With the initial prospect of a football team of candidates, the Surrey Committee resolved to ask them to use their opening address to answer some of our members’ most pressing concerns about the future of our party. Below is the list we emailed out the previous Friday.
1. Briefly describe how you will establish a structure and permanent team at HQ which will use existing talent, inspire the confidence of potential donors and keep members engaged.
2. What is your vision for UKIP – what should be UKIP’s strategic target in the Kingdom’s post-EU political landscape, what should be its primary policy to replace the issue of the European Union?
3. How would you use the skills and experience of the other candidates in your new team, to benefit the party and to help defuse any resentment from their supporters?
4. The public have been told relentlessly that UKIP’s job is done and our behaviour and failure to present a clear vision for the post Brexit future has reinforced the meme. How do you propose to prove them wrong? How will you reach out to voters and counteract UKIP’s poor public image?
5. What will you do if you are elected and do not consider the ‘New Brand’ or ‘New Future’ is compatible with your vision of UKIP’s future direction?
Unsurprisingly a number of them failed to follow through. The first surprise of the evening came when Piers Wauchope, returning officer, walked in; I was laying out name cards and Jane Collins was preparing her opening speech – she did follow our script. Three candidates had dropped out earlier that day he informed us, they weren’t coming. This was news to Ben Walker’s campaign manager who assured us he was on his way. It transpired later that all three, now part of ‘UKIP United,’ planned to attend and announce the new plan but David Coburn, laid low with a migraine, sent apologies and Marion Mason got stuck in traffic. By the time she arrived Ben Walker had given a barnstorming speech, possibly his best, to audible disappointment when he announced that he was standing down – he clearly had good support among our packed audience.
John Rees Evans was also missing due to his recent bereavement. Andrew Price, one of his team, presented his statements. Sadly it can never substitute for the real thing. Perhaps after a week traversing the country our candidates were tired and tiring of each others company; certainly they were becoming tetchy. I was not the only one who initially thought Henry Bolton provoked Anne Marie, when prompted to say how he would work with other candidates, until I played the video recording. Still angry at his ungentlemanly challenge to her candidacy the previous week Anne Marie cut in, Henry offended just by being there.
The tensions bubbled to the surface again later, courtesy of John’s stand in. We initially asked Andrew to give John’s opening response and closing statement (Why you should vote for me) and note the open questions for John to post his responses on UKIP Daily later. I now regret letting Andrew respond to some questions. John, I am sure, would not have attacked fellow candidates over the Mirror’s misrepresentation of one of his earlier hustings speeches. His team member, understandably angry that UKIP members and candidates had not recognised it for the ‘fake news’ it was, reacted – badly, and since he, John and David Kurten are all committed Christians, threw an earlier attack on David into the mix.
Anyone who aspires to lead us, indeed all candidates or those who hold office, must expect to have anything they say twisted and misrepresented in the worst light by a hostile press. Think Godfrey Bloom’s slut ‘faux pas’. We all have to be on guard and, frankly, if I were Peter Whittle and not a biologist, I would be offended by the researchers observations quoted by David Kurten – little has changed since C. P. Snow’s ‘The Two Cultures’, scientists’ minds really do work differently.
It was difficult for me, as chairman to judge performance; from feedback David Kurten had a good night, I thought Jane performed well, others were less impressed. Anne Marie was in glorious, magnificent full flow, applauded for many a valid observation but, for me, compared to the July London Question Time, far less rounded. Taking post hustings soundings many there are aware that all that glisters is not gold.
Watch the video and make up your own minds.
Video appears courtesy of Gerald Gravett’s YouTube Channel
the best produced video of any hustings. David Kurten spoke very well and I trust he and John Rees Evans will score the top number of votes. For me AMW is a one issue candidate
“if I were Peter Whittle and not a biologist, I would be offended by the researchers observations quoted by David Kurten”
…and if I was a biologist or a chemist, rather than a computer scientist or other numerate scientist, I would believe that correlation was equivalent to causation; however, if I then keep my computer scientist’s hat on and use my abstract reasoning skills, I would deduce that because all species evolved from lower species and newer species tend to differentiate by attenuating existing structures including brains, and since lower animals apart from those primitive organisms that reproduce asexually, appear to know what sex they are and how to behave in relation to the opposite sex without necessarily the gift of conscious reasoning, that the structure of the brain that controls sexual identity must exist in a lower centre of the brain which is common to all animals which sexually reproduce. Consequently, it is most unlikely that human beings have conscious control of their sexual orientation from birth as a result of it being located, uniquely, for humans, in an area of the brain which does not even exist in most species: Nature beats nurture, every time.
Forthurst, nature and nurture are linked in ways we are barely beginning to understand. I don’t mean things like bringing boys up to believe women are subservient but the subtle interplay of environment (including in-utero) and gene activation, affecting even future generations. What is known as epigenetics.
Support4thefamily invited candidates to respond to their questionnaire on family values. Only 3 of the original line up did so. David K and John RE are both committed Christians (I’m not BTW), why wouldn’t they have traditional Christian values? They were asked if they thought sexual orientation was fixed at birth.
DK replied: According to Lisa Diamond, a lesbian professor at the University of Utah, sexual orientation is often fluid and there is little evidence for a ‘gay gene’ so it is unlikely to be fixed at birth
JRE replied:I reject the notion sexual orientation is fixed at birth. LGBT campaigns ought to be cautious about professing ‘gender-fluidity’ while at the same time professing sexuality is absolutely fixed, as this is clearly a contradiction in terms.
Ben Walker replied:Yes. You do not learn to be gay.
DK & JRE both agree that it there is no gay gene. In the sense of normal inheritance rules I agree, I also agree with Ben that you don’t learn to be gay (just ask male prostitutes who are not gay) In other words there are environmental influences that affect that internal brain wiring – and actually, if that can occur in the womb, it may already be fixed at birth, at least for some. We just don’t know enough yet.
DK – being a scientist, answered like one, even before the revised response I’ve quoted here.His mistake (sorry David it was a mistake) was to quote the references to the effect of abuse.Just as Peter,Anne-Marie and scores of other LGBT people did not experience abuse so plenty who were horribly abused are straight. I experienced mild emotional abuse as a child, from a mother whose own childhood was dire, neither of us is gay. I’m nerdy enough to have read some of the references DK quoted in his rebuttal – it is so much more complex than that brief quote picked up by Pink News. This is what I mean by 2 cultures, we scientists often pluck an interesting statistic and run with it knowing it’s only part of a complicated and muddy story and may yet be shown to be erroneous. The media and a lot of non-scientific folk want black and white. This one should have flagged as a hot potato – especially sociological/psychological research, remember the ‘refrigerator mother’ theory of the cause of autism and beware.
This seals it for me between David Kurten & AMW.
DK is more awesome than I thought. He spoke out about what really matters – the fight against cultural Marxism & political correctness – and was the only one to tackle this directly.
AMW spoke passionately on her specialist subject – but that is only one aspect of the cultural destruction we are facing. She was tired, flustered and irritable. Unable to maintain grace under pressure. Not leadership material.
There may be two cultures but that is all the more reason why David Kurten should remember in which culture he is operating when he presents himself for public scrutiny; as it was he put on his scientist’s hat and marched into a political minefield.
To question whether there is a ‘gay’ gene predisposing some individuals to develop as homosexual (would it operate on females equally or do they have their own specific one?) on the basis that the issue of nature versus nurture is contingent on its existence is a petitio principii argument since it assumes the mechanism by which homosexuality would be set before birth, if such existed. It is an observable fact that male homosexuals are more likely to be further down the birth order of males only which rather suggests that in some cases, at least, the causation of homosexuality, is exogenous rather than endogenous.
Dear moderator: please attach the comment above to Mr PurplePottymouth’s response to my original post. apologies for getting confused with functionality of your site.
Oh!
There was one almost unanimous answer that interested me – most of them thought Ireland should also leave the EU. presumably to avoid the need for a hard border.
Is it possible that this could be future UKIP policy?.
Something was said that the EU sees Ireland as a hard border they wish to maintain – is that some sort of method to keep the British from “invading” the mainland of the EU.
If this is the case, I believe Ireland is being blackmailed particularly as I have heard in the past there is a movement in Ireland that postulates that it is not in Ireland`s interests to remain in the EU if the UK leaves.
Obviously somebody asked this question for a reason at the Hustings – can anybody else answer my questions? or clarify my thoughts?
There is an easy answer to the ‘hard border’ question and that is a united Ireland – then the ‘border’ is the sea, simple as.
I watched it all through, actually managed to hear most of it.
Actually I warmed to Bolton, he got control of his hands and appeared to have lost his previous PC like script and was off the cuff and COMMUNICATED
I also thought the event was handled well and the candidates as a whole were fairly relaxed and not particularly antagonistic to each other – I think it was only “Poundland” that felt he could only get on with the majority of the rest, if AMW was one who was the other one he dismissed?
but………
AMW won it by a street!!
Not one of the other lot showed an ounce of PASSION
bet………..
Despite all these Hustings, how many of the voters will actually see and hear anything of her?
I also liked the part of the discussion that spoke of “the VOICE of the grass roots needing to be heard”
Could we drop, Left/Right/Far Right/Libertarian label
and plainly be the
“VOICE of the grass roots and the politically disenfranchised”
After all we are still the UNITED KINGDOM
INDEPENDENCE PARTY and we are still the only one completely uncontaminated by legacy EU “THINK”
PS Where was the question on the Commonwealth???????
Thankyou Helena Windsor for all the above. I urge all readers to find the time to watch the hustings video.
My comments all the candidates had something of value to contribute however we are electing a leader at a critical moment for the UK as well as UKIP and we need a LEADER not a policy wonk. With that in mind in reverse order of points:
Whittle waffled nul points
JRE not present – his rep was no substitute 1 point
Jane was plain and past her sellbuy date easily bored and tired 2 points
Poundland should shut up shop but he knows a little 3 points
DK tried his best and means well but does not inspire 4 points
Bolton carries authority and is a safe but passionless person 5 points
(Bolton does not resonate with the man in the street he has no idea about the difficulties of ordinary people)
AMW was the star of the show with pride and passion and performance this woman could set the country alight and is the natural successor/progression from Nigel Farage……..85 points.
It is the difference between a dark damp night and the most perfect sunny day AMW is pure gold however she has discovered her ‘voice’ is almost irrelevant. Many people suddenly mature and become the person they were meant to be. Some are lucky enough to be born at the right time. This is our Joan of Arc.. I would follow AMW to the Gates of Hell were it needed. Our country our very civilisation is at tremendous risk and we may only get one chance to put it right. AMW will lead the party and maybe one day the nation. I urge you all to consider AMW as the right person for the job today.
Some are born great; some have greatness thrust upon them; some such as AMW achieve greatness (apologies to WS 12thNight).This is not the end of UKIP; this not the beginning of the end of UKIP; THIS IS THE END OF THE BEGINNING OF UKIP. This is when UKIP decides to slumber into unconsciousness OR to awake to a great historic mission that will lead us to The Elysian Fields.
When you are 77 nay 87 years old what do you want to tell your children’s children? “I did nothing much stop moaning” or “Yes I was there I was part of the revolution led by UKIP under AnneMarie that saved our island state”
CK, I think you were very generous to JRE’s stand-in. What an obnoxious, shouty little man.
Sometimes we can judge people by their friends, sometimes by their enemies, but I would suggest always by the quality of their choice for a stand-in to represent them at a hustings event?
Yes, Grummy – I so agree – personally I can see nothing to recommend John’s choice of Bill Etheridge, and it has altered my perception of John’s judgement. Did Mr Etheridge really appeal to John, or was he just his usual gentlemanly self, and simply couldn’t say no? Either way…..