Noticeably absent from the media in the current debate on the EU has been UKIP, not least because it seems set on its usual path of self-destruction.

That aside, one cannot help but contrast the difference in treatment between the eurosceptic UKIP, and the europhile wing of the Conservative Party. On the one hand, we have the BBC reporting on Amy Lame talking about "political oddness" – which is about as near as UKIP gets to any recent publicity.

Yet, all it needs for the europhile case to be aired is for the leader of the UK Conservative MEPs, Richard Ashworth, to speak at what is labelled a "debate", this one organised by the europhile Business for New Europe in London. Then, he gets full-frontal treatment on the BBC website, where he is allowed to deplore the UK's "pitbull" image.

View full article here

Why should Farage interrupt his enemy when he's making a mistake? The time for a detailed deconstruction of Cameron's nonsense comes after he's made his speech - in Holland.

Eurosceptics have limited access to the media. which is loaded, and it has to count, which means registering at an emotional level which is often distasteful.

Edited by user 12 January 2013 02:54:10(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

When you look at the publicity UKIP is currently attracting, one could take the view that there are a few "own goals" on the scorecard. And while getting publicity is difficult, being absent from the field of battle on certain issues (Norway, for instance), doesn't exactly help. No one could possibly suggest that UKIP is the "go-to" organisation on the EU, which means it has left a huge gap in its strategy.

Certainly, it was my view when I was working for UKIP that we should build up a track record as being precisely that, a "go-to" organisation on all matters EU - the sort of role adopted by Open Europe. Farage has completely dropped the ball on this, which means that all too often UKIP is not part of the debate. This is what we are seeing at present, where the website is silent on many topical issues.

There is plenty more where that came from ... a couple of television documentaries in the making. Now that UKIP is higher profile, there is a market for "knocking copy" and all sorts of nastiness is going to come out of the woodwork. On the other hand, no one is treating UKIP as a serious party, nor Farage as a serious politician. As ye sow, so shall ye reap ...

That's a key thing — being a "go-to" source of solid information.

If Farage had taken your advice all those years ago then by now UKIP would have gained a solid reputation as being a highly reliable and comprehensive source on all things EU, a reputation which the media would have found impossible to ignore. The absence of any UKIP input on, say, a Newsnight item on any major EU development would be too glaringly obvious even for al beeb to get away with.

But it isn't just about being a source of solid information. Since almost all of that voluminous information is excruciatingly boring, and deliberately so in order to mask and deter most from discovering the reality of the EU, there's a real need to make that information digestible by setting it in a proper context and providing a suitable analysis. Furthermore, and this is the most important thing in my view, by doing so one is in a good position to pre-empt the europhiliacs' attempts to 'frame the debate' and generally 'lead' by misdirection.

This context-setting etc would have gained UKIP the reputation for having a hard intellectual edge, an invaluable thing in my view — there's nothing like explanatory power and depth of insight for attracting and persuading enquiring minds and winning converts.

Yes, if Farage had played his cards right years ago, your boots by now would probably be covered in heavy indentations from periodically rearranging Paxman's teeth, and the rest of his phizog. It's a shame we never got to see that show.

[Shame about Paxman, because he's not the worst of them. But he'll do for iconoclastic purposes. Besides, he's getting rich on al beeb's licence-fee extortion.]

Welcome to the forum.



In response, I have to say that I am, in principle, supportive of UKIP as a party, although not uncritical of it. I don't believe that it should be any more immune from criticism than any other party, and should be taken to task when it fails to perform. I am thus critical of UKIP when it performs badly, but that does not constitute a feud. If there is a feud, it is between Farage and myself, initiated by Farage who forced me out of the party and out of my post as a staff researcher. If you want to mend that fracture, it is Farage you must first address.

In more general terms, my default view is that euroscepticism is a failed (or failing) movement, as a result of its many flaws, and will continue to fail until and unless it it improves both strategy and tactics. I also believe that poor tactics and the lack of a winning strategy can be counter-productive, with some parts of the movement (and occasionally UKIP) actually strengthening the europhile cause. As such, I see no great merit in unity per se, if it is a question of uniting behind a flawed campaign.

Edited by user 12 January 2013 22:32:18(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified