Friday, 1 October 2010

How the Cabal rigs the UKIP leadership hustings & Barboo nails a Farage claim

First the chairman will always be Farage appointed or Farage approved, Arnott, Nuttall etc who will favour Nigel if they can after all they owe their jobs to Nigel!

More important is that the members questions are vetted in advance by the same chairman who selects which questions will be put. Questions from the floor are not allowed. It was quite obvious from last Monday that Farage gave a prepared answer to a question on the proposed new Birmingham HST rail link. He clearly knew it was coming and gave a load of hard facts re the link that astounded even renowned rail expert Bannerman.

What to do about it? The questions are reasonably easy. Give anyone who wishes to put a question a numbered card as they enter the room and draw these numbers from a hat and ask the member to put his question. Let the candidates agree unanimously if they have already answered a similar question so that question can be skipped and another drawn.

The chairman problem is more difficult as virtually all the elected and unelected UKIP hierarchy owe their position to Nigel. That rules out the whole of the NEC and MEPs! Nigel has a long and growing list of perceived 'enemies' that he would object to as chairman. I would do it again by drawing at random from those attending who would be willing to chair the meeting. Get the bar maid to draw the ticket.

Will either happen? I doubt it. The Cabal does not do fairness or natural justice.

The redoubtable Barboo posted on Butsber's forum a demolishing one of Nigel's claims at the hustings that he has never walked away from UKIP and left it in difficulties.

"He walked away by resigning as party leader before the 2010 general slection.

This has to put a major question mark over Nigel Farage's suitability as leader.

He knew when he stood for the leadership in 2006 that there would be a general election within his term of office, and he assured those who questioned his ability to lead both the party and the MEPs that he was making suitable arrangements: "I will not be abroad for more than 6 or 7 days every month. I have excellent supporting staff in Brussels, and most of the donkey work has now been taken from me".

Yet when the general election came, he abandoned UKIP's candidates and his leadership responsibilities, saying of the approaching campaign: "I'm not going to take that burden on because frankly it's too much and anyway I'm going to be busy in Buckingham taking on John Bercow".

So if the coalition crumbles and there's another election is he going to find the leadership burden "too much" again ? He'll no doubt be busy in Witney taking on the Prime Minister next time!

A week before Lord Pearson's resignation was announced in August Nigel Farage was telling a BBC reporter that he'd promised himself more time with his family. On the day of the announcement he questioned whether he was sufficiently recovered to take on the leadership again: "I've got to decide in the wake of that accident whether I'm strong enough to take the job on", and there was also fretting about the dual nature of the role: "The other problem is I'm still leading a group in the European Parliament in Brussels, can I do that and lead a party in the UK?"

UKIP members shouldn't count on it. Nigel Farage proved himself unreliable the first time he was entrusted with the leadership of their party.

Once a bolter always a bolter!"

Yes indeed why back a man who has let down UKIP before, foisted on UKIP the Pearson liability and still backs Pearson. A prime requirement of a leader is to choose good people and get rid of those who have failed. Pearson's continued presence in the Farage team show NF just has not got it. Vote for change, vote for Tim and Gerard!


John Petley said...


You call Bannerman a railway expert. I would disagree. He drafted the UKIP transport policy and among its proposals were to electrify the Uckfield-Lewes line. A genuine railway expert would have bee naware that the line was closed in 1969!

Eric Edmond said...


I was speaking tongue in cheek.