The "churn" issue was raised before all candidates at the leadership hustings two years ago. Nigel replied:

Originally Posted by :
Q. Do candidates agree that retaining existing members (churn) is more imporatant than new memberships?

A. Both are important, but we need to become a big Party.

It is worth remembering that half the leader's duties are admin, so I would expect some sort of policy for addressing churn to be in place...
[Rep]

Originally Posted by kernow:
It would be interesting during election times to know which party these people actually put their cross against!

Unfortunately the choice is not great if you are eurosceptic.
[Rep]

Originally Posted by Millennium3:
Unfortunately the choice is not great if you are eurosceptic.

Quite so.

After standing for and voting Referendum Party I have voted UKIP. However next time I'm not sure. The best I can say is my vote will be use tactically.

Please be clear I want UKIP to be a successful Party that achieves its aim. The trouble is that it has NO hope of achieving anything of substance so long as it is lead by Nigel and has so many skeletons in the cupboard. The cupboard is full and still the skeletons line up to go in.

Those who say plough on regardless despite a few local difficulties are being complete ostriches and clearly have NO understanding just how corrupted UKIP has become.
[Rep]

T.N's not sure, I thought he amongst others was not renewing his membership, or do we take it he will vote for a party he doesn't want to be an member of, that's if of course the party still exists after him and his mate GLW have completely their war against us.
[Rep]

Bob, why not turn your ire and energy on sorting out the NEC members who leak, and why the feel the need to leak, rather than berating their recipient? If the leaks stop, that takes care of GLW doesn't it?
[Rep]

As no one has the courage to name names, and some say they know who 'moles' are, I have no one to turn my attentions to. Rest assured, if I was provided with the evidence of this I would have no hesitation in naming names. The sort of people who hide behind anonymity in this way, deriding the party they purport to serve are the lowest of the low, even more so given the 'vehicle' they use for their actions.
[Rep]

Bob, consider this. The NEC has been leaking for YEARS. Everytime someone joins the NEC, it is presumed they are the leaker BUT the leaks continue when these people leave or are unelected - for example, everyone thought Petrina was communicating to GLW, but the communciation from the NEC to GLW continued after she resigned.

Now, who do we know who has been on the NEC or attended NEC meetingd for YEARS?
Who do we know who is 'famous' for leaving NEC meetings for short intervals to make phone calls?
Who do we know who has met GLW and even attended meals and functions with him?
Who do we know who is adept at political manouvering?
Who do we know who accepts no challengers or criticism?

So there you go, you now know the leaker. The question is why. The answer is because it gives him a way to control - a way to dig out the malcontents (why do you think this forum is allowed to stay?) a way to destroy or weaken his opponents, and a way to keep UKIP from being successful, as is his brief.

Think about your reply before you make it, and refute with facts, if you can.
[Rep]

'C', if you believe what you post is verifiable proof. Then have courage dear fellow name 'him', not to do so makes you know better than those who simply post GLW's rants. Or is it just another case of slinging mud without evidence. The ball clearly is in your court.
[Rep]

Now, why did that exchange of views remind me of the late Sir Humphrey's famous statement?

Originally Posted by :
"The fact that the Prime Minister needed to know was not known at the time that the now known need to know was known, and therefore those of us who needed to advise and inform felt that the information that we needed as to whether or not to inform the highest authority of the known information was not yet known, and therefore there was no authority for the authority to be informed because the need to know was not yet known, or needed."

:-)
[Rep]

Originally Posted by chikrodah:
Now, why did that exchange of views remind me of the late Sir Humphrey's famous statement?



:-)

Let me make a guess. Does a leading NEC member retain strong links with the Tory Party and whose handlers do not want UKIP to be too successful in case it keeps the Tories out of office - all they want is to pressure the Tory leadership into being more eurosceptic?

It would make sense of UKIP's incomprehensible strategy, but it would also mean that activists up and down the country who have given generously their time and money have been duped and are victims of a significant scam.
[Rep]