We all knew, or thought we knew, what UKIP was in the run up to the referendum; we didn’t need concern ourselves with the detail as the objective was sufficient. It had an outspoken and charismatic leader known by everyone in the land. Sadly that leader abdicated before the job was finished, perhaps placing too much trust in the government to comply with the referendum result whilst underestimating the dark forces at work behind the “remain” camp. We all know the fiasco which followed in attempting to find a new leader. Perhaps most importantly UKIP does not represent the membership or the voters if we believe the recent election results to be typical.

The Public Face of UKIP

The UKIP website is practically useless. As a prospective member I want to know for a start:

  • What are the current policies?
  • Who are the key people who might assume ministerial positions?
  • What qualifies such people to do those jobs?
  • Where are the current (i.e. March 2017) manifestos?
  • How is the party funded?
  • Will my subscription be used effectively?

One may search in vain for any detail of the various party officials; all one sees is a name and photograph. Some might be well qualified and experienced for the positions they hold but how can I know?  A quick look at linked “Campaign Videos” results in a silly sketch of a logo claiming UKIP as “The Real Opposition”. Do people really want to sit through that for half a minute?

As for that silly footer to many pages “Do you like this page?” what is that about?

I can watch videos on YouTube from which I see that UKIP has many good people, but who has time for that?  More information needs to be on the website.

Behind the Scenes

I can read the various articles and comments on UKIP Daily and other sites such as Ray Catlin’s “Right Way” , many of which give me reasons not to join. The resignation statement of Dr. Tomaz Slivnik is also a good pointer to what is wrong with UKIP, as is that of Adrianne Smyth.

Taken together these statements are damning and a reasonable conclusion would be that UKIP cannot and does not represent the members in its present form; furthermore, it seems to be developing into yet another politically correct organisation which fails to acknowledge the threat we face from the followers of Islam.

The above information is freely available to anyone. Who, having read even a part of it, would give their support to UKIP?

Necessary Changes

It might be easier to list what doesn’t need changing; i.e. very little. However here are some suggestions for necessary policy changes:

  • Recognition of the threat we face from Islamisation
  • Robust immigration policy to exclude those of Islamic persuasion
  • Measures to prevent schools and universities becoming dominated by Muslims
  • Robust policies to deal with the Imams who support Islamisation
  • Preventing the proliferation of mosques
  • Closing down mosques where jihad is taught
  • Developing a policy for repatriation to shift the demographics in our favour
  • Clear policy statements with plans for implementation

In conjunction with other changes:

  • Identification of those who would occupy real or opposition cabinet positions
  • Background information on the above to confirm their suitability
  • Means to obtain feedback from the membership and respond
  • A new website giving access to the information which prospective members need

In particular cronyism, along with its beneficiaries, must be abolished; the only criteria for selection should be qualification, experience and ability. Those criteria are applied in the real world so why should they not apply here? The fact that other parties might be staffed by chancers seeking an easy life is no excuse; UKIP needs to stand above them.

Our exit from the EU is in process and will happen in the eyes of many who can’t be bothered with the detail. UKIP needs to keep after May to ensure a clean exit but cannot without representation in Parliament.

The UKIP MEPs will hopefully become redundant soon. UKIP needs to have a plan in place to offer them alternative positions; their experience would be useful as prospective parliamentary candidates.

Conclusion

UKIP is caught between the proverbial “rock and hard place”; it needs to become professional to attract funds yet it is difficult to implement all the necessary changes without them. However, a move in the right direction would be a great start. If changes are not made it will wither and die.

Time is not on our side and the present leader does not seem to be on our side either.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email