Farage has always said that he doesn’t want to be a cabinet minister and all he wants is our country back. If that is the case and our primary objective is to have a referendum on EU membership then I don’t think UKIP will prosper. The Conservatives will give us a referendum, which will be fixed and run in a way to get the required result of a ‘stay in’.
If UKIP is still around after that it will be out on a limb. People keep saying, ah yes, but look at how the SNP prospered. Actually the SNP prospered because it had a clear message for the Scottish people that one way or another it would end austerity and get more money to throw at its public services. Labour in Scotland and England had unclear messages and promises that couldn’t be pinned down or reconciled with money raising taxation.
If you look at past general elections you will see that Labour has always been unelectable on English seats alone and needed Scottish MP’s to give them a majority. One of the things the English liked about the idea of Scottish independence was that we would never have another Labour government.
That’s where we now are unless of course Labour can move back to the centre ground and displace the Tories, like Tony Blair did. So in reality a Socialist government in unelectable and what we will always get is centre Conservative or centre Labour.
Getting back to the UKIP situation, each and every member and the party overall need to decide if we only exist to get out of the EU and if that is ever a possibility in our lifetimes.
Or do we wish to be a political party in the UK, or even of England, with some of the other policies in our excellent manifesto. Unfortunately most of our policies relate to leaving the EU, and if that is not likely we are just wasting time and money.
At branch and sub-branch level we also have the problem of group dynamics. Many branches are newly formed or reformed and as membership has rapidly grown there have been challenges to those who formed the branches. These challenges often get beaten off and in other cases new committees get elected.
It is only when competent people democratically chosen by the members form committees that branches can function properly with the members supporting the cause. Where originators fight off challenges or use undemocratic methods to cling to power there is division and a disconnect between members and committee.
This is normal in the animal kingdom and with the human animal as well. Whereas in the animal kingdom it is normally the dominant male that is challenged, here in human society we have made it so male and female can be the contestants for group dominance.
In our groups the process always goes through the following stages;- Forming, storming, reforming, and performing. Unfortunately with the rapid growth of UKIP we in many places are still undergoing the storming phase where newcomers are challenging the group originators. I always said that if we worked this through we might be in a position to fight the 2020 election with well performing groups but 2015 was just too soon.
So do we change our party name to be reflect a party that has more issues than just ‘leave the EU’ and to take our place as an ongoing political force in the UK. That will mean we need to start recruiting members willing to stand in local elections and build and councillor base. I cannot see how we otherwise can grow our membership on the single issue to have 100,000 members necessary by 2020 to win more than 25% of the national vote and have sufficient MPs to make us a force in UK/English politics. Think well on it.
I’m really of the ‘first things first’ school of thought. Firstly make sure, as far as we can, that the referendum actually takes place, that it is free and fair and that the arguments are allowed to be made then campaign for a vote to leave.
Everything else is secondary.
What an apt article. Not sure UKIP will see out the week at the moment.
Returning to the subject of a new name for UKIP that would work after a referendum, and even if Scotland became independant, and even if we became part of a federal system of government still looks to me as Sovereign is a good choice.
According to the dictionary, sovereign is a king or queen who is supreme ruler. A former British gold coin worth one pound sterling. Possessing supreme power. Acting or done independently.
Sovereignty in supreme power or authority. A self governing state.
Enough said really. You don’t need to include ‘independant’ as part of the name. Just a single word, like Conservative, or Labour.
Quite unnecessary to include a TLA or as in the present case a FLA.
I think that a single word name, or one that would default to a single word in use, would be good.
As my previous comment I think this is a far reaching decision that should not be taken lightly; some professional advice is necessary as supporters and party members are too close to see the big picture.
I’ve given this a great deal of thought to this, and I just don’t know. We’re UKIP until at least 2017, that’s for sure, so in my eyes we should perhaps not get overly distracted by this until we actually have to cross this particular bridge.
However, caution abound. There are sometimes unintended consequences when selecting a name. For example, Soveriegn is also the name of a cheap brand of cigarettes, the smoke-of-choice for a particular demographic and political rivals may well make unwanted connections or connotations with ‘our’ new party name. Be careful what you wish for…!
… Apologies for my numerous typos etc in my post above. Insomnia can be a bit of a curse; I hope nevertheless I’ve made my points clear.
I would like to hope that southern Ireland would join with the federation of The Islands of Britain. Whilst I realise that there is a lot of blood soaked into earth, especially in the north of that island, this solution really works better than the present one with the north allied to us and the south allied to the EU.
We are after all islands with natural fishing rights and territorial waters (to take back). As part of the federation would be common fishery protection for us all. We will need this to keep Belgium, France, and Spain away from our waters. Firstly to let the fish stock revive and then to manage it sustainably. See we can be environmentalists as well.
The structure of UKIP needs to be better organised as there really is no place for town groups as distinct from constituency branches.
The town groups are where the peoples army start and they need sanctioned autonomy. Town groups would then need By-laws created by themselves and approved by head office to ensure regular governance.
Sorry that quite put me off my stroke I had intended to add a couple of items to the “What now” discussion – so here goes.
a)David Davis said there was a possibility of an earlier referendum,
b)DD said that his acid test which would allow him to vote for our continued membership of the EU was if we obtained an “Optout” from the EU quoting the “Luxembourg Compromise” apparently this was “The ever Closer Union” clause and France already had an optout for this.
c)Next thing, I saw an interview with a German journalist who apart from pointing out that Germany wanted us to stay in felt if we went the EU would fall apart.
d)He also agreed it was possible there could be an early referendum and the “cunning plan” was that we initially apply for the Luxembourg optout, which apparently we would be likely to get, Cameron then calls the referendum, gets everybody to vote to stay in———-
then does the rest of the negotiation re immigration etc. – doesn`t get anywhere, but we`ve already voted to stay in.
I hope our management are reading this – or are already aware of it.,
Whatever anyone says I still believe that the only way is out. We need to govern ourselves without any input from the undemocratic EU. They will not swerve from their long term agenda. As I have said before World War III by stealth.
Libertarianism
Oh God here we go again
I humbly apologise if I am inserting a purely personal view, but I had hoped that word would have passed into UKIP “history”
When I joined the party in 2009. a political novice (never had been a member of any other party – perhaps for 50/60 years) I was faced with one of the assumptions that UKIP was a Libertarian party – I`d never heard the word before thought initially “Oh Goody!!” must be something to do with the word “Libertine” – at least I was among friends, who were anti establishment like me and I hoped were not too stuffy.
I looked up this word in Wikipedia, among the woolly definitions, I found it could mean two completely opposite things and I`m afraid I came to the conclusion that it was so indeterminate that I felt it was inconsequential and perhaps dangerous to continue with the dubiety by UKIP, at least as a primary rallying cry.
Personally I rank it along with other PC things I`m agin, in fact I`m probably against PC altogether
Think of the word ‘Independence’ in UKIP as relating to libertarianism; as independence for individuals from the tentacles of the state, be that a European susperstate, the UK state, the Welsh state, the Scottish state, you name it. If UKIP was to change its name at all, we should consider renaming and rebranding the party as ‘The Libertarian Party’. That would really throw off balance both the Left and Right of the political spectrum, killing two birds with one stone.
Why would UKIP call itself Libertarian though? Why would you use a word which is a bit obscure? why not just the Liberty party?
That’ll do.
Good article. Much of what you say I also saw at a branch level. There are many dedicated folk but equally we suffered because of a few egos. The party at every level needs better structures aided by central managers/staffers who can direct resources and control communications. The operation needs to be tighter with clearly defined aims. Nigel refers to the party as the “peoples army”; there is much to learn from the way the military cascade and extract orders to each appropriate level. This can be done in a cooperative fashion.
John I think you have hit the nail on the head
What is needed is a clear Mission, a clear Strategy, a clear Chain of Command.
An “Army” needs clear leadership and DISCIPLINE, whether its a “People`s Army,A Francos Army or a Rabble Army
Regarding Mission, I would define not the 2020 election, but the Primary task is gaining INDEPENDENCE through the medium of this IN/OUT referendum, so I consider.
we should make it clear that in the National Interest we are not just asking for a referendum, but the result of the referendum which no matter what concessions Cameron gains, major or inconsequential, that the electorate will be voting POSITIVELY for independence from the EU.
I also believe that UKIP is a sparkling revolutionary organisation, not quite the Russian revolutionaries who apparently “fell out” wholesale, but it is a tragedy there are probably still far more members who have left the party than are now in it, this referendum is a national A-political task and in this instance it is a requirement that previous politics and grudges be put aside.UKIP should in this instance be part of a National movement perhaps operating under an umbrella group of all like minded other organisations on this one issue.
Perhaps even an Amnesty should be considered, after all we can be sure that “The Keep us in brigade” will unite, just the same as they did in Scotland (I wonder what sort of “Vow” they will concoct as a sop to keep us in).
One other thought prompted by
“The United Islands of Britain”
I believe Southern Ireland is our largest trading partner within the EU – any thoughts on their position re our leaving or staying in or even our federalising of the UK?
Some people have described UKIP as merely a pressure group, i.e a party that only wants the UK out of the EU. UKIP is now much more than this as the GE manifesto shows. So irrespective of the referendum result I believe UKIP will continue to grow. As for the referendum fight then it makes common sense to join forces with those who wish the same aims. The danger I suppose is the “middle ground” supporter – those who are happy to accept the renegotiation and stay in the EU. They will claim that the aim of ever closer political union has been thwarted and that the UK will have secured an “independence”. The deduction is that the “keep us in brigade” are already split; those who will stay in at any cost and those who will only stay in under certain conditions. This split will have to be exploited. As for Southern Ireland, I would welcome an offer to them to join the Commonwealth. It would at least get the Irish discussing their long term future. Are they better securing their future with their English speaking neighbour or are they content to throw their lot into ever closer political union with our Continental friends?
Thanks for the speedy comment John, just a couple of points.
Commonwealth – which seems to have taken a back seat just lately and certainly very little or no reaction at all outside UKIP (deliberate?), it isn`t the “British” Commonwealth, who would initiate the invitation?,if it didn`t come from Cameron`s office, could UKIP ask the secretary of the Commonwealth office to do it directly?
The other thing was, I saw an interview on Daily Politics this morning where John (?) Blackburn ex Labour Minister of Health, if I remember correctly, said that Labour had to come to terms with Immigration and we required a “Managed System” and I think he endorsed the efforts of UKIP-did anybody hear that and can they confirm I am not havering, because I think that confirms your point “common sense to join with those of same aims”
Milburn (ex Labour Minister of Health) and Stella Creasy were both extremely uncomplimentary to UKIP. Their rhetoric against UKIP was not challenged, except Neil said that Labour and Tory had both failed to control migration. There was no recognition of UKIP’s policy or influence in the matter. I have no idea on the protocol required to ask a country to join the Commonwealth. Interestingly, Rwanda has joined despite not being part of the Empire – so it could be done.
I am deaf,so maybe I misheard, but I thought Milburn was complimentary in that I thought he inferred UKIP had done a service in keeping the issue public
On the contrary. They both blamed UKIP for stoking up resentment and division over immigration. The labour lot can’t apologise for anything – economy and immigration. They would be the last to admit or infer that UKIP had been right in any way.
Thank you all for your varying opinions. It is correct that having developed a brand it is crazy to dump it for a whole new brand.
Labour had the problem that in order to be recognised as having moved from its usual left wing stance Tony Blair rebranded it New Labour and won three straight terms in office. So it can work.
What if Scotland now does do independance, do we now have to rebrand ourselves as Former-UK-IP? If the independance word is good then we could go with Sovereign Independance as a title.
There is no getting away from the fact that what was the UK is fast heading towards a federal state of self governing nations, and that is a good thing in my book. When that happens, do we want representation in all parts or do we wish to be the dominant party in the English part? Sorry but more questions than answers.
We need now to plan for a situation where the UK has become the dis-united kingdom and might be out of the EU. Then we could be a federation possibly called the United Islands of Britain.
Even if Scotland goes “independent” there is likely to be a period in which the monarch is still head of state. Even the SNP realise that dumping the Queen is not in their short term interests. In that scenario UKIP could remain. Further if England was to leave the EU and Scotland stayed in the disparity in economic performance would soon see the Scots wanting to rejoin the Union or at least there would be another version of the “clearances” as Scots flooded south. Having said all that you could just replace UK with “British”
“Getting back to the UKIP situation, each and every member and the party
overall need to decide if we only exist to get out of the EU and if that
is ever a possibility in our lifetimes.”
UKIP cannot ‘only exist to get out of the EU’; There is much else at fault with present and recent governments and the manifesto presented a number of sensible ways to deal with some of those issues.
However the party name does reinforce the view of many, who can’t be bothered to read the manifesto, that UKIP is a one policy party. Of course, in the same way that Defence of the Realm should be the first priority of any government, none of those sensible policies can be implemented unless we remain (return to) being a sovereign country able to govern ourselves.
I am astonished that 26 million electors seemingly remain ignorant of the true intent of the EU and its undemocratic ways. Maybe Orwell’s ‘1984’ should be necessary reading for all those currently in education; it is still possible to buy a reprint on Amazon. David Icke has some interesting comment on ‘1984’.
If UKIP were to say ‘job done’ on a successful referendum result would the establishment accept that? More likely they would call for a re-run as seems to be the norm with previous referenda that have not produced the desired result for the Europhiles.
Even if we did leave would it not be a racing certainty that we would see ‘anti-UKIP’ parties emerge and try to force us into membership again? UKIP needs to be around for the foreseeable future and beyond, whatever name it takes.
Coming back to the question of the party name I do believe that a change is necessary and now is the time to do it whilst the next election is far away. Maybe too Nigel needs to take up another role to avoid the MSM inspired baggage he has collected but of course we do still need him in whatever capacity he is comfortable with
.
As Ukip continues to evolve, I hope that it retains the word ‘Independence’ in it’s name. It is a powerful word with a huge number of relevant associations.
For example, we currently import about 60% of our natural gas, nearly 40% of our food and an enormous amount of our livestock feed.
I believe that the issues of food and energy independence are very important and will become yet more crucial in the possibly difficult years ahead toward the end of this century. I’m not suggesting pulling up the drawbridge and becoming fortress Britain, but having the capability of independence in these areas; we should be steadily working towards having that capability, as with Defence.
As the world population continues to spiral upwards, we already see signs of water famine, in California, the richest state of the richest country in the world. If armed conflict, famine and mass migration movements become more commonplace, we might need that drawbridge yet.
I am always wary of name changes when there is already a well established “brand”. Remember “Consignia”?
We have, at least, now registered with the public as a voice that has a right to be heard in the mainstream media. This will give us opportunities to air more of the contents of our (excellent) manifesto to a wider public than has been possible up to now, with a reasonable chance of being listened to.
However, whilst I think that we should ensure that aspects of our broader message get a regular hearing, we should stay focussed on a small number of critical topics and keep hammering away at those with a strong and consistent message, relating other issues back to these core topics.
It is the dripping tap that wears away the stone, not the diffuse spray.
I would still keep the name UKIP. I see it as not just being about independence from Europe but independence for every citizen of this country (maybe that could be a tagline for UKIP, Independence for all). We have started to move away from just the single issue of independence from the EU and I think that, as long as we keep focused, we will do well. I wonder about the aspect of UKIP in the other parts of the UK. Wales and Scotland have elections for their devolved assemblies next year if my memory serves me right, how do we present our position on the union during that?
Oh and good news about Nigel. If there is to be a referendum then we need him at the helm.
My suggested name for the party is Sovereign. It represents nationality, it represents our currency, and our monarchy. We could still use the pound symbol and the colour purple which is a bit like royal blue.
Being facetious we could make it into a three letter acronym, the Soveriegn National Party, SNP for short. This might force the Scots to come clean and rename their party as the Scottish Socialist Party.
Interesting. However, much as I despise the breed, maybe the services of a professional spin doctor / advertising consultant are needed.
Afterthought: We as supporters/ members of UKIP are not really qualified to make the decision wrt a new name; we are too close to see the bigger picture.
I suspect that very last thing we need is a spin doctor.
Another excellent analysis, Antony.
UKIP needs to quickly and authoritively decide what it stands for NOW for the local elections in 2016; in my view, it has to focus on local issues as Vivian Evans stated in her article today. A full slate of candidates both at parish and district level must be found; this can be achieved with an imaginative campaign asking the public at large: “Would you like to be a Councillor and make a difference? Join UKIP!” or similar.
As the party stands, the referendum will determine UKIP’s destiny. As Antony has said, UKIP will need to reinvent itself if it has any chance of surviving past 2017 (if the result is to leave the EU). The suggestion of changing the name is an interesting one…
A real opportunity would be for UKIP to pivot itself to replace the discredited LibDems as the protest party of choice. “UKIP – The Truly Independent National Party!”.
It would mean that the party would have have two firm foundations – pro-referendum and protest – and have a firm footing if the former is ever dismantled. One must be pragmatic!
Name change would be a complete disaster – its our identity and we would lose a significant amount of votes and identity Its a definite no no. The democrats in the US are democratic but so are republicans (the socialist workers party don’t work but the old joke was that any communist country lead by a party with the word democratic in is wasn’t) ) – its a brand – the key words are UK and Independence. Even if we are independent out of the EU it still fits the bill.
I completely disagree that UKIP is a 1 issue party – reading the manifesto makes that completely clear.
The issue that I do agree on is that the UKIP machine must engage locally.
But this has already been recognised. UKIP must become local zealots like the liberals of old.