Bloggers for UKIP write:
Douglas Carswell has told the media to stop “mischief making” about his relationship with Nigel Farage.
Rumours were circulating yesterday (almost certainly from the anti-UKIP “research” team in CCHQ who have been running the dirty campaign against UKIP since 2013) that there is a rift between Douglas Carswell and Nigel Farage.
There’s little doubt that he is being wooed for a switch back to the Tories and I’ve speculated for a long time now that he is the one closest to doing it. Mischief makers such as Nick Cohen won’t do it as he’s disparaging of Farage with no substance to back up his actionable statements, e.g. in Anorak.
It’s more like at the end of Three Days of the Condor, when the hitman explained how it would be – a car door would open and it would be a friendly, welcoming face, maybe even someone you know. Carswell has mates in the Tory party, roots and he’s faced with old friends versus principles, i.e. his old party has none.
As for his stance, that immigration has been good for the UK, for the party to be elected, it has to take that stance, plus banning the BNP – safe enough to do as the members have moved into other groups in an unofficial way – and yet Farage has gone there before him.
Across the channel, Marine le Pen has that unfortunate legacy of National Front. If they changed the name, softened it, it would be even more electable. Her rhetoric on the Jews has been absent and so, in these dangerous times whipped up by Them [see Ukrainian East for a start], how strange for Jews to turn to Le Pen.
She’s trusted by more and more French not to waver, to put forward a moderate sort of patriotism, not Little France and this has been the issue over here – detractors are desperately trying to pin Little England on Farage but that is not the policy. The policy is that immigrants are welcome in the way they are in any other country outside the EU – the good ones get in, the bad ones are excluded. Point system.
What’s wrong with that policy? Interesting that it’s not even UKIP’s core policy – independence from Brussels and direct democracy are – but supporters within and detractors outside all drag it back to immigration.
The most interesting thing to me is summed up in this comment at the Telegraph, on Ashcroft’s shameful piece, in response to troll commenters now flooding the online media:
UKIP has no intention of governing we just want a referendum, you know, democracy. Something the LibLabCon wouldn’t know if it jumped up and bit them on the nose.
That is … er … ahem … what had been originally intended. That’s what many were supporting – out of the EU and direct democracy. All this other guff came later, with the party’s success and it’s the other parties speaking of UKIP governing, not UKIP itself. Yes, I know it’s in the literature now but I meant in a realistic way.
In other words, the legacy parties know the real polls and there is this fear of UKIP being a close second in many constituencies – it would not take much to see them over the line.
Conceivably, UKIP might have 4 MPs or 18, it seems that up in the air. As for Carswell, who knows? He’d stay if UKIP were doing all right, he’d go back IMHO if Dave genuinely promised the referendum, internally to members, in early to mid 2016.
As the latest poll had 51% saying Out, that’s probably not going to happen. Ashcroft’s poll had UKIP dropping 5 points after the C4 programme, coupled with that councillor’s comments about blacks. How do they dig these people out, the detractors? Why would a councillor come out and say such a thing at this sensitive time?
Answer is that these are not smooth pollies, they’re people unhappy with what they see.
Finally, a comment emailed seconds ago, on the topic of R. North’s latest:
For my part, I’ll (probably) vote UKIP even though it’s (probably) quite hopeless, simply because not to protest is to consent.
Amen to that and I suspect many are thinking along the same lines. Seems to me many will go into that booth, see the names on that bit of paper, think: “To hell with it, let’s shake it up a bit.”