14/08/2013
It is rather interesting that, despite Ukip being splattered all over the silly season media, when this blog joins in with a small fraction of the volume of analysis, we get rushes of comment suggesting that we should stop focusing on the party and get down to the "real" issues.
Nevertheless, for a blog actually called EU Referendum, and one which is dedicated to the UK withdrawal from the EU, it would be entirely logical to assert that the fate and behaviour of Ukip should be high up amongst this blog's concerns.
If anything, I actually devote less space to Ukip than I have done the Tory Party. For a time, I was even giving very close attention to the BNP. At times also, I have been rather focused on Respect. And now, for a brief period at least, it is Ukip's turn â and rightly so.
What those who are most critical of me tend to mean, though, is that I can write about Ukip, but I must not be critical of it or its leadership.
Not a few people tell me I should actually help Ukip. "Rather than engaging in hubristic carping at every move Farage makes", one correspondent wrote, "why not offer your considerable knowledge to Ukip so that they can better formulate their policies since they seem to be sympathetic to your direction of travel".
Fortunately, I am not alone in my travails â although it does get a little lonely being so "arrogant" and holding myself to be right on everything. Everybody but myself is "moronic", or so I am
accused of asserting.
On the other hand, "Bloom's remarks were undoubtedly crass, but in the scheme of things of little importance", we are told â which seems to be one of those rather feeble damage limitation ploys. No mention is there of any problems in UKIP being represented by a hard-core racist, an ignorant, uncouth, loutish fornicator. That is fine as long as he isn't "arrogant".
But also of significant importance when considering Bloom, pointed out
already by me and now by
Autonomous Mind, is that we could well be seeing UKIP walk away from EU withdrawal as its electoral priority.
This,
AM suggests, could mean that Ukip has fallen into a "Tory trap", especially with Matthew Elliott sniffing round the margins. And I would not disagree. This is exactly the sort of tactic your would expect a rival political party to adopt, especially when it is competing for many of the same voters.
If this is true, then it is a major issue and one of vital concern to the entire eurosceptic community. It is also of vital importance to Ukip members â or it would be if the party were not shaping up to be closer to a cult than a political party. Cult members do not want analysis. They demand uncritical fealty.
Thus, two bloggers are left to comment on what may have been a crucial change in contemporary British politics â both of us well-positioned to detect such a change. And we are not supposed to discuss this? We are not supposed to offer our analyses, and try to work out what is happening?
And, with that, we see another comment
on our forum, which offers another strand to the analysis:
From my time in Ukip I've arrived at the conclusion that the party is probably beyond saving. The problem is that if Farage leaves there is no-one of stature who can replace him. Most of those who have any capabilities in that regard have long since left the party. And the party is so split between the Faragistas and those critical of how Farage has run the party that the new leader will automatically have half the party believing him to be the devil incarnate and scheming against him. Anyone who has served under Farage is automatically presumed by many to be "bent" and anyone who doesn't have that handicap has probably had a dustup with Farage at one point or another and is therefore seen as a "traitor" to the Farage loyalists.
When you see that quality of analysis in the legacy media, maybe we can begin to slacken off. But, for the time being, Ukip is the main story in town. I know its shocking having EU Referendum discuss Ukip, but there you go. Shit happens, as Mr Bloom might say.
