UKIP Manifesto shows anti-Farage split in party

The UKIP manifesto shows evidence of a movement among the membership to reduce what they describe as a Lad Culture in the party. This is clearly an attempt to remove ideas associated with its former leader, Nigel Farage. The split is also illustrated by the contents of the Manifesto issued by the Welsh UKIP party

Nigel Farage gets his life back

This is a thoroughly unreliable review of the BBC2 television programme Nigel Farage gets his Life back, broadcast Sunday 30^th October 2016

Why am I publishing a review if I think it is thoroughly unreliable? Because the topic of the past and present leader of UKIP, and the treatment by the BBC are both of wider interest to anyone interested in leadership.

Excuses and apologies

I feel some apology is needed for busy subscribers who have little time to read more reliable reviews. Sorry, I missed the first bit of the programme, and I missed its last few minutes. These parts may have been quite different to the chunk in the middle which I watched. But that’s partly why this is such an unreliable source of information

The tweet that caught my attention

Shortly after the programme ended, as I was preparing my night cap and my night socks, my attention was caught by a tweet.

Notice how most of the people who hated Nigel farage gets his life back on @BBCTwo are ukip supporters. Can’t take a bit of satire.

— stefan roy (@1stefan) October 30, 2016

The tweeter had noted that most of the people who hated the program were UKIP supporters.

As a non-UKIPPER I could see why that may have been the case for this segement of the voting population . But by then, while not exactly hating the programme, and not exactly a UKIP supporter, I felt what I had seen was on the unfunny side of funny.

I wondered whether there might be shared views here between sniffy UKIP supporters and others. A nice test, I thought, might be to compare the views of two heavyweights of the mainstream media. I chose the Telegraph for the forces on the right, and The guardian for those leaning towards the righteous. TheTelegraph can be a UKIP surrogate (just like Nigel himself can be a Trump surrogate).

Maybe, I thought, The Telegraph would be with me, taking the view that the programme was not going to become a classic, endlessly recycled eventually reaching the Dave TV channels. And the Guardian’s view might be closer to Mr Roy’s.

For the Telegraph the programme was wry but ineffective as satire:

Nigel Farage Gets His Life Back is a fly-on-the-wall mockumentary [which] imagined the Leave campaigner’s summer break after the EU referendum, and his subsequent third resignation as Ukip leader. Admittedly, he soon unresigned again.

As a character comedy, it was wryly tragicomic. The gulf between Farage’s pompous bluster and the insecure windbag beneath was reminiscent of Alan Partridge. As political satire, however, it was less effective. Farage is an easy target and most of the barbs here would simply bounce off him. Not that he would pay any heed to something on the Biased Broadcast Corporation, anyway

Ouch. [I Seem to remember the Biased Broadcast Corporation is a quote from the programme.]

The Guardian was briefer in its review

This mockumentary follows Nige (Kevin Bishop) as he returns to Little England life, something that mainly consists of pints, puzzles, episodes of It Ain’t Half Hot Mum and a sense of irrelevance. The premise is obviously to recast Farage as a lovable buffoon.

Ouch again. Note. The Guardian review was rather brief, as if the reviewer had more important programmes to review.  The reviewer didn’t need much in the way of recasting to describe Farage as a loveable buffoon.

“What’s your point?”

As someone asked in a subsequent tweet. What’s my point?

I suppose I was interested in the programme, trying to figure out what it was intended to do, and what effect it might have had on reviewers and viewers with differing views on Nigel and his leadership style.

I suspect Stefan Roy was right about the rather heated views expressed by UKIP supporters.

On reflection, the reviewers I read were mostly in agreement that Kevin Bishop had been given an opportunity to demonstrate his remarkable mimicry skills (he claims to have smoked thirty cigarettes a day to get his voice into condition for the part). They also liked some of the jokes, although considering them rather as amusing rather than bitingly satirical.

But now I think about it, who promised viewers they were in for a satirical treat?

Hillary, Donald, you owe me a good night’s sleep

I did, I listened to the second debate between you both. It was not worth the loss of sleep

Why did I do it?  It was, possibly, a politically important event [October 10, 2016].

The latest of the seemingly effortless dramatic revelations coming up about you, Donald, last weekend, that video about your sexual urges, was a zinger.  A game-ender.

I admit, I wanted to hear how you would deal with it in the so-called town-hall style debate.  How would you, Hillary, deal with the Donald defence, probably a counter-attack, to use a chess term, perhaps risky involving a sacrifice of some material?

The more responsible side of me wanted to learn how either of you could demonstrate you were the more suited to be President. How Hillary was not a crook, lucky to have stayed out of jail, married to someone with enthusiasm for extra-curricular hobbies which landed him in creative linguistics (not a euphemism). How you Donald had a grasp of the mechanics of political workings required of a President of the United States.

So there I was, hanging on your every word.  Both of you sadly disappointed me.  Have you both been trained in that public speaking school of ‘answer the question you wanted to be asked, not the one you were actually asked‘? I seem to remember the trick is to reply and move on  reasonably quickly, perhaps with a link to that carefully chosen point you had been coached to get in.

Donald, you did pull out another strategy, to talk at length in a highly confusing way. I understand Nigel Farage was in with your other advisors.  I’m sure he would have warned you not to confuse your audience in such a way.

And what was all that grumpiness at the moderators? Donald, you did seem more spontaneous in your combustion.  Hillary, you sort of sounded as if you had to show you could be as ornery as Donald.

I missed a lot of the real show-biz stuff, the parade of women Donald arranged just before the debate, who, he claimed were seduced or worse by Bill, and pursued in very nasty ways by Hillary.

You both spoke your minds, so I will too.  For whatever reasons, you had a chance to say something interesting and therefore something which could impress a hundred million listeners. Don’t know what the others thought, but I felt I had been cheated out of a good night’s sleep.

Sleepless in Stockport

Dame Lowell Goddard, Donald Trump, and thoughts on Leadership Selection

 

The New Zealand Judge, Dame Lowell Goddard, prompted controversy when she was selected to head the politically sensitive investigation into child abuse over English candidates. That decision, and then her own to withdraw, invite questions about leadership selection

Selection of course, rather than election, although the selection process is made by our elected representatives. This distinction that seemed to have passed by Nigel Farage, in his often-repeated remarks about non-elected officials in the citadels of the Evil Empire in Brussels and Strasbourg.)

Catch-up Part Two: The campaign to become Prime Minister

In Part One I looked at the developing stories from June 23^rd 2016, the date of the European Referendum in the UK. To deal with the next part of the story, I have to go back to February, to the start of the months of national campaigning. 

The EU Referendum: Fate knocks on the door

June 23rd 2016. After a fractious period of debate, the voters of Great Britain head for the ballot boxes. Some for various reasons have already recorded a postal vote

And the leader of the week was …

Chosen from the eight candidates battling for votes in the ITV referendum debates

The debates were two hours long with a similar format. The leaders had a brief chance to outline positions, then faced well-thought out questions from what appeared to be audiences representing the main demographics (gender, and political persuasion were particularly well balanced).

The moderator Mary Nightingale would have been a strong contender, managing as well as any to have ‘control over the borders’ of time permitted to the panellists obviously not used to such a treatment. (I was reminded of the approach of the horse whisperer Monty Roberts, which has a well-constructed but unobtrusive approach to keeping critters moving where he would like them to go).

How to rate the leaders

I decided on a context-specific rating approach as found in such reputable scientific journals as Which, Ryan’s Air best deals, Delia’s dozen best flans, Celebrity hottest oboists.

Three factors of performance

After some thought I decided that the key measure of the leadership performance was on the influence or impact achieved by the performance on three groups of votes.

IOU: Impact on undecided (to swing to his or her side or the other side)

IOS: Impact on supporters (to stay as supporters, become unsettled, or switch)

IOO: Impact on opponents (to stay, become unsettled or switch)

Given time and a research budget I would arrive at a reasonable set of scales for each of these three factors. As I have neither, I resorted to another approach sometimes known as first impressions to help me fill in the matrix.

I read as many articles as I could find about the two debates may have been influenced by them, or (more likely) my own bias which is more strongly towards remain than it is towards the politicians and their advocacy of their cause.

Candidate	Impact on undecided voters	Impact on supporting voters	Impact on opposing voters	Notes
Cameron	4-5	5-6	3-4	12-15 Same old same old
Farage	2-3	7-8	2-3	11-13 Same old same old
Johnson	4	5	4	13 Needed plan B
Stuart	5	6	4	15 Bit bland
Leadsom	5-6	4-5	4-5	13-16 OK but forgettable
Sturgeon	6-7	6	3-4	15-17 Most authoritative
Eagle	3-7	5-6	3-4	11-17 ‘Marmite?’
Rudd	4-7	6-7	3-5	13-19 ‘Marmite?’
Range	2-7	4-8	2-5	11-19

What if anything does all this mean?

It’s just one of the thousands of ways you can set up your own thought engine, to help you get underneath the surface of arguments. These matrix methods do not give answers so much as suggest new possibilities.

My interpretation of the debates is that we have no game-changing speaker out there at present. And, of course my judgement about the impact of a speaker is unlikely to capture the views of the voters be they decided or undecided.

The Charismatic League Tables for October 2015

This month, media attention turned to new entrants Nigel Farage, Andrew Castle, Arsene Wenger, Sir Alex Ferguson and Tony Pidgley. But the award of charismatic leader of the month went to the re-elected Prime Minister of Greece, Alexis Tsipras

The results were based on news stories studied in September 2015

Prime Minister Tsipras received the award for the manner of his re-election and his skill at maintaining his credibility over a period in which he went from leader of the opposition to austerity measures to the  leader in charge of enacting them. Technically he was elected leader of his party and then leader of the Government in a coalition.

Stories were also found which resulted in a reappraisal of the positions of politicians David Cameron, Jeremy Corbyn and Donald Trump, and football manager Jose Mourinho.

Jose Mourinho has jumped to Division One for the manner of his interviews defending his lack of culpability over Chelsea’s bad start to the football season

Arsene Wenger, one of the butts of Jose Mourinho’s jibes, and also of Sir Alex’s recently published remarks, always defends himself logically in public, but with little charisma, and so enters in Division Four.

His former protagonist Sir Alex Ferguson returned from a period outside the headlines with a new best-selling book on business leadership. The vibrant illustrations of his leadership style indicate he exercised powerful influence although he denies being ‘a monster… in my reign’  [in his Reign.! Hmm] One to watch for a revival of his charismatic interviews which may even take him to the Premiership  of the Charismatic League, where he would surely want to be.

Jeremy Corbyn has attracted considerable media attention, and has been described as charismatic. His self-effacing style is unusual and he may well be a member of a rarer category of leader with some charismatic aspects yet perhaps closer to the leader of ‘humble style but with fierce determination’ written about by Jim Collins.

Nigel Farage made a strong charismatic impression on his UKIP conference audience,  and enters the tables in Division One.

Donald Trump has strengthened his position in Division One after several high impact performances where he cheerfully defends the  indefensible.

Andrew Castle attracted much criticism for his tennis commentaries particularly in the Davis Cup match between England and Australia. He seemed to have failed to engage viewers positively. He inspired the Face Book page Shut-Up-Andrew-Castle-you-know-nothing-about-Tennis Sorry Andrew. It’s Division Four for you, when you are keeping Tim Henman company.

Tony Pidgley of The Berkeley group received media attention for a life style that has a decidedly charismatic flavour to it, as he battled with activist shareholders who were seeking a more conventional leadership style of corporate governance. A worthy entry into the league tables.

The tables will be revised monthly until further notice. All proposals will be examined carefully by the editor of LWD before changes are made. The editor’s decision on such changes will be final. This utterly undemocratic process is one designed to avoid entryism, and other attempts to influence the league tables for personal interests.

Nigel Farage defines his role in the EU referendum process

Nigel Farage gains media attention and a reappraisal of his role in the EU referendum process at the UKIP conference at Doncaster

I listened on radio to the early stages of his opening address to his party’s annual conference. It was delivered in a convincing charismatic style. By that I mean one that appeals at an emotional level and which somehow minimizes rational evaluation of its implied assumptions.

Then I watched and listened to the later stage of the speech on BBC TV news. The theme had changed, and with it the impression it made on me. The naughty Nigel had crept out.

For a moment Nigel was nonplussed

The change occurred when he offered up some rather weak jokes about Jeremy Corbyn, and then targetted the leaders of the YES grouping in the forthcoming EU membership referendum. He began these with a mention of Richard Branson in only a mildly dismissive way.

Then he moved on to Tony Blair, this reference winning more reactions, jeers (presumably against Blair) and applause (presumably for Nigel). He was obviously building up to the third and most repulsive of the gang of three, none other than David Cameron.

He earned the desired increase of jeers and cheers which rather petered out, not helped by an off-colour remark about recent lurid publications about the undergraduate Cameron’s close encounter with a dead pig. For a moment Nigel was nonplussed at the ambiguous reaction to his joke.

“Well I liked it”

His customarily confident smile was replaced with a rather guilty smirk.   Or, at least that was how it came across to me.  He quickly sensed he had struck a false note.  But he is a consummate platform performer. “Well I liked it” he said, and switched back to being a selfless and visionary leader.  Nevertheless, a little magic had somehow slipped away.

The shift in style during the speech may have been calculated.  The early part of the presentation was rousing knockabout stuff.  UKIP has done well, and I and the party have been sorely traduced. The second part was a skillful presentation of a cause that even transcends direct loyalty to UKIP, namely to work to save the country by putting all energy into winning the EU referendum vote.  He identified the wider movement within which they would operate. This would be the  umbrella movement, Leave.eu funded by the wealthy Aaron Banks, who is a former influential backer of UKIP.

 He glossed over the recent more strained relationship with Mr Banks who seems to be attempting to minimize UKIP”s and Mr Farage’s influence in the EU referendum.

Conclusion

Edit out the weak passage, and you have an impressive performance. Nigel had decided to speak without notes.  This is a style that offers greater scope for empathic communication, and it mostly worked.

 The interpretation being placed on the speech is that Mr Farage  has indicated willingness  to become part of a wider political movement, and if requested will be persuaded to play a leading role in the referendum over EU membership.

UKIP leadership drama: Coriolanus meets The Thick of Things

The week’s leadership struggles in UKIP have echoes of a Shakespearean drama combined with and a modern political satire

A week ago [8th May,2015] I noted that twenty four hours is a long time in politics. The high-velocity drama has continued throughout the first week of the new Conservative government.

Among the various stories is the remarkable series of events surrounding Nigel Farage and the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP). These could be summed up a defeated leader honouring his pre-election pledge to resign, and then reversing his decision, within another twenty four hours. Internal warfare erupts among his colleagues.

Background

Farage led UKIP to a very successful electoral result in terms of four million votes and unsuccessful in seats, won. Douglas Carstairs, the Conservative defector remains as sole elected UKIP Member of Parliament.

Farage himself, having failed to win the seat at South Thanet, confirms his earlier intention of resigning as leader of UKIP if he were to lose the South Thanet contest.

Dark Humour from The Thick of Things

As the drame unfolded, I felt I was witnessing a rerun of an episode of The Thick of Things. One deposed Farage aide, Raheem Kassam on Radio Five Live’s breakfast show (14th May 2014] gave a passable imitation of Peter Capelli as the scary Malcolm Tucker.

Then I found further connections with Coriolanus, one of the less-celebrated of Shakespeare’s dramas.

Farage and Coriolanus

In leadership style, the chummy Farage could hardly be further removed from that of the tragic Shakespearean figure of Coriolanus. Yet
the tale of triumph and ultimate failure depicts political unrest, with dangers to the ruling elite from the discontented plebeian masses of ancient Rome.

Although dismissive of the common people, Coriolanus wins their approval, but he is eventually killed by plotters against his dictatorial ambitions.

There is often dark humour to be found in Shakespearean tragedies. The unfolding UKIP drama has its darker moments, part Shakespearean, part The Thick of Things.

The resignation of Farage is accompanied by the entry on stage of assorted figures attempting to justify their efforts and conflicts. Farage is vilified as ‘snarling, thin-skinned and aggressive’ by one former ally Patrick O’Flinn

Farage’s advisors proceed to accuse each other of having mislead their leader, in the execution of campaign policy, and in particular over the headline-grabbing but divisive attacks on immigrants.

The noble Carswell resists

In one sub-plot, attempts are made to involve the residual UKIP MP, Douglas Carswell, in setting up a large staff at Westminster with money made available as a consequence of the 4 million votes obtained by the party. But the noble Carswell considers the money inappropriate for a one-MP party and rejects it, remaining aloof and beyond the fray.

Nigel is urged to return

As the plots and counter-plots develop, Farage is urged to remain. After a secret conclave, Nigel reluctantly accepts he must take back the leadership by overwhelming demands from his followers. Assorted plotters and counter-plotters with different views resign from the party.

Auditions for a new drama

Auditions are now taking place for the modern-dress version of Julius Caesar, with roles to be filled for Caesar, (offered the crown but who only reluctantly accepts it) Brutus, Cassius, Antony, and Calpurnia (soothsayer anticipating her husband Caesar’s sudden and bloody removal from power).

Casting possibilities: Nigel, Dave, George, Nick, Ed., Nicola, Boris, Natalee …

Later

The drama continues with more attempts to dislodge Nigel Farage.